Neutrality and Financial Influences

Is it possible to stay completely neutral when making a documentary?

A defining characteristic of documentary is truthfulness. However, there are many factors that can affect the neutrality of a filmmaker and their film. I continue my interview with independent documentary maker Kim Hopkins to see how this has affected her. 

Paying for a Positive Portrayal

In August 2011 the BBC issued a global apology for a serious breach of OFCOM regulations. The Independent revealed that the Malaysian government paid FBC almost £12m to promote the country in factual programmes broadcasted by BBC World News.

This is an extreme example of biasness in factual television, but financing must come from somewhere and those willing to fund a film or series must surely have a level of interest in the project. Their relationship on the subject is certainly going to have an affect on the angle of the story. My question here is: once funding has been secured, does it become the financier's film? To look at how this can influence a filmmaker's control, I asked Kim about her thoughts on the subject.

Can funding have an effect on what you make? Can that lead to a bias towards/against a subject or a lack of editorial integrity?

Kim -Yes it can, there are people like Doc Society that work with a lot of NGOs and issue groups so I guess if you’re making a film about saving the whale and you have someone financing it who has a vested interest in something to do with that then that’s problematic for you. Usually the BBC wouldn’t touch anything like that but that is changing. We always sync to one kind of buy when financing, so immediately you’re censoring yourself. I’m thinking 'ahh this scene might get me UK money' or 'this scene might get US money', so whether you like it or not you’re thinking as someone who’s trying to earn a living doing what they want to make and you’ve always got your eye on that.

Evidently it is becoming harder to avoid biasness in documentary with the linking of relevant financiers and a filmmaker can be unintentionally influenced because of this. Self-censorship itself can be an issue. It means they may completely avoid certain points of views, themes and appear more indirect. It limits the filmmaker's freedom and expression. 

Filmmaker Morgan Spurlock demonstrates this further in a humorous TED Talk about the hidden and influential world of brand marketing. On a mission to make a documentary about sponsorship financed by sponsorship, he discovers how companies say to filmmakers "we just want to tell our story".

When exploring censorship further, Kim expresses her own issues with non-governmental organisation involvement.

Are there any other issues with censorship?

Kim -I’ve worked with the BBC where I’ve had access on an NGO before, and then found out that the NGO are a little bit complicit in the problem and you want to turn the camera on the NGO but because they’re involved in the production in some way it can get quite awkward. That's where you have conflicted interest, with people who are either financially supporting or are getting you access in some way. The field is rifled with problems like that, you just have to try and maintain your independence the best you can but whoever finances it, it is their film, it is not the producer’s or director’s.

Kim answers my question of who the film really belongs to. The only way for a filmmaker to have complete control and freedom is for the source of funding to come free of agenda. This is beneficial for social issue documentaries with particular agendas, where they are supported by private financiers, but not for any other documentary presented simply as an art form.

This issue here is that if there are increasingly more social issue documentaries, pushing particular change then documentary moves further away from neutrality, fair portrayal and fairness and instead moves closer to propaganda. This is where a debate of journalism vs. campaign comes in. But now because of the potential for funding from NGOs, charities, etc. with a lot of money, filmmakers are easily swayed and campaign is winning. This is perhaps changing the definition of documentary and is moving from a  filmmaker's form of art to a financier's form of advertising.