Camera Down Documentaries: When to

¶ … Camera Down Documentaries: When to Put the Camera Down Is it acceptable for a documentarian to keep the camera rolling instead of helping someone in need? That is a question that has been pondered ever since documenting serious events has become commonplace. Not all of those who spend their lives behind the camera would ignore the cries of someone who needed help, but some can and have done so.

How they feel about what took place and their role (or lack of role) in that also matters, because it can cause serious emotional trauma for some. That is part of a larger issue regarding the documentation of human life and death. In some cases the documentarian will not lower the camera because he or she is so caught up in getting the story. In other cases, the camera is forgotten in the desire to help.

Most who film real life for a living - or even as a hobby - fall somewhere in the middle of those two extremes. For purposes of this paper, the basic premise and argument is that journalists and documentarians do not (but should) stop and help when they are filming or recording stories where people are in serious distress. If these filmmakers choose not to stop their recording and help, people could die.

Is human life really so expendable that documentarians can watch it be thrown away right in front of them just so they do not miss out on the story? It appears so, but it should not be this way. People who see something bad happening to someone else should stop and help that person. The creation of laws about this issue would be a good place to start, because there are currently few regulations regarding this.

Right now many documentarians do stop filming, but there are a number of them that do not. Additionally, there are individuals who set up cameras with the sole purpose of catching something such as a person jumping off of a bridge and ending his or her life. Whether this is "right" or "wrong" is a subject for debate, because innocent people have died while documentarians and photojournalists have stood idly by and filmed what was taking place.

Getting the story matters, of course, but whether it matters at the cost of human life is at the heart of the discussion. Research Questions There are several questions that will be asked here and that will be addressed through the literature review and the conclusions drawn by the researcher.

These include: When a person who is filming a documentary or a news story sees something drastic happening in his or her camera view, what responsibility does that person have to take action? At what point does the person put down the camera or the notepad and help the person who needs assistance? Are there liability issues that have to considered, as well? Why would that person not try to help? Why would he or she simply strive to record this type of activity? Are there laws in place that address the "failure to act?" If the purpose of a documentary is to accurately portray events, is the documentarian compromising the integrity of his film by intervening in dangerous situations? Where should a person draw the line as to when someone has a responsibility to act and when not to act? For example, if the documentary were about prostitution, would the documentarian have a responsibility to do something if a pimp started assaulting the prostitute? Would people trust documentaries as much as they do now if documentarians intervened in what they were filming? These are all important questions but many have no easy answers.

They fall into a "grey area" where it sometimes make sense to keep filming and sometimes make sense to stop filming. With that in mind, documentarians can struggle with how they are going to handle issues that arise in front of their lenses. They may think about these things beforehand, but they may also not worry about what could happen and just focus on the moment as it is unfolding.

When they focus only on the particular moment, they end up making their decisions about whether to keep filming in that moment - and often there are regrets later. Review of the Literature The idea that filmmakers and documentarians have kept the camera rolling while people have died is not new. For example, there was a case of one filmmaker who set up cameras all along the Golden Gate Bridge (the Bridge, 2004).

He was looking for footage of people jumping or considering jumping, and wanted to record it and then talk to their friends and family about why they would have considered ending their lives (the Bridge, 2004). Another example was of a documentarian filming a pastor who was bit by a snake (Hallowell, 2012). The filmmaker failed to render aid and just kept recording, and the pastor who was bitten died from the venom (Hallowell, 2012).

It is true that the pastor believed in the healing power of God and did not want aid given, but at some point it seems as though people would have "overruled" that opinion and gotten help rather than simply let the pastor die from his wounds. The documentarian in that case was very troubled about the issue (Hallowell, 2012). Possibly one of the most significant examples of the dangers (to the photojournalist) of not putting the camera down is the case of Kevin Carter (Cinders, 2008).

He worked as a photojournalist and documentarian for a number of years, and filmed the plight of starving people around the world. One shot he took that was particularly striking was of a little toddler trying to make it to the food station in her village (Cinders, 2008). She was very weak and was lying on the ground while a vulture stalked her, waiting. Carter took 20 minutes to get the shot just right before he chased off the vulture (Cinders, 2008). The picture was award-winning, but the behavior was questionable.

Apparently haunted by the things he had seen and the choices he had made, Carter took his own life later that same year (Cinders, 2008). It is not just the people who are being filmed who are affected by the filming and the choices made by the person behind the camera. One of the claims made against journalists is that they are exploiters of tragedy (Ward, 2009).

In some cases that may be true, but in other cases these individuals come face-to-face with their choices and are devastated that they did not render aid when they could have (the Guardian, 2012). The problem with that is that many documentarians realize later what they should have done in any given situation, and by then there is no way to go back and undo the damage (Rogers, 2012; Smolkin, 2006; Henningham, 1996).

Most documentarians are not prosecuted if they fail to render aid, however, so the financial and legal risks to these people is small. The larger risks are societal, mental, and emotional. While those may seem like issues that can be easily ignored, the reality is that they are very important considerations for those who choose to get behind the camera and film tragedy (Rogers, 2012, Henningham, 1996).

How the documentarians react to a situation in which there is tragedy not only affects the victims of that tragedy but also the documentarians themselves, and the impact may be profound (Smolkin, 2006). Discussion There have been many cases where documentarians have simply kept filming while people die or are near death. Some of those photojournalists have gone on to regret that decision later, and others have not.

Mostly people hear about those who have regrets, while those how do not remain in the background because they do not speak out about the mental anguish and other issues they face when they see someone die and realize they have done nothing to help. Frequently, there is no effort made to help the person experiencing the tragedy or attempt to stop the inevitable from taking place.

To that end, journalists and documentarians should have a duty to put down their cameras and notepads and help people who are clearly in distress, as opposed to only filming the incident. There are, of course, arguments that examine the other side of the issue. After all, someone has to make a record of what is taking place.

If the documentarian or journalist fails to record the event because he or she is trying to help the person struggling, who will record the event so people can see what happened? The camera makes a great witness, and with that in mind the journalist or documentarian may be able to provide valuable footage that can be used by news organizations and even by the police to prove a crime was committed or to catch a perpetrator.

This is certainly important, but whether it is more important than saving or protecting a human life is a matter of discussion and an argument that is not easily solved. It would appear as though the work of a journalist, though, should not be allowed to supersede the duty to help others. A moral duty is in place for that type of activity, even if legal ramifications are not significant. Those who spend their time behind the camera may see the world in a different way than others.

If that is truly the case, these individuals may not be "wired" to put down the camera and help. Without their cameras, they may freeze and render themselves completely unhelpful. Whether this would be the case would have to be studied, but it is entirely possible and some people actually do freeze up and struggle with their emotions and abilities when they are faced with a crisis situation. In that case, these individuals may not actually be able to help even if they put their cameras down.

One thing all documentarians should know is the law in the state and municipality where they are filming. If there are laws about failing to render aid to people in distress, those laws must override the filmmaker's desire to keep the camera rolling instead of putting the camera down in an effort to help.

As to the research questions that were addressed earlier, the following can be established: A person who is filming a documentary or a news story and sees something drastic happening in his or her camera view often does not have any legal responsibility to take action. However, there is generally a moral responsibility to consider human life more important than the images that will be collected from filming.

At some point, the person should put down the camera or the notepad and help the person who needs assistance, but many fail to do that. Exactly where the line should be drawn is a matter for debate and has to be decided on a situational basis. In many cases there are no real liability issues that have to considered, but it is always wise for a documentarian to check local and state laws in order to understand his or her potential obligations and any legal ramifications.

A person may not try to help because getting the shot is more important, or because he or she is too caught up in the moment. Seeing through the camera lens may make the unfolding events feel like a movie and not as much like real life. He or she would simply strive to record this type of activity in order to have it on record to show to others. Also, some documentarians record events in an effort to sell them and make money from their work.

There are some laws in place that address the "failure to act," but they are spotty and vague. Most are not upheld, but it is possible that a documentarian could be sued as a civil matter if he or she did not render aid. Since the purpose of a documentary is to accurately portray events, the documentarian may be compromising the integrity of the film by intervening in dangerous situations, which is something to consider.

Where a person should draw the line as to when someone has a responsibility to act and not to act has to be a personal choice made by each filmmaker. As was seen in the literature review, that can have mental and emotional health consequences for documentarians.

As an example, if the documentary were about prostitution, the documentarian would have a moral responsibility to do something if a pimp started assaulting the prostitute, because an assault should not be ignored - but it appears as though most would simply keep filming. Public trust in documentaries and those who make them would not be as high if the documentarians intervened in what they were filming. The intervention would change the outcome.

Recommendations for Further Research Further research should be conducted into the issue, because what was studied here was a small sample of past literature.