After the Year of the Slog: what my honours project taught me

Through my practice based research project I put forward the idea of Participatory Documentary Practice as an ethics based alternative practice and solution to problems associated with produce media about the other groups and communities- in this case, Indigenous and Jewish communities.

I tracked the approach throughout the project which included having two community co-producers who would guide me through cultural sensitivities and help me navigate community politics. Community co-producers would also be integral in working out how their story would be told, who should be interviewed and what types of questions should be asked. This practice comes from the perspective that producers should create a system where he/she is an employee of the participating communities, helping to tell their true and human stories.

What I found was not that there was anything intrinsically wrong with this approach- all participants felt strongly connected to what was produced- but rather the main finding was that it would be very difficult to adopt this approach in industry practice. Holding the interests of the communities we work with in priority place is a lovely idea and efforts towards this will certainly earn respect of everyone involved, allow greater trust and access and a deeper level of story telling, but the consequences of this come into sharp focus when deadlines come around. I was faced with a problem: either exert even more pressure to meet my deadline, or continue to wait for the right time by the communities involved for the interviews to take place after weeks of cancellations and availabilities.

But academic research loves problems and this aspect formed a major finding of the research.

Production of In the Wake of Genocide continues (an insightful interview was done yesterday) to expand on the 28 minute piece so we can anticipate that the full 52 minute feature will be fit for broadcast in the near future.

It’s not hard to see my own growth either. This project tested my ability to tackle production problems, to rethink my approaches to think creatively. It also fine-tuned my technical skill and matured me as a producer, my sensitivity to sound, structure and story.

Importantly, I have begun to feel comfortable in the idea of producing Indigenous stories. Being a white producer or journalist in this context can be scary and can attract questions of validity and rights. These questions are both internal and externally imposed and in fact, this is probably the reason for the whole research. But throughout the experience of producing In the Wake of Genocide I never once felt unwelcome or unwanted. Moreover, I was very supported (which is not to say I wasn’t tested!).I maintain that the participatory approach was significant in building the quality of these relationships.

In my own way I love my country, but I think we can do better than we have for the past 200 years. I’ve realised that I only began to feel some pride in being Australian since the Apology last year and since having the ability to recognise a shameful past and the courage to publicly admit our shortcomings. Using the participatory approach meant I had no choice but to  listen to what people were telling me and it meant all of us felt comfortable working to produce these stories which is vital for building a rich tapestry of media and stories.

Questions??????

At a meeting this morning with the two main participants in the project I’ll be asking many many questions, which I’ve nutted down to a few different sections:

• What are the aims of this project, what do you/we want to achieve out of it?
• Keeping in mind the limitations certain broadcast agreements can have, what would be the most comfortable approach to planning a broadcast? (ie: pre-sale commission, independant production)
• Who are we going to invite to be part of this project by way of contributing interviews? What sorts of questions should be be asking? How do we make sure we ask them in a culturally appropriate way?
• Explanations of the various protocols we need to be aware of
• Any ideas about musicians who might be interested in being involved?
• Discussion of ideas about the style of the piece

Busy meeting indeed!

Much to do

The next stage of the doco is not so much working out how the collaboration will work (I have a meeting next week to work out the final nuts and bolts with those involved) but more about the actual production choices, which is my major role as the producer (naturally).

Over the last week I have tried to work out what it will sound like. In Search of Edna Lavilla was recommended by my supervisor as an approach to consider. I really liked lots of aspects about this feature, there were really nice textures with the sunny side of the street being whistled and played throughout, the personal interviews and conversations with the mother as they discovered new parts of the story and especially conversations reading newspaper articles together. Also the court transcript reenactments weren’t as corny as I’d imagined.
But I think the thing that stood out for me in terms of techniques I could adapt was the way that the search for Edna’s grave was the thread throughout where snippets of the walk through the cemetery were returned to as a kind of transition from scene to scene.

The other documentary which was suggested was Fernando’s Ghost which was more of a historical reconstruction more in line with Hindsight type programs. It used a mix of historic transcripts and news articles and interviews with historians, as well as some soundscapes to build a sense of place. I really enjoyed this one too and certainly will take on how the historic interviews were woven into the story so that it had a sense of discovery.

I’ll talk about some of these ideas at the meeting next week and get down to some serious search for textures: newspaper articles, the actual protest letter, places, newsreels from reporting on the holocaust, newsreels about the missions, people alive who remember the time, especially people from Moroopna.

Fun!

Question of Distribution

Distribution, in my mind, has been key to the objectives of ethical practice. Enghel refers to the distribution process quite heavily in her analysis and looks that the limitations different approaches bring in terms of editorial control. There are a number of things to consider under modes of distribution agreements; for me I feel it important to be able to guarantee participants some broadcast outcome when I ask/invite them onboard the project. I obviously fail to meet the communities’ needs if no-one ends up hearing it. But distribution agreements have other effects such as significantly impacting the funding available. A commission kills two birds; it would bring both production funding and guarantee broadcast. On the flip side the broadcaster or funding body writes the conditions on the level of editorial control.

In Enghel’s Argentinian example she found that although they had collaborated with the community on editorial decisions, she realised that the funding/distribution body still had the power (even though it was not an used in this case) to pass down their own editorial demands which would have been absolute.

In my naivety, I imagined I’d have some responsibility to send drafts to the ABC and to be in fairly constant communication and to act on their requests. I’d anticipated an “interesting” experience in finding balances of what participants were comfortable with and what the ABC was comfortable with. However, after quite a lengthy conversation yesterday its clear that the editorial power necessary under the ABC commission protocols leaves no room for consultation in the editoral phase. The way it works it for producers to go to the program offices (Sydney) to work through the recorded raw material into an initial structure, through editing, through to final sound-engineering. So clearly there is a significant conflict between the requirements of ABC and the approach which makes up the body of research and argument for this project. So I’m feeling that this is a minor set-back.

But all is not lost, the ABC producer I spoke to was really supportive of the story idea and encouraged me to consider producing it independently. Independent Production is not only financially more risky with no guarantee of selling the feature in the end, but it also means I have less guarantee of a national broadcast when approaching participants, although it would be possible to approach other community broadcasters. But I suppose its a balance of what is more important for the participants; is it consultation and opportunities for editorial input or is it a guarantee of broadcast outcomes. In keeping with consultative practices, I’ll probably need to discuss this with the communities involved.

Question

Maybe research is like trekking, where you can see the peak ahead within grasp in front of you, only to see an expanse of peaks stretching to the horizon. Of course in a photograph it is beautiful, but trust me, when you have blisters on your feet, a pack weighing you down, jelly legs, feeling freezing cold and wet, its just disappointing.

So, although I started with many questions which I have begun to answer in the exegesis, there are still so many more popping up.

I think I began wondering if it was possible to produce a radio feature in collaboration with participants which would satisfactorily address the omnipresent ethical problems in documentary production. Through my research I have begun to argue that yes, there are ways to adapt documentary production methodologies to serve the interests of the participants involved. This argument will be practiced throughout my own production process, which is really important, because although I have now written almost 5000 words stating how it is theoretically possible, the crux of the argument is lies in its actual possibility in real world use.

The new questions growing in front of me are about how the participants feel during the process. Was consultation real, were they comfortable, do they feel ownership, some real sense of participation? Are they comfortable with the result? Am I comfortable with the result? How does this practice affect the media object’s outcome?

Which I think neatly draws me back to the initial questioning; Is it possible to produce a documentary which doesn’t exploit and exclude its subjects? What practices could be used to include participants in the creation of representation? Do participatory methodologies as guided by Enghel’s case-study lead to a true sense of inclusion, consultation, ownership and participation.

A good day of sorts

Some people write in bursts, I write in slogs. After a very productive 6 hours I am very close to 5000 words… yes, already.

Over the past few days I’ve relayed the feedback I got from Adrian on Thursday (something attune to “You’re trying to write a Masters in the space of an Honours degree”) to those I’ve spoken to when asked about how the year is going. No one, especially not my housemates or my parents, was the least bit surprised.

Just a wee bit to write up now and still a few bits of yellow symbolising unfinished or out of place points/thoughts and then time to clean up: drafts 1,2,3,4,5…. . Oh, and the bibliography, am still shouldering that bad habit. But I must say there is something a little relieving about having ideas in text rather than existing in a chaotic whir of thoughts competing head space. Ah ha, maybe I will finally get some restful sleep tonight!      

Feedback

Linda gave me feedback on an earlier version of my draft exegesis (revised version here). I was actually really touched that she spent the time considering my work (as jumbled as the thing I’m calling “work” was, poor thing!) and also a little surprised that someone with minimal knowledge on my research area was so able to give really useful feedback. In fact, her feedback was perhaps even more useful for being outside of my little world of chaos and giving cause to rethinking things that seemed logical in my head, but which are maybe not so.

Linda advised some inclusion of the research inevitably necessary in getting a radio piece aired on ABC, including their codes of ethics as well as other production constraints and needs such as length, style etc. I’ll revisit this later. 

She also pointed out that I haven’t made it very clear that it will be a radio production and not a visual production. Looking over my draft I can see that this is quite a valid point. I can also see that I started to write a sentence explaining why, but my train of thought moved faster than I could type. Basically, after doing my own searches and also asking Kyla Brettle, an industry professional and lecturer, there appears to be a significant lack of resources exploring radio features of any type, let alone as specific as radio documentary. Still, after reading about ethical issues arising out of film documentary it is already clear that there are many parallels to be made. Actually, I can also see a danger in an easy assumption that since radio does not work with visual representation, which is most heavily critiqued by writers, that radio is somehow more ‘pure’, more likely to reveal the voice of the so called “subject”, which, frankly, is bollocks. Precisely because of this misconception and trust of radio, combined with a medium in which editing is perhaps more invisible (think of the ability to reconstruct people’s words), the necessary trust an interviewee must give, the integrity with which a producer must practice and the power dynamics at play are crucial elements for interrogation in any feature which aims to represent a story in-line with the participants own objectives.

Which brings me onto Linda’s next point. Am I investigating the power play between the producer and subject or investigating representing ethnic groups in a way that truly represents their notions of ’self’?. This is a great question but a very difficult one for me to answer. So, as usual, here is the conveluted answer!

As I’ve just stated, for me power is so entwined with representation that my gut feeling tells me that being critically aware of the power play in orthodox documentary is necessary in investigating alternative methods of building a representation which attempt to be closer to notions of the participant’s ’self’. By orthodox documentary Dennis O’Rouke’s Cunnamala is a useful case is focus. O’Rouke makes no apology for his belief in documentary as his art, his perspective, and therefore that creating a representation of of the world as he sees it is his right. Which it probably is, even though ethicist have a problems with his work and approach. It would be probably be my right too, but it is not my desire or aim. The story of William Cooper and the contemporary ramifications is not my story, and I’m not even wanting to borrow it as some writers claim their practices as.

The question is then, how do I go about being a producer of a story which I never want to claim ownership to? Is it possible and what methods bring us closest to making this happen?

Next, Linda picked up on my reluctance to use a few key words. The first one was Documentary. I’ve already said that I plan to critically analyse the problematic power dynamics in orthodox documentary and am looking instead to participatory production methods to create a story. Leaving aside the question of truth for a moment (because no where so far have I even begun to discuss the perspectivism alive an well within both traditional documentary and any other constructed and mediated representation) if you are not practicing documentary methodology, is it still a documentary? Is the term still appropriate? In pointing out the flaws for its application in this context, how can I then continue to use the term? I’ve begun using “Feature” as an alternative here and there but I think I need to mull over that a little more. Perhaps rejecting the term means I’m creating a comfortable lie for myself, in denial but still involved with the same dilemma (though hopefully a little less naive).  

Another uncomfortable concept is ethnography. I don’t consider this project to be ethnography; its not a good story because its about a culture or an ethnicity. Yes there are two cultural groups or communities involved and yes their cultural background is a relevant aspect, and yes this brings into play some existing ethical debates, but this project is not about saying ‘they the other’ are interesting because ‘they’ are different and therefore there is a story about them that should be told. Having said that, ethnographers have grappled with significant ethical issues around othering, representation and power with some applications for consideration in critiquing documentary practice. This is why despite my reluctance, there are some references to writing with origins in ethnographic themes.  

The exegesis is fast becoming a mammoth thesis of itself but I think it will be possible to point so huge topics such as Orientalism and Othering without necessarily needing to go through the complicated arguments surrounding it. Rather, this exegesis will look, for example at how Said’s work has changed the ethical context within which practioners work. It will look at the Enghel’s model of participatory methodologies within the same framework, that of Communication for Development, and discuss the methods which apply to a project: a) in Australia, b) involving both Jewish and Koorie participants, and, c) in radio production rather than film, as well as those that don’t.

Enghel considers the importance of dissemination and it is here I think it will be relevant to have a more detailed discussion of what it means to choose a broadcaster like the ABC in advance as a preferred channel of publication, their industry requirements, and how this influences the production process.

I predict other challenges will arise and be explored in the action-reflection aspect of the project, such as the actual dynamics of participatory methodology; do participants feel comfortable to be part of the process? How does it feel to be a producer in this dynamic? How does it effect choices made? Do producer and participant have differing emphases on narrative and self ie. is the participant concerned (reasonably when you think about it) concerned with how their voice sounds, how do you navigate differing priorities in a participatory environment?

And I think I’m back where I started. The aim. I think there are two, both of which I share with the primary participants involved; We want this feature to be heard to the widest, most relevant audience possible becasue social and political motivations which requires a content rich, technically and structurally strong production. We also all hope to feel comfortable with representations created, keeping in mind that, as a media form, these will necessarily always be artificial representations.

Big Big thanks to Linda! 

A Mental Break-through

I’ve finally been able to organise my ideas into some segments. This is a huge mental relief as I can start to order all the stuff going on in my head into a literate response rather than garble. Soon, (I’m very much addressing Adrian here) I should feel comfortable to show my ideas to peers for feedback.

My exegesis will argue that a new approach to feature production is needed, especially when working in cross-cultural narratives. The questions that it will seek to answer, therefore, are:

Why is a new approach needed? For me personally the understanding that in most cases orthodox productions fail has been building throughout my undergrad studies. Looking at the problems of authenticity, truth and power through Post-Colonialism (mainly Orientalism from Said), Documentary Studies, particularly those moving closer towards ethnography, Communications for Development and finally through Indigenous Studies. Included here should also be Whiteness Studies, which though I’m not entirely familiar with, focusses its enquiery on the “Whiteness” of the agency and the role this plays in dynamics, more than say in minority studies where this aspect is ignored.
This exegesis clearly does not have the space to examine each of these intensively, but will be informed by the arguments made. Much of this work references Flaherty and Vertitov.

What will the different approach be? As alluded to some of the types of alternative methods in the abstract, words such as “participatory”, “collaborative”, “negociated”, “consultative”. In answering this question I think I will draw on Florencia Enghel’s work quite heavily, which is informed by Communication for Development paradigms of participation towards meeting a participant’s or participating community’s own goals. Enghel sets out aspects where the ego of the film-maker can be reduced, such as in decisions over content (who/what to include, how to include them, what the narrative will focus on), editing (how representations are constructed), and dissemiation. She also, from a pedagogic background, is keen for teaching of skills to take place and for self-reflexivity in the style.

How does this work (or not) for Synergy? Initially I felt that this section would mainly include production notes and reflective-action research. But there are perhaps aspects which are relevant already.

More on that later, I’m off to yoga class to test my latest theory: If your brain is stressed and exhausted and your body is not your life is imbalanced. For more balance in life, exhaust your body as much as your brain and you will sleep better.

lost

I feel a bit lost with the 1000 word draft set for this week. I’m used to having a plan for an entire paper which becomes more and more detailed, and constantly rearranged as new research is found and then filling in the gaps towards the end as I’m about to hand it in. Whenever I sit down to write it feels like a complete waste of time and uncontrolled jibberish is all that appears on my screen.

Onto happier topics, last week was very productive in lots of ways as I had a meeting with a few of the people who will be involved in the project and some others as its seems that it is the right time for this project to happen. There is this ground swell of interest at them moment, people are hearing about the William Cooper’s work and wanting to see something come of it. Its really wonderful to see and to be a part of. Although I can’t publically say anything at this time, I think the radio project is just one part of great things to happen in Victoria throughout this year.

Last week was a confidence boost in other ways as well; at an ABC breakfast I felt for the first time that I have some meaningful opinions to offer in a discussion around media and the future. I think as an undergrad and as an Honours student its beaten into us that we have no authority and can only justify a point of view based on other people’s arguments. I went to the event thinking I would have very little to say, that I would be way out of my depth but I think I found myself to be an active participant in the discussion which was a fantastic feeling.

Well, best get back to the words…

A Thesis

“A thesis represents a choice. Because it is a decision that leads us to channel our efforts into a research problem; it summarizes our academic career and projects the field of work that we have chosen for the future. (…) A thesis offers us the possibility of sketching our future strategy. (…) A thesis (…) is the possibility of closing one chapter and beginning another by recovering a certain way of understanding.”

Editorial, Tram(p)as de la comunicación y la cultura, 2003, as cited in Enghel