Manipulation of footage and rhetoric happens enough in documentary filmmaking, but what about animated documentaries? Should viewers begin watching an animated documentary knowing the truth has been manipulated even more than a non-animated documentary would have been?
“I was not interested in a fiction film. I wanted to do it animated because it dealt with memory. The term documentary, honestly, I don’t really care. I’ve been hassled so much about the animated documentary idea. It was so much trouble raising the budget because I declared it “an animated documentary.” If I had to do it again, I would never call it a documentary. [Laughs]”
Folman also said, he encountered debate because people believed a documentary can’t be animated.
Folman recorded studio interviews and animated scenes, and sometimes overdubbed audio recordings.
According to the director of “Chicago 10,” Brett Morgen, the trouble came when trying to figure out how animation would be done for courtroom scenes when video footage didn’t exist. “We had to animate 35 minutes of dialogue!” he said in an Independent Lens interview.
I feel the editing and animating process becomes unethical when audio recordings are manipulated in such a way that the actual truth of the speaker does not represent what they actually said.
Unethical manipulation can occur in non-animated documentaries where b-roll is used, but the same ethics apply to non-animated documentaries and news packages.
How are viewers supposed to know if what they are hearing is the complete truth, and if what they are seeing is the complete truth?
Viewers don’t know and can’t tell unless filmmakers and videographers are honest with their audiences.
It is easier to be unethical when animating documentaries, so it is even more important to be cautious when editing audio and footage.
Please feel free to weigh in on any comments, experiences, or any documentary films that use animation.