Film and advocacy, ideal principles and practical impacts - a discussion

This week I met with friends and colleagues in Oxford. One of the topics we discussed was how to use story and in particular film within our work as development and advocacy professionals. We agreed on two basic principles. The first is that film is a very powerful tool. The second was that we were all trying to use it for social good. After that we found many paths that crossed and dissected and some that simply lead away from each other.

Our discussions revolved around and were connected to concepts of informed consent and story ownership. We all agreed that consent should be gained from those intellectually and physically connected to the materials generated by the film process. We couldn't agree however on how best to do this. Whether it is OK just to get a verbal consent after asking if we could use their images and voices for general comms and advocacy purposes, or if we needed to spend time explaining in detail what the materials could potentially be used for and what that may mean.

As the conversations went on we found two camps emerging. The first were those that believed that the product should be filmed, produced and owned at all levels by those people on which the issue is based. That is if the issue was about indigenous rights, the indigenous people should be trained in film, shoot their own film, edit and produce this film and decide on its distribution and use. The second camp sympathised with the first but contended that this could not and not always should be the case. They believed due to the urgency of rights issues that some calculated risks needed to be taken in making sure the voices of the people be heard to decision makers and people in power. They believed in the utility of the product for intended good. Further, they felt that first alternative was too time consuming and resource intensive. They also argued that some groups such as indigenous remote communities they would not fully understand how their voices should be used and so they needed greater direction than just leaving it to them.

I have to admit to sympathising with both groups. Ideally I agreed with the first group, practically I agreed with the second group. I suggested that whilst this was a good and important discussion, that in the end the proof was in the pudding. That is if we see improved wellbeing amongst the most vulnerable based on our work then this was surely a good thing? This was agreed but it took us into other territory. The first camp agreed that the second camps approach may have more immediate impact but that their approach would have greater and long lasting impact over time. So change is as much as about impact over time than at any given point in time. We ended the discussion with the development get out of jail card phrase: it depends on the situation and circumstances, like everything it is context specific. And like all good development workers we parted as friends with hugs, not handshaking.