Navajo Talking Picture: Ethics of Documentary Filmmaking
To begin with, we might ask why Bowman's behavior seems to push the bounds of ethical filmmaking in the minds of so many viewers. What is it about Navajo talking picture that elicits such ethical scrutiny, even among viewers who otherwise express little interest in film ethics? After all, there is no general statement on ethics that nonfiction filmmakers as supposed to sign. Although ethical lapses can be excused on a technicality, it is worth noting that only in the past 20 years have scholars begin to formulate a set of ethical principles that could be applied to documentary film. In a book published in 2000, Jay Ruby proposed an ethics of image-making that would require filmmakers to wrestle with a series of questions: Have I been true to the principle of informed consent? Does my desire to make this film outweigh the desire of the subject to maintain his or her privacy?
Am I depicting the subject in a balanced way? Asking these questions is the essence central part of the process? Asking these questions is the essential part of the process, because solid answers are often elusive. The best one can hope for Ruby claims is that image makers should demonstrate that they are wrestling with the issues and he praises several films for achieving this level of ethical self-consciousness. Kay Braham's Passing Girl Riverside and essay on camera work, 1998, Joe Godmilow's far from Poland, 1984, and Susan EE Pictures from a Revolution 1991. He does not even mention Arlene Bowman, and the reason is simple. Unlike filmmakers who have attempted to work through the ethical problems of talking pictures, Bowman does not seem to wrestle very much with her ethical quandaries and do some reviewers. This is one of the most disappointing aspects of Navajo talking picture, at least upon first glance. Unlike the filmmakers mentioned above, she does not convey the self-consciousness that filmmakers need to perform when they make a reflective turn toward the mirror of cultural production. I suspect that for some viewers, her blind persistence strikes them as an inappropriate documentary strategy for working with an ordinary person such as Ann Ruth Biah, what might be necessary, even admirable when chasing corporate honchos such as GMs, Roger Smith and Michael Moores, Roger, and me might seem inappropriate when dealing with people who do not have a team of lawyers working in their defense.