The Concept of Objectivity - Essay Example

Does the concept of 'objectivity' have any meaning in documentary? Objectivity is a skill which involves the ability to describe and perceive something accurately and unbiased without being influenced by individual perceptions, emotions, and prejudices -a unique and admirable skill. Diverse people/cultures however constitute this world. Gender, age, creed, race, religion, etc., key components of culture, affects how an individual perceives him or herself, others, situations - the world at large. In addition to these components, the entire infrastructure of people’s culture (political, economic, educational institutions, etc.) is interwoven with personal impressions, ideas, emotions, and prejudices. The visual/fine arts realm is no exception. Cinema/film industry, its newest genre, has become a very conspicuous form of mass entertainment. The extent of cinema’s popularity, influence, and proliferation has been phenomenal. Artistic expression and development via technological expediency made it an unequaled facet of the arts in the 20th century. Films have a social as well artistic function. Although the demand for imaginative entertainment is at an all time high, interest in the realities of the world is also on the rise. Documentaries address this interest. They are comprised of real people, world events, places, and social conditions – documenting history, reality. British film maker, John Grierson first coined the term in 1926. Prior to 1926, such films were referred to as “actuality” films and came on the scene at the turn of the 20th century as well. German filmmaker, Leni Riefenstahl’s Triumph of the Will (1935) catapulted the documentary as mode of propaganda designed to specifically argue a point and influence public opinion. To this day this remains true. With this being said then, Objectivity in Documentary –Page Two (2) “does the concept of 'objectivity' have any meaning in documentary?” Objectivity has meaning but it is greatly influenced by the filmmaker’s point of view via perceptions, emotions, etc. thereby determining the extent they can be biased or slant their point of view. CNN’s God’s Warriors, Spike Lee’s When the Levees Break: A Requiem in Four Acts and Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11 are just three of a multitude of documentaries that prove such a point. Produced by CNN’s Chief International Correspondent, Christiane Amanpour, “God’s Warriors” is a three part documentary which examined how within Judaism, Christianity, and Islam – the three main monotheistic religions of the world – there are influential religious fundamentalist movements seeking to procure political power and influence in the world. It is probably the most objective, meaning no obvious advocacy of an agenda or viewpoint, compared to other aforementioned documentaries. “God’s Jewish Warriors”, “God’s Muslim Warriors” and “God’s Christian Warriors” aired respectively on CNN on August 21 – 23, 2007 with an encore presentation on October 31st. Filmed in the United States, the Middle East, and Europe, the documentary explores how within the past thirty years each religion has immensely exerted its political might. Within each faith there exist a core group of followers who feel disenchanted with modern society. Most importantly, they share a common ideal - an unflinching desire to make God and religion a viable force in every day life and in the seat of power. Compact yet comprehensive, God’s Warriors strives to cover much ground in terms of providing extensive information and viewpoints for the each faith’s unique perspective and influence in a fairly evenhanded manner. Objectivity in Documentary –Page Three (3) Nevertheless, God’s Warriors received a substantial amount of criticism. Much of it was a fairly evenhanded critique such as: Neil Genzlinger of the (New York Times, “Radical Fundamentalism in Three Flavors” – 8/21/2007) credits Amanpour’s effort as “ambitious” but she “describes rather than challenges.” Or as The Chicago Tribune (Ryan M, “Flawed ‘God’s Warriors’ tries hard”, 2007/8/21) described it as a “noble impulse” but lacking in “depth and insight” and really didn’t present anything new. On the other hand you had the criticisms like that of Dan Abrams, general manager and host of MSNBC, who described God’s Warriors as “"the worst type of moral relativism" and "shameful advocacy masked as journalism".” He further expounded in an interview with The New York Observer (Gillette, F. “MSNBC”S Dan Abrams War of Faith Against CNN,” September 4, 2007) “I think that if you’re going to do advocacy—I do opinion all the time on my show—admit it. Just say, I’m doing an opinion piece. I was calling them out, effectively asking them to ‘fess up.’” Then there was CAMERA (Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America) a pro-Israel media advocacy group with apparent ties to AICAP and the ADL (Jewish lobby organizations) which accused the documentary of equating Jewish and Christian fundamentalism with radical Islamic fundamentalism [IE: terrorism], and blatantly distorting the truth. CAMERA placed a full page ad in the New York Times (“CNN’s ‘God’s Warriors’ Set A New Low,” October 17, 2007) accusing Amanpour and CNN of purporting “distortions” and “errors.” They demanded that the errors be corrected and presented in a new and balanced series. The ad contained critical Objectivity in Documentary –Page Four (4) comments from other news sources as well. Amanpour’s stance was that she had no personal political agenda. “The world needs courageous, committed leaders with a genuine desire to reach compromise to tackle the world’s most thorny issues, especially where religion and politics intersect” stated Amanpour in an interview with I-Reporters (I-Reporters Quiz CNN’s Amanpour, CNN.com, August 23, 2007). When asked about the premise of equating Jewish and Christian radical fundamentalist with Islamic jihadist, Amanpour’s response was that “each faith has their committed and fervent believers, and we're showing how each of those are active in the political sphere in today's world.” Revered as one of American television’s most recognized international correspondents, God’s Warriors epitomizes Christiane Amanpour’s overall concept of objectivity since the inception of her career– all sides of an issue must have equal hearing. Raised a Roman Catholic, her father is Iranian Muslim and her mother is British. Her husband is Jewish and she is a part of Iran’s Christian Minority. Amanpour is not in unfamiliar territory. Her perception is multifaceted because of her personal connection to these faiths. On August 29, 2005 the world watched in horror as Hurricane Katrina slammed into New Orleans, Louisiana. One of the deadliest hurricanes’s to hit the United States, over 1,836 people died with New Orleans experiencing the severest loss of life and property damage. In the case of New Orleans, it was not so much the intensity of the hurricane but rather the failed infrastructure of the city’s levee system that contributed to such cataclysmic loss. Gross negligence attributed to inept local/national government response and assistance was synonymous with this tragedy. Hurricane Katrina had a Objectivity in Documentary –Page Five (5) human face, and tragically revealed how treatment based on race and economic status remains entrenched in American culture. As with so many others who were mortified, American director/producer Spike Lee felt compelled to tell this story – a human tragedy, a modern American tragedy. The fruit of the Lee’s labor resulted in his third feature-length collaborative documentary with HBO – When the Levees Broke: A Requiem in Four Acts. Each act depicts various phases of the events that preceded and followed Katrina's catastrophic course through New Orleans. HBO Documentary management staff had considered doing a documentary project about Hurricane Katrina. It was by chance that they and Spike Lee where moving in the same direction. Lee was driven by the issues this tragedy addressed. When the Levees Broke incorporates all of the characteristics that distinguish Lee’s style – consciousness, talent, and passion. HBO executives felt no one else could tackle such a project but him. The documentary’s down to earth reportage gives it a home movie affect thereby making it more personal and relatable. Sam Pollard, a longtime associate of Lee as well as the producer and editor of the documentary stated that Lee “wanted to offer multiple points of view…...He needed to represent the voices from the community, the different levels of government, activists and the celebrity element to provide a balanced take on the issues facing New Orleans (When the Levees Broke: A Requiem in Four Acts, HBO Documentary.com)." Close to 100 people representing a wide range of opinions and from diverse backgrounds were interviewed. The two part television premiere of When the Levees Broke aired on HBO respectively on August 21-22, 2006. Objectivity in Documentary –Page Six (6) Like Christiane Amanpour, Spike Lee’s objectivity is revealed via the array of viewpoints presented. He has personal connection in that those mostly affected were African Americans as is he. Lee along with host of others, especially those in the documentary felt the government blatantly ignored the plight of African Americans during Hurricane. The victims felt displaced as if they were refugees. This is his premise from the onset. Unlike Amanpour, he uses the documentary to defend his point as opposed to coming to this conclusion afterwards. A traditional actuality/reality film, Lee simple informs and presents the issues. When the Levees Broke is a tribute to the Katrina victims, especially African Americans; but it also was an indictment of government agencies at city state, but particularly at the federal level. A critical assessment of the George W. Bush presidency, the administration’s war on terror as well as the American news media coverage of both serve as the impetus for the documentary Fahrenheit 9/11, by the academy award-winning independent filmmaker Michael Moore. Moore harshly criticizes the Bush administration, from the controversial 2000 election, to the apparent negligence of clear warning signs prior to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, to his assertion that the rationale for the 2003 invasion of Iraq was completely disingenuous. He also suggested that Bush{Jr. & Sr.}, Cheney, and their political and corporate associates stood to personally profit from the “War on Terror” ; which was sold to the public with the assistance of American mass media. There was much debate over the accuracy of the points presented. Labeled as propaganda by its critics and filled with lies as purported by Bush Sr., Fahrenheit 9/11 was the highest grossing documentaries of all times. Objectivity in Documentary –Page Seven (7) Moore had already won an Oscar for his 2002 documentary feature Bowling for Columbine. He might have garnered another with Fahrenheit 9/11 but opted not to submit it in order that the film could continue running up till the 2004 presidential election. He essentially stated that his intent was to use the documentary influence the outcome of the 2004 Presidential Election. Fahrenheit 9/11 conspicuously purports his views regarding George W. Bush’s presidency. His film conveys his controversial views – with nothing hidden. Veteran filmmaker Albert Maysles comments that although Moore’s “heart was in the right place” in regards to Fahrenheit 9/11 he “damages his cause because he is out to get people. He’s using people in a nonloving fashion to serve the purpose of his argument.” Mayles contends that if you feel you are right then “what do you have to fear in telling the story.” Mayles comments appeared in an article entitled “On Oscar shortlist, the angry documentary “which appeared in the International Herald Tribune (Charles Lyons, January 4, 2007. In the same text, Stanley Nelson, director of Jonestown: The Life and Death of Peoples Temple further purports that “what’s fascinating about documentary today is the different ways to approach it.” Regarding Jim Jones, he took the position that it was important “not to say that this guy was only evil. Just by being somewhat objective, we were being revolutionary.” This stance, the article goes on to say echoes a “climate in which the pursuit of objectivity in documentaries is hardly the norm, as it had been during the 1950s and '60s”. Maysles comes from the aforementioned era. American filmmakers of that time period believed in “direct cinema” – capturing life but not commenting on it. Objectivity in Documentary –Page Eight (8) The point of objectivity is the presumption is that the filmmaker will be more factual and “fair and balanced,” the famous tagline of FOX News – even through there is evidence that they are anything but. As important if not more so is “objectivity” that is factual and not deceptive [note: It is one thing to be persuasive but quite another to be deceptive]. Does “fair and balanced” mean that you give all sides’ equal say? So do you give one who is obviously wrong equal an equal voice as that of one who is obviously right? Christian Amanpour gave everybody equal time but she did not advocate that one faith was better than the other or their cause more justifiable the other. She showed extremism in the Christian faith but the manner in which she did not was not equating it with Islamic. She just simple stated that it does exist but in a different manner. Amanpour, Lee, and Moore have the right to be just as biased as they want, but is what they are presenting a lie or the truth. If you accuse a major media source of deliberately lying against you or your institution, you demand a retraction and public apology; failing that you take them to court and sue them for liable. You don’t take out large ads, or use FOX “News” commentators to sling counter accusations. To this date there are no liable suits against Christiane Amanpour, Spike Lee, or Michael Moore. Thus we should presume that they used basic facts in their works to fulfill the initial purpose of documentaries – to inform and educate. Read More