It Is Multi-directional, and Don't You Forget It

"Stranger With A Camera," while intellectually stimulating, came off as very bothersome to me. This is due to two main points: the necessity of Barrett to implicate herself as a filmmaker into an issue and story that would have been perfectly fine without her, and the onerous that was put on filmmakers to be aware of their environments with little to no responsibility put on those who are the sibjects.

I believe that either Barrett could have told of her problems portraying the local environment where she grew up (eastern Kentucky), or she could have talked about the story of Hugh O'Connor and his team's interaction with Hobart Ison as a reflection of the greater clash of civilizations that occurs. By injecting herself into the latter, it came off as a ploy for personal attention. Individually, they prove useful; mixed together in the way they were in "Stranger ith A Camera," it took away from the overarching theme of the documentary.

The prompt for this video, which is referenced by Barrett, is the reason for my second point.

What are the responsibilities of any of us who take the images of other people and put them to our own uses?

I will admit that as filmmakers, it is essential to understand the context in which you are doing your job. This is true for any occupation, but for one that can manipulate the perceptions of others in such a definite way, it can be crucial. At the same time, however, by being a subject in a film or production, you must take responsibility for this perception as well. As a viewer of film, you must understand that the story is only one view, just as if you were personally in the area witnessing the action firsthand.

As evidence, I would like to point to the jury trial of Mr. Ison. The filmmakers present felt antagonized, and the ones that wanted to come were discouraged. Yet, there was not a backlash towards Hobart Ison or his supportive cohorts. The responsibility, and thus the blame, was placed on the filmmakers. Was Ison not the one who shot O'Connor? Because the community lived in the same situation that Ison did, there was no countervailing argument. The filmmakers were disheartened and affected, but it was only their misunderstanding of the community on trial, and not the eastern Kentucky public's misunderstanding of the job and intent of filmmakers on trial. Even Barrett, being a member of this community, fell right into the trap. Throughout the documentary, the problem was the filmmakers and how the community felt. There was relatively little emphasis put on what the filmmakers were doing with the footage, just merely that they were there. Barrett's sympathetic approach to the community does little to further the point of the responsibilities of filmmakers, but rather further emphasizes the lack of sensitivity by the subject, the viewer, or the participant.

"Stranger With A Camera" makes one wonder what the responsibilities of filmmakers are, which is a valid question. Really, the only responsibility I see reflected in this documentary is to essentially "call if like you see it" as a filmmaker, taking the information you can and putting it on display. The subjects, then, have the responsibility to portray accurately the scenario they are asked to partake in. If you are a child eating dirt, it does not matter if you think you are well fed due to welfare, you will be seen as a child eating dirt. It's a fishbowl, and all media is just an outside looking in perspective on that. It just so happens that Barrett was an outsider looking in on the role of a filmmaker, and not, as O'Connor was, a filmmaker looking in on life in rural Kentucky.