IS THE DOCUMENTARY FEATURE TRULY ON LIFE SUPPORT?
Part I
Last week, more than 300 documentary filmmakers from around the world met over Zoom to discuss why they feel it is nearly impossible to make meaningful documentary films that get out to the public. This was through the D-word, an important and essential worldwide organization of documentary filmmakers.
Is it the end as we know it?
What is the purpose of documentary films anyway?
Is it to regurgitate stories about well-known people? This is what many documentaries have become: films on celebrities, music biopics, sport figures, and true crime. This type of popular documentary come with a built-in audience--you'll find them on all the major streaming services. These films are often commissioned by studios, streaming services, or brands and could be considered corporate documentaries.
But what about other subjects that aren't well-known or talked about? Those that need and want a broad audience? These types of documentary films have to find their own funding and find ways to get the films into festivals and then out to the public. These are the types of documentaries on life support.
Questions to consider:
If documentary films aren't being funded, why not?
If documentary films are being funded, who is funding them and why?
If documentary films are being funded but not seen, why not?
What can we do to make for a more viable and sustainable future?
Fiction film funders want a monetary return on investment. In their own elaborate or byzantine way, fiction films are a straightforward business. If the film makes a profit, it is considered a success. If not, it is considered a failure.
Documentary films are different. Documentary films, non-corporate documentary films, rarely make a profit. That's why few people want to invest in them. So, who puts money into documentary films and why?
Funders of documentaries often want something that money can't buy. They want to support a cause, for example. Although these funders aren't looking for a monetary ROI, it doesn't mean they are simply acting out of the goodness of their hearts. They want something, too.
Much of documentary funding comes through grants filtered through nonprofit organizations. Philanthropists (wealthy individuals, family foundations, corporate entities, and charities) want the world to know they are benefiting society by funding documentary films.
Last week, there was a telling article in the New York Times. The Impossible Math of Philanthropy By Hans Taparia and Bruce Buchanan, professors at NYU's Stern School of Business. They wrote:
“...There’s a simple answer, one you’ll never hear in the grand halls of the charity gala circuit: The math of philanthropy simply doesn’t work. And it never will. Americans typically understand charities as organizations that pick up where the government leaves off — championing the poor, the environment, the sick and the marginalized. But this framing is incomplete, and frankly misleading.”
The writers add later in the article,
“This is what makes charity such a good deal for businesses and their owners: They can earn moral credit for donating a penny to a problem they made a dollar creating.”
Let's look at one of the big givers:
JPMorganChase is the wealthiest and most powerful financial institution in the world. If fossil fuels are contributing to climate change, and they are, and if climate change is one of the most destructive forces in the world today, and it is, JPMorganChase should take as much blame as anyone else. Here's an article worth reading:
The billions of dollars in profit JPMorganChase makes each year allows them to toss a few coins to documentary filmmakers. Like this:
Visionaries in Action–An Emmy Award–winning filmmaker sparks social change
...She is part of a new generation of filmmakers who are using the power of documentaries to tackle our planet’s toughest challenges.
WE CAN HELP
If you would like to learn more about impact filmmaking, or understand the ways that philanthropy can help increase awareness of social or environmental challenges, please speak to your J.P. Morgan team.
Isn't it great to know that JPMorgan is helping to increase awareness of environmental challenges? They care! They really do!
Such actions shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. Art and culture are often paid for by those exploiting others. For almost three centuries, the Medicis, the wealthy and ruthless banking family, were the biggest patron of the Renaissance. Generations of family members were corrupt and killed or exiled anyone who got in their way. Centuries later, Florence is still visited and celebrated for its art and beauty, which wouldn't exist without the bloodletting of the Medicis. That's how art and culture work. Artist, landscaper, filmmaker, or waiter we're all working for the same patrons. That's unlikely to change.
However, if documentary filmmakers are going to continue to take money from philanthropists, who rely on our work to give them moral credit and social cachet, we should recognize that our films are worth more than just production funding.
Documentary filmmakers will always need money to make their films. As difficult and as time-consuming as this can be, it's not the only problem facing filmmakers. Often, very good documentary films, even festival winners, aren't picked up for distribution. Or if they do get picked up, they don't get seen enough.
Streamers don't usually promote non-corporate documentaries. They typically feel there isn't enough of an audience to bother with. So, documentary films often do not get any publicity. Without publicity, there isn't much hope of finding a wide audience. Thus, a film is funded, made, barely seen, and then dies a quiet death. That's the life of too many documentary films.
Most philanthropic funders don't mind this scenario. They got what they paid for: a tax write-off and moral, social, and economic cachet. If philanthropic funders cared more and wanted to do more, they easily could. They could get more involved in promoting documentary films. They don't do this because they have no desire to "increase awareness of social or environmental challenges." They are the ones causing the social and environmental challenges. They're not going to hurt their company or damage their brand. As I wrote in my previous post, "They want the illusion of due diligence." They want the illusion that they are doing something.
Philanthropic funders can put on their websites and their annual reports, and show on their PR tours and publicity campaigns, that they are good global citizens. They give to the right causes. You can see photos of them at prestigious social events. The term "artwashing" has become synonymous with certain players in the visual arts.
"Artwashing" describes the use of art and artists in a positive way to distract from or legitimize negative actions by an individual, organization, country, or government—especially in reference to gentrification. –Wikipedia
"Artwashing" is a term that has been popularized to describe the ways that major polluters and other organizations that cause environmental damage might use the arts to clean up their public image. –Google
This is what is happening in much of the documentary world. Let's change a few words.
"Docwashing" describes the use of film and filmmaker in a positive way to distract from or legitimize negative actions by an individual, organization, country, or government—especially in reference to gentrification. –Wikipedia
"Docwashing" is a term that has been popularized to describe the ways that major polluters and other organizations that cause environmental damage might use documentary films to clean up their public image. –Google
Large corporations aren't the only ones funding documentary films to change their image. It is de rigueur for billionaires. The Gates Foundation, the Chan Zuckerberg Foundation, the Bezos Family Foundation, Bloomberg, and George Soros all do it.
Well, what can a poor boy do / 'Cept to sing for a rock-n-roll band?
Mick Jagger, our preeminent street fighting man, has been singing those words for more than fifty years. But if the dream of a palace revolution has died and been replaced by the game of compromise solution, what is to be done? How can we use the power of powerful people to help documentarians? That is my next post.
Terence Donnellan
