A critical evaluation essay of a topic within documentary filmmaking by Amy Colman.
The place in which I was born and raised is one that has raised a few eyebrows over the span of my life; somewhere that either people do not know at all or regard with stereotype and assumption. The Black Country is a place that is objectively rooted in the past, famed as the ‘cradle of the industrial revolution’ and now bearing the scars of the death of the industry that once thrived there. In a bid to communicate the core of the region in a brief documentary, this history is key to the retelling of the region's story. For this reason, the usage of footage shot in decades past would be a relevant tool in communicating the journey that the Black Country has taken to get to modern day. However, the prospect of using found footage with complicated copyright considerations, has raised questions around the ethics of doing so, and the obligation that filmmakers have to resist unethical appropriation.
At surface level, the use of found footage in documentary could be seen as acceptable as long as the footage is credited sufficiently. Yet, as well as copyright considerations, discussions around the ethics of recontextualising footage must be held, in order to evaluate the intentions behind the mode of repurposing. As Jaimie Baron said in ‘The Ethics of Appropriation: “Misusing” the Found Document in Suitcase of Love and Shame and A Film Unfinished', “appropriation compounds and complicates the ethics inscribed through the direct act of recording “reality”.” (Baron, 2015)
The footage:
The footage in question was shot for a docuseries titled ‘Archie Hill Comes Home,’ a four-part series that documents a Black Country man who returns to his hometown in order to reconnect with the disreputable region. First airing on BBC Two in July 1974, the series included imagery of the Black Country at the time, with recognisable scenes across the region. My immediate recognition of the locations shown in the footage reinforced my opinion that the region is unchanging and fixed in an era long past. I felt that this belief system should be documented in the film, in a bid to be an honest filmmaker that confronts their own opinions in front of the audience - thereby heralding my intention to recontexualise the footage.
In order to debate the ethics of recontextualising footage, I must first examine the intent behind the shooting of the content by the original filmmaker. As argued by Nichols in the essay, ‘Representing Reality: Issues and Concepts in Documentary’, as well as the recording of objects in front of the camera, the camera also inscribes the ethical stance of the filmmaker face-to-face with the subject. “An indexical bond exists between the image and the ethics that produced it. The image provides evidence not only on behalf of an argument but also gives the politics and ethics of its maker”. (Nichols, 1991)
Without personally knowing the intention of the filmmaker, it can be deciphered from the narration of the series by Hill himself that he is attempting to shine a positive light on the region, which has been shrouded in prejudice for a very long time. It shows the region in an unflattering but realistic light, celebrating the industry which once employed a large proportion of the population. This intention is parallel to my own, which is to expand viewers knowledge of the area away from it merely being ‘the cradle of the industrial revolution’ and instead as a place that is consistently transitioning and adapting - healing its fractured identity which is so connected to the now vacant industries of the region. The similarity of both of our intentions of reframing the Black Country with a positive context may insinuate that my use of this content is an appropriate form of appropriation as it is not being used to contradict the initial filmmaker's intention.
Alternatively, it is worth considering that some may see my use of the footage in a different light. Using this footage in a way that aligns with the original filmmaker's intentions could cause more controversy than if I used it for an entirely opposite purpose. This is because the argument could be made that I am lacking originality by replicating the way in which the original filmmaker made the same point, therefore lessening the reputation of my production and making the mode of appropriation seem unprofessional.
Evaluating the relevance of the use of footage:
A relevant practice in this decision-making process is to evaluate whether the appropriation of the footage in question is necessary in communicating my intentions. As previously mentioned, the intention behind my use of the content is to communicate the unchanging and fixed sense that I attribute to the region. This intention could potentially be communicated through other means, such as using old photographs (that would require permission for their use) to contrast against current imagery captured across the region to show that a minimal amount of physical change has occurred. Another way that this could be communicated is to use editing techniques and intentional scripting to create the desired effect. For example, I could film a shot in a location that looks as though it could be the subject of historical found footage, I could then use editing effects to give the illusion of the image being older and then use specific framing of a 4x3 format (as used in old documentary filmmaking or VHS recorders). I would then take away all effects used to reveal, alongside narration, that the imagery is in fact shot in the current day Black Country, with the intention of this coming as a surprise to the viewer.
While both of these options are sufficient alternatives to communicate my intentions to the viewer, the use of the original footage feels relevant in my own telling of this story. This is due to the fact that viewing it reinforced a belief that I had subconsciously held for decades, of the lack of change since more industrialised times. Using this found footage within my documentary feels important in documenting the subconscious personal journey that I have taken throughout this process alongside the intentional narrative created in the documentary.
The value of found footage:
Appropriation is in itself a factor to consider seriously as a filmmaker, writer or creative of any kind. There are cases in which appropriation is accepted or in fact celebrated and others that reject the use of found footage. As said by Baron, “on some level, any appropriation of any document is fundamentally a ‘misuse’”, a fact to consider when evaluating whether this ‘misuse’ can be framed in a more positive way by accrediting the original maker of the ‘document’. The bottom line of appropriation is that it is theft and so is typically seen as an inappropriate technique, yet there are examples of successful and celebrated media and art that is made up entirely of found footage that has been appropriated.
An example of such media is A Movie, a film directed by Bruce Conner in 1958 that was made up of discarded 16mm films purchased at flea markets or scavenged from camera shops (Thomas Dane Gallery, 2023). This method was used to collate imagery into a film that has since been described by many as the first contemporary ‘found footage film’.
Some people consider appropriation to be a technique that compliments the original filmmaker, as it recognises the work as valuable. Elsaesser suggests that “in the more specific case of the cinema, appropriation can also signify a more intimate gesture of love and an act of devotion.” (Elsaesser, 2014) This is conveyed plainly in Eric Lott’s, ‘Love and Theft: Blackface Minstrelsy and the American Working Class’ (1993). The book is a study of how European immigrant entertainers (mostly Jewish and Italian) appropriated African American folk music, comedy routines, and blackface minstrelsy. The study recognised the “terrain of affective-emotional ambivalence, within which appropriation becomes so seductive.” (Elsaesser, 2014) Another form of accepted appropriation is prevalent in the music industry in the form of cover versions of other artists’ songs. Music artist, Bob Dylan appropriated the title of Lott’s aforementioned study for his own album of cover songs (Love and Theft, 2001), with cover versions of songs being the music industry’s legally sanctioned form of appropriation.
Jane Gillooly similarly explores appropriation in audio piece, ‘Suitcase of Love and Shame’. Conceived out of hours of audio taping that Gillooly bought in a suitcase from eBay, the work comprises of a love story, carefully assembled by Gillooly out of the tapes which documented a love affair between a couple based in Midwestern America in the 1960’s. This piece has been seen as an invasion of privacy for many and is the ultimate example of appropriation of intimate recordings that were only intended for private listening. Despite this, the work was also widely celebrated which may be attributed to the way in which Gillooly navigated the ethical constraints of the invasion of privacy. She intentionally anonymised the characters in the work, leaving out both of their last names and avoiding narrative plots which may expose their identity more clearly. (Gillooly, 2013)
Artists and filmmakers have a history of working playfully with appropriation and using this daring sort of theft to frame their works in a different light. The technique, if used right, adds an entirely different nuance to the film since it is made up of footage that was shot often with different intentions entirely. In many of the aforementioned instances, the use of found footage allows the filmmaker more of a tangible presence within the work.
When it comes to my own use of found footage, I feel this nuance would not translate in the exact same way yet would still make my voice a more prevalent force within the work due to its communication of my own personal journey throughout the documentary making process. In summary, the fact that these forms of appropriation are not only accepted but celebrated alludes to the prospect of my own usage of found footage being acceptable.
Appropriation to provide historical context:
In this decision-making process, I feel it is relevant to evaluate the value of documentary filmmaking that uses historical footage to contextualise the narrative. Through this exploration I could identify whether my documentary could be successful if it avoided the use of visual aid to provide historical context altogether, meaning that the debate concerning the found footage could be annulled. To do this, I have located a source to obtain a sense of the value that found footage for historical context can provide to a work.
Researcher, Jamie Baron authored the book, The Archive Effect: Found Footage and the Audiovisual Experience of History, in which she suggests that both the “archivalness” and rarity of historical footage in new documentary work promises “truth- value” and therefore alludes to the outcome being more successful. “The footage has been “found,” and it therefore has an aura of being directly excavated from the past.” She goes on to explain that having been “found”, the footage has not ostensibly been fabricated by the filmmaker re-using this footage. “Paradoxically, then, something “old” gains part of its power by also promising something “new,” something we did not know or had not seen before.” (Baron, 2014) This concept facilitates a notion that my own repurposing of found footage could be seen as a gesture of revival, empowering said footage by reframing and recontextualising it and also aiding the outcome to be more authentic and therefore successful.
As documentary theorist Stella Bruzzi writes, “Documentary has always implicitly acknowledged that the ‘document’ at its heart is open to reassessment, reappropriation and even manipulation.” She goes on to state that this fact does not cause the documents original meaning to be “irretrievable” in both “context or content.” (Bruzzi, 2011) This concept has broadened how I regarded the footage once it has been recontexualised within new work, in that it is not stripped of its context and still holds its own nuance and contributes to the narrative in an independent way.
Copyright considerations:
There are a large array of filmmakers and artists that have been taken to court as a result of encroaching on copyright clauses. So, navigating the use of found footage appropriately is vital to staying on the right side of the law. Having said this, I knew that I needed to figure out whether the footage from Archie Hill Comes Home, would be protected by copyright licenses. Since the programme was made by the BBC, I researched into their website, in which it disclosed that if my university institution had an Education Recording Agency (ERA) license then I may be able to use clips from BBC programmes for ‘educational purposes’. (BBC, 2022)
After turning to my own institution's resources, I discovered that I do in fact have access to an ERA license. Once this had been established, I needed to understand the nature of the use of the footage that is permitted through this license, and whether my intended use falls under this umbrella. The terminology on the ERA website is as follows,
“S35 provisions allow for copying and other uses of broadcasts and copyright works and performances included in the broadcasts (whether television or radio) by educational establishments for non-commercial educational purposes.”
Whilst this statement sounded promising, I felt I needed to research into past examples of filmmakers who used found footage in the same way that I intend to, and the way in which they approached copyright as a consideration. Having referred to the Copyright User website, the site listed examples such as Roman Polanski’s The Pianist (2002) and Kathryn Bigelow’s Detroit (2017) alongside an explanation of the use of archival clips being used for creative purposes only, to add an air of authenticity to the stories and which hesitate to provide new context using voice over. They go on to say, "If this is the kind of film you intend to make, it may be difficult to argue that your use of the work is fair dealing. You should probably get permission from the rights holders instead.” (Copyright User, 2020)
This warranted more research on my behalf, to better understand whether my specific footage is going to be impacted by copyright clauses. Brian Frye states in Copyright in a Nutshell for Found Footage Filmmakers, that “if found footage is in the public domain, anyone can use it with impunity,” going on to say that if the footage is not in the public domain then “using it without permission is typically a prima facie infringing use, so the user must either obtain permission to use the material, or make a fair use claim.” (Frye, 2016) This is the reality for the footage that I wish to use, yet locating the copyright holder has proved to be somewhat impossible and as previously mentioned, it may be difficult to argue that the use of the work is fair dealing due to the nature of its use.
This result left me feeling unsure on proceeding with the found footage within my documentary, especially since obtaining copyright has turned out to be a troublesome process when the content in question is not in the public domain.
Conclusion:
The final element of this argument to consider is its outcome; the decision of whether or not I will opt to use the found footage in question in my own documentary after researching into the ethics of doing so. The predominant factor impacting my decision is the relevance of using the footage considering the fact that using another method to reinforce my intentions is a possibility. My hesitancy to use the footage can largely be attributed to my inability to obtain permission from the original filmmaker, ultimately making the usage of the footage a misuse.
Regarding my final decision, I am opting not to use the footage; yet I don’t feel that this decision truly negates the fact that there are ethical ways in which found footage can be used. I have made this decision instead because I feel that permission to use found footage is a very important factor when repurposing it and is the key to the ethical repurposing of said footage.
Bibliography:
BARON, Jaimie. 2014. The Archive Effect: Found Footage and the Audiovisual Experience of History. London: Routledge.
BARON, Jaimie. 2015. “The Ethics of Appropriation: ‘Misusing’ the Found Document in Suitcase of Love and Shame and A Film Unfinished” [essay]. In Daniel MARCUS and Selmin KARA (eds.). Contemporary Documentary[essay]. London: Routledge, 156–70.
BRUZZI, Stella. 2011. New Documentary: A Critical Introduction. London: Routledge.
ELSAESSER, Thomas. 2014. “The Ethics of Appropriation: Found Footage between Archive and Internet.” DOKU ARTS[online]. Available at: http://2014.doku- arts.de/content/sidebar_fachtagung/Ethics-of-Appropriation.pdf [accessed 26 Apr 2023].
FRYE, Brian L. 2016. “Copyright in a Nutshell for Found Footage Filmmakers.” SSRN Electronic Journal.
GILLOOLY, Jane. 2023. “Suitcase of Love and Shame.” Jane Gillooly [online]. Available at: https://janegillooly.com/wp- content/cache/page_enhanced/janegillooly.com/suitcase-of-love-and- shame/_index_slash.html_gzip#:~:text=A%20forbidden%20love%20story%20play ed,Jeannie%2C%20lived%20in%20different%20cities. [accessed 28 Apr 2023].
MILLS, Izzy Landell. 2021. “Using Footage without Permission: Filmmakers & the Orphan Work Dilemma.” Archive Valley [online]. Available at: https://archivevalley.com/blog/using-footage-without-permission-orphan-works/ [accessed 27 Apr 2023].
NICHOLS, Bill. 1991. Representing Reality: Issues and Concepts in Documentary. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press.
SOBCHACK, Vivian. 2011. Carnal Thoughts: Embodiment and Moving Image Culture. Berkeley, California: University of California Press.
“Bruce Conner, a Movie, 1958.” 2023. Thomas Dane Gallery [online]. Available at:https://www.thomasdanegallery.com/artists/236-bruce-conner/works/16261/ [accessed 25 Apr 2023].
“Can I Use BBC Content? - Using the BBC.” 2022. BBC News [online]. Available at:https://www.bbc.co.uk/usingthebbc/terms/can-i-use-bbc-content/ [accessed 27 Apr 2023].
Comments