In class writing assignment- Ethics

1. What (if any) are the ethical dilemmas faced by both filmmakers when shooting these documentaries?

There were some questions regarding the sanity of Little Edie and (especially) Big Edie as documented in Grey Gardens. (To see the actual clips, click here.) As a filmmaker, I think there are different ethical dilemmas than as a journalist, however I still think that there would be a heavy personal struggle to decide on whether or not to document the squalor these people live in. However, the Beales were willing to be documented because they got the profits from the film. If the Beales were willing to consent to be documented, the filmmaker probably had no further qualms about documenting them. Big Edie acts as if she is suffering from dementia, as she will rant about random things but can recall perfectly well information about her husband. This would bother me as a filmmaker as I would worry about the sanity of the people.

The main dilemma that I find in Titcut Follies is that the information regarding the sanity of the patients cannot be cut from the documentary essence of the film. Likely the family members of the patients in Titicut Follies had to consent to having their family members filmed, just as with children, so according to Frederick Wiseman's ethics this was likely "good enough."

As I found on Wikipedia (I would normally not use this but the information was cited and seemed very reliable), just before the release of the film in 1967, the governemnt of Massachusetts tried to ban the release of the film, claiming that the film violated the inmates rights regarding privacy and dignity. Wiseman received permission from all the people portrayed in the documentary or their legal guardian (the hospital superintendant), Massachusetts claimed that the permission, "could not take the place of valid release forms from the inmates." A New York State court allowed the film to be shown anyway, but in 1968 a judge in the Massachusetts Superior Court ordered the film to no longer be distributed and for all existing copies to be destroyed. The reasoning for this ruling was reportedly the state's concerns "about violations of the patients' privacy and dignity." I believe that at the time the government in Massachusetts acted appropriately. In 1990, a Superior Court Judge allowed the film to be released, citing that as time had passed, privacy concerns had "become less important than First Amendment concerns." The judge also said that, as many of the former patients had died, there was little risk of voilation to their dignity. Titicut Follies is now legally available through the distributor, Zipporah Films, Inc., for purchase or rental and for both educational and individual license, and I think this is likely now appropriate.

2. Should they have used all of the footage or only some of it? How should that be determined?

With the Beales I think all of the footage should be used. They did not seem to mind the way they lived. And, though some may argue that not all footage was necessary, I think as a filmmaker using all of the footage was key to conveying how the Beales really lived, which is exactly why they are recreating the documentary. The photos of Little Edie wearing rugs and other random things as clothes and her random rants show that she was somewhat ill but also that she was starved of the spotlight and wanted to prove that she was still a debutant.

The actions and/or mental state of the patients seems unethical to present in some portions of Titucut Follies, because it does not always pertain very much to the treatment of the inmates/patients. When asking the men questions of masturbation, it does not seem always necessary to document the patients answers, only the fact that the caretakers were asking these types of questions. However, I also feel that it may have been appropriate to include all this information, as the information presented in the documentary may have been more tame than the actual treatment of the patients, as people will behave better when being watched (sort of a "While the cat's away, the mouse will play" mentality, meanining that with the cameras acting as a watchdog over the institution staff, they likely treated the patients better than they normally would have.)

I think that should be determined by the combination of the ethical base of the storyteller and the Code of Ethics of the organization they represent, though admittedly this may sometimes fall short of the ethical base of readers/watchers.

3. What would you do as a journalist or documentary storyteller?

For the Beales, if I was the journalist or documentary storyteller I would have presented the same information.

In Titucut Follies, I would have not used all the footage in the documentary that Wiseman used. I feel like some of the footage was not necessary to convey the story, in the same way I felt that with the story about Mayor Jim West in The Spokesman-Review did not need to present information about consentual homosexual sex as it was not needed to tell the story.