Abstract
In common usage, the term “political” applies to films that question the status quo or criticize existing policies and practices. Political filmmaking is highly discouraged in Hollywood and routinely criticized when it occurs. No one, we often hear, wants “messages” in their entertainment. In contrast, the hundreds of pro-police films and television shows that have aired in the past decade, movies celebrating the armed forces, or those that extol the “lifestyles” of social and economic elites are not considered political, even when filmmakers give the Department of Defense veto power over their films’ content. This peculiar twist of language helps to keep attention and investment money in the United States actively behind the conservative impetus for not upsetting the distribution of resources and power in the nation. Even superhero films focus on driving off alien threats in order to protect the way things are now rather than changing them for the better.
The film production company Brave New Films (BNF) takes a different approach. Incorporated as a political nonprofit, they make films as a form of social advocacy. Their documentaries reject the idea that there are many fine people on both sides, or that complex issues fit neatly into two sides at all. Their work recalls great muckraking journalism of the past, holding the powerful and unaccountable up to the light, showing ugly truths behind shiny facades, and naming names. Sherry Ortner's Screening Social Justice: Brave New Films and Documentary Activism is a fascinatingly immersive study of the company and its activist mission. Ortner relates the company's goals to their means of operating and situates both within a capitalist film industry where documentaries rarely pay dividends. Her ultimate focus is on the impact such films might have against a culture that has cultivated a deep distrust of such efforts.
Brave New Films operates in part as a laboratory of ideas and a production facility for the effective diffusion of those ideas. The numerous projects continuously under discussion or development share a few basic perspectives. They favor the empowerment of the disfranchised. They express sympathy for the victims of war, politics, and economic actions who are normally treated merely as collateral damage. They encourage critical thinking, empathy, and collective responsibility. In short, BNF works from a framework that some consider liberal and others call radical left-wing. Ortner portrays them as humanitarian.
The catalog of BNF short videos and feature-length documentaries shows them to be taking on some of the biggest targets in American life, from the Patriot Act to the war in Afghanistan, to fracking, to Walmart. In each, the documentary-makers repudiate the notion of pure objectivity, making clear that they have a position to argue. For the most part, their targets reflect areas of American life where significant public discourse already exists, but reliable information is difficult to come by.
Truths are elusive concepts. Documentaries often stage fictional representations of events to reveal a “deeper” truth. So, too, do conspiracy theories, but without the deep research that supports such BNF films as Families Torn Apart: America's Deadly Immigration Policy. The notion of layers of truth suggests that there is no single objective and indisputable truth under everything. But neither are such issues a matter of personal opinion. There is still such a thing as lying. When lies become institutionalized in a society, documentaries are among the key palliatives. At its heart, BNF exists to respond to the explosive growth in deliberate disinformation. No single small film company can save the world from itself, but BNF defines itself as a piece of the bulwark of resistance, whether the rest of us step up to help or not.
Ortner’s study mirrors the work of BNF in that both take a strong moral stand against exploitation, deceit, and the dehumanization of “the other.” The book echoes the films’ calls for people to stay informed and take action for those around us who cannot protect themselves. “Insofar as they are attempting to disrupt a particular hegemonic configuration, that configuration is complacency about the American democratic system, and a failure to recognize the degree to which the country is tilting in the direction of fascism” (p. 47). Screening Social Justice is not, however, a content analysis of the works of BNF. The author enters into this study with empathy for their goals. She does not ask whether we should approve of them or not. Her questions concern how BNF operates, how it networks with activists, how it engages its audience, and what sort of impact they have.
Noting the occasional use and general weakness of quantitative measures of immediate impact, Ortner argues that the contributions of such documentaries exist at the start of a long process that involves people thinking and talking differently, thinking critically about received wisdom, and possibly starting to identify themselves with the goals of movements for peace and justice that exist outside the film world. Impact may take years and may never be directly associated with any given film. BNF does, however, try to track responses from viewers whose perspectives have changed, which is the kind of impact they most seek.
Using BNF as a site of study, the text examines the cultural battles over the meaning of crucial concepts such as truth, justice, and America. The 2002 film Unprecedented may make the argument that the 2000 presidential election was illegally manipulated by numerous institutions to favor George Bush over Al Gore, but its greater impact is to educate viewers on the fragility of the democratic process and the many ways in which it can be undermined. Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price certainly provides reasons for a community to oppose the opening of this particular corporate giant in their space, but it does so by explaining the economics of wage work in the United States and the role of big box stores in undermining basic labor rights and protections.
The documentaries are tools in a larger social movement project, a piece of the consciousness-raising and mobilization processes that aim to protect and promote democracy and civil rights. Films cannot change policies, save lives, or right wrongs. They can, however, change the public discourse on events, particularly by injecting a much-needed body of facts into larger political, social, and moral questions that are frequently addressed only at the level of impression management. Ortner notes that BNF works on multiple projects at once and has a fairly high level of productive output. Yet documentaries overall can hardly compete with the larger, institutionally sanctioned sources of alternative facts. Successful documentaries can reach hundreds of thousands of people during their run. Advertisements reach audiences of that size every day or possibly every hour. Unlimited numbers of product ads all share the same pro-capitalist messaging. Can a few films here or there lead people to question any of that messaging? Ortner's answer is a qualified yes. The qualifications reflect Margaret Mead's famous statement about active communities being the only real source of significant cultural shifts. Every individual campaign is likely to fail. Yet each one contributes to the idea that we can do better. Ultimately, some good should come of it.