by JG Hanks
Staff
Reprinted from the August 28, 2011 edition of The Meridian Star’s Meridian 360 Edition
On August 19, 2011, Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin and Jessie Misskelley Jr., better known as the “West Memphis Three”, were released from prison after almost twenty years. An overwhelming amount of support for their release was generated by the documentaries Paradise Lost: The Child Murders at Robin Hood Hills and Paradise Lost: Revelations. The filmmakers behind the documentaries, Joe Berlinger and Bruce Sinofsky, focused an enormous amount of national attention on the case with their HBO productions and argued that the boys were victims of unfair prejudice and a town’s need for closure, despite questionable legality and lack of evidence. The documentaries themselves weren’t the final piece in the puzzle that led to the release of the three now grown men, but they were certainly a catalyst that opened people’s eyes and another great example of film as a motivator for change and discussion.
So, how powerful and effective can films, and for this article in particular documentaries, be in regards to causing social change and thought provoking conversation? It depends on whether we as viewers listen to what we are being shown on screen and react – or choose not to.In the case of the aforementioned films,they led to a huge change in three men’s lives, but will they cause a change to the legal system in Arkansas, and more importantly, uncover the real killers? In Bowling For Columbine, many viewers were forced to look at singer Marilyn Manson in a whole new light due to his intelligent and compassionate interview with Michael Moore, made more compelling by the fact that his music was blamed by many as the cause of the Columbine shootings. Because of the film, many thought twice about gun control in America.
In Super Size Me, Morgan Spurlock warns an American public of the dangers of fast food and our apparent obsession with it, himself gaining over 20 pounds in one month eating nothing but McDonald’s. Despite this negative expose, the chain is doing better than ever. In films like The Lottery and Waiting For Superman, the inequity of the charter school system, issues with teachers unions, and America’s education crisis is put on full display, yet who will care enough once the credits roll to make a change?
Going back to the beginning of the documentary film’s history may provide us with an answer. Even with staging events being considered a common practice at the time, Nanook of the North, the first feature length documentary film from 1922, is criticized for this practice. Although shooting without precedent and with equipment that would have made it impossible to film the Inuit people naturally and without some modifications to the environment, purists consider the way the film was shot to be deceptive. That opinion may lead to our society’s problem with documentaries nowadays.
With the plethora of so called “reality” shows invading the airwaves, many people categorize documentaries alongside them as nothing more than staged entertainment. Instead of looking at the information being presented as food for thought, we instead watch purely for entertainment value and miss the underlying reasoning for the documentary and its purpose. Although it is important to remember any work of art is made from the artists’ perspective, we must try and remember the true aim of a documentary filmmaker’s vision is to inform and educate, not to deceive. After the credits roll, we must use the knowledge we have gained to try and make a change in the world, no matter how small we think it might be.
