Any doubts as to the calibre of Roger Graef, lead speaker at Watersprite’s “Ethics Masterclass”, were dispelled by co-presenter Brian Woods – himself a BAFTA award-winner and founder of True Vision –  who described him as “hard to introduce in less than hour”, due to his many award-winning films and status as the only documentary-maker to have a BAFTA fellowship. This experienced pair presented a fantastic session focusing on the sorts of dilemmas faced by makers of television documentaries featuring vulnerable subjects in difficult circumstances.

            Part of the appeal of this talk-cum-debate was its interactive format. The engaging hosts used clips or anecdotes from documentaries – ranging in subject from doctors deciding how best to treat dying children, to the contentious treatment of children with behavioural problems, to black police officers and accused young people – to illustrate and stimulate discussion of particular ethical issues encountered during their making; the audience was encouraged to raise points and offer possible resolutions. Much of the success of this structure lay in the lack of any strict dogma; there was no right or wrong answer, just food for thought.

            One recurring issue was that of consent, and when it is acceptable to show scenes that might compromise a subject’s professionalism or lead to bullying and social stigmatisation. Often the dilemma faced was whether to broadcast or not when consent was withdrawn at the last minute, given, on the one hand, that an initial consent form had been signed, and, on the other hand, that the wishes of those involved had changed and they desired privacy; the general issue highlighted here was one of the legality of broadcast versus its ethical acceptability.

            Another interesting point raised was whether it is acceptable to make a film presenting only a partial view of reality, something that “observational”-style documentaries (such as Kim Longinotto’s Hold Me Tight, Let Me Go), which prioritise fly-on-the-wall footage at the expense of explanatory commentary or face-to-face interviews, are particularly prone to, since information needed to complete the picture can be omitted.

            The sentiment “you can film it, but you don’t have to use it” captures the essence of one important point. Though the duty of a documentary film-maker is to capture something of reality and present its story in a way that, for instance, highlights injustice and calls for necessary change, such portrayals have ethical implications. It emerged that it is often at the stage of making editorial decisions about what to include in a programme that these considerations really come into play.

            Overall, this engaging and insightful talk was typical of ethical debates, in that it was more about the awareness of the sorts of questions that need to be asked, in this case when making documentaries, than about straight answers or solutions. The examples chosen for discussion were sometimes harrowing, but always thought-provoking. One such anecdote from Woods was used to raise the issue of whether it is acceptable for film-makers to directly intervene in distressing situations: when filming for The Dying Rooms, a piece revealing a Chinese policy that allowed children in over-full orphanages to be exposed to die, the urge to intervene and rescue the suffering children they encountered was compelling, but this had to be weighed up with the risk of their undercover investigation being discovered and the whole film being compromised. Having described the scene, Woods then asked the audience the pertinent question, which was in some ways the real theme of this excellent talk: “What would you do in this situation?”