The Documentary and JournalismBay Area youth act on what they’ve seen in “Digital Divide.”both cases, to work with asmulticultural and diversegroups as possible—and,more importantly, the institutionsthat representthem.In the process, we havefound that the most effectivefilms have an emotionalhonesty and personal voicethat invite viewers to enterinto a sort of relationshipwith the filmmaker. Whenwe screened “P.O.V.”/Deann Borshay’s film, “FirstPerson Plural,” about herU.S. adoption from Korea,for a “brain trust” ofmulticultural leaders, welearned that it resonatednot only among peoplewho had adopted childrenfrom other nations, butamong Native Americanswho protested the placementof children from thereservation into urban families.To explore ways inwhich these documentariesmight result in actionwithin specific communities,we seek advice from avariety of groups. We alsoseek partners in commercialand print media, foundations,faith-based organizations,and communitygroups to host sneak previews,community dialogues,and events that help build longtermalliances.All of these elements came togetherin “Well-Founded Fear,” ShariRobertson and Michael Camerini’sstunning, two-hour film about the processof applying for political asylum.Filmed almost entirely in offices of theU.S. Immigration and NaturalizationService (INS), it focused on eachperson’s effort to persuade an officerof a “well-founded fear of persecutionon grounds of race, religion, nationality,membership in a particular socialgroup, or political opinion” in his orher home country. In case after harrowingcase, a single interview determinedwho would stay in the UnitedStates and who would be sent home.Our work with community leadersprior to the June 2000 broadcast of thisdocumentary on “P.O.V.” assured awide range of responses afterwards. Inthe San Francisco Bay area, a group ofclergy decided to meet with INS officialsin an attempt to improve conditionsin the holding areas and officeswhere those interviews took place. InNorth Carolina, asylum attorneys receivedoffers from other lawyers towork pro bono on asylum cases. InMinnesota’s Twin Cities, a communityin which 75 languages are spoken, theprogram was the hook for organizeddialogues among organizationsthat work withimmigrant and refugeegroups. In every one ofthese communities,conversations emergedabout the “opportunity”to make one’s home inthe United States andabout what this countrycould and should standfor in this new era ofglobalization.Some of the documentaryfilmmakerswho work with us do sobecause they are activistsand want to inspirecollective action. Othersbring a journalisticbackground to theirwork and do not take aposition on how orwhether their work triggersa community response.Regardless ofthe filmmaker’s orientation,our role in workingwith them remainsthe same: We want toencourage well-researchedand powerfuldocumentary work thatoffers people a way toengage in meaningfuldiscussion about complexissues that havesuch an impact on howwe interact with one anotherpersonally andpolitically. At a time when so manyrandom bits of information are thrownat viewers from so many sources, thereis abundant need for places to turnwhere thoughtful, engaging and sometimesprovocative insights can begleaned from visual storytelling. Thoseare the destinations that TRI is trying tocreate. ■Ellen Schneider is executive directorof “Active Voice,” a division ofAmerican Documentary, Inc. Shewas with “P.O.V.” for 10 years, mostrecently as executive producer.ellen@pov.org56 <strong>Nieman</strong> Reports / Fall 2001
Moving Pictures: Television and FilmDocumenting Social Ills With an Eye Toward AdvocacyWomen’s health, homophobia, domestic violence, and rape aretopics mainstream media often ignore.By Margaret LazarusMy partner Renner Wunderlichand I approach the documentarieswe produce and directfrom a position of advocacy. Often afilm idea begins as a roaring argumentrelated to an issue that one or the otherof us has been committed to either asan activist or supporter. We are notjournalists, but what we produce arguablyoverlaps, in some respects, withthe ways in which reporters and producersfind and tell stories that touchon important issues of our time.It was during the 1970’s that Rennerand I began producing and directingdocumentaries and public affairs programmingfor commercial television. Itwas a time when women were active inbuilding a “movement,” a time of antinucleardemonstrations and draft registrationopposition. For us, thereseemed too wide of a chasm betweenwhat we saw going on around us andwhat was considered “acceptable” televisionprogramming. We both quit ourjobs and founded a nonprofit organizationwhose mission was essentiallyto create independent media that gavevoice to opinions, ideas and groupsthat were ignored, misrepresented ortrivialized by mainstream media.We were also inspired by the “directcinema” movement from the MassachusettsInstitute of Technology to creatework that did not have the ubiquitousnarrator, the person who told youwhat to think or who neatly framed thediscussion in a “balanced” dance ofpros and cons. This approach acted asif all questions had only two equallyvalid perspectives, as if very limitedcontroversy needed to be resolved in abicameral way. We wanted to createdocumentaries that challenged peopleto argue and express their points ofview rather than passively receive information,believing that the controversyhad been delineated, and thensimply choosing one side or the other.We also unconsciously wanted to reproducethe far-reaching, vociferousarguments, often from many perspectives,that were part of our own learningprocess about critical social issues.As we set out to do our first independentfilm, I was becoming interested inthe growing opposition to radical mastectomy,the lack of adequate medicalresearch on women, over-medicalizedchildbirth, demeaning advertising inmedical publications, unnecessary hysterectomies,and in the growth ofwomen-controlled feminist health centers.All of these interests coalesced inour documentary in an exploration ofthe women’s health movement; ourclear intention was to give “voice” tothis nascent movement.As a journalist might, we spent a lotof time researching and discoveredgroups engaged in similar but mostlyunconnected activities. A commonthread among those people we interviewedwas their resistance to patriarchalmedical practices. While we agreedwith this sentiment (and wanted ourviewers to feel the same way), frequentlywe decided not to include commentaryby those whose research couldnot be independently verified.Another journalistic approach mighthave been to document the absence ofsupporting evidence among the groupswe, in the end, didn’t include, but ourbelief was that there was already a greatdeal of discounting of the women’shealth movement, largely backed bythe mainstream medical profession.What we saw as our mission was todocument the serious and increasingefforts of women to regain control oftheir bodies from powerful forceswithin the medical community.“Taking Our Bodies Back: TheWomen’s Health Movement,” our firstdocumentary, generated great controversy.It was disqualified from theAmerican Film Festival because membersof the medical category jury believedthat challenging radical mastectomieswas promoting dangerousmedical advice. It was not shown inmedical schools and hospitals outsideof coastal urban areas, but its distributionwas supported by the BostonWomen’s Health Book Collective, authorsof “Our Bodies, Ourselves.” Theygave us their mailing list with the namesof organizations that purchased multiplecopies of the book, and we used itto get out word of our film.Often our topics emerge out of oureveryday experiences, as well as ourcuriosity. Our 1982 film, “Pink Triangles,”about homophobia, emergedfrom an extended family argumentabout lesbians and gay men. Rennerand I were surprised to hear otherwise“progressive” people feeling perfectlyokay about labeling gays “abnormal,” aterm they would have been uncomfortableapplying to other social groups.This seemed a useful topic to explore.We began our usual research processseeking out educators and activistsengaged with this particular issue. Wethen decided to create a nine-member“collective” of lesbian, gay, bisexualand straight men and women to producethis documentary about homophobia.In the past, Renner and I have beensolely responsible for both the contentand form of our work, but in the spiritof this project we believed the subjectwould be best served by opening theprocess to people with direct experience.For a year we met weekly anddivided up the research. By consensus,we came up with a rough plan of whataspects of homophobia were importantto include, then agreed on potentialinterviewees and image segments.After film was shot, we reduced the<strong>Nieman</strong> Reports / Fall 2001 57