Hampe’s ethics to making a documentary vs Born into brothels
Hampe described many different scenarios that arrive from making a documentary. The main problem or outline of his view was what is acceptable in making a documentary and what isn’t. There was the question to how effective is making the participants in the document sign legal papers that confirm their right to be filmed. It seemed to be that there was no answer to what to do as a documentarian because sometimes signing the documents could hurt the film and sometimes it could make it better.
In Born into brothels this documentary was filmed by Zana Briski who was basically dealing with the entire red district. In her case from Hampe it is better to just confirm a signed document for the children and whoever is in the film was at fault of their own privacy. After the fact that the people in the documentary are secure in their privacy and the documentarian as well, Hampe looks at what should be done in a documentary that makes it legit. For example when Hampe links confusion with acuallity he explains how a film should be documented in actual situations. Born into brothels demonstrates every aspect of this throughout Zana’s quest.
The overall goal that Hampe is trying to conclude is to what makes a documentary good, safe, and legit at the same time. Born into brothels won many awards for this reason because it demonstrates all three of these characteristics that give it more power. Power not only to persuade audiences around the world but also to influence other people to do documentaries similar to this.
No comments:
Post a Comment