“Stranger with a Camera” presents the ethical and moral dilemmas of not only filmmakers but those who document the lives of others through any medium. While it is easy to say that a filmmaker, for instance, must be objective in the way in which he portrays whatever subject, persons or communities that are the focus of their work this task is easier said than accomplished. To fully portray any information completely objectively is a difficult task. There is always a story, a perspective or an opinion that is excluded of any particular work therefore not allowing it to be completely objective. With that being said the responsibility of a filmmaker is to fully circumspect whatever issue he is examining to the best of his ability and present it in a way in that is equitable to all perspectives. It’s obvious that this perspective on the responsibilities of filmmakers would only work in an ideal world where bias was completely non-existent and audiences have hours upon hours of time to sit and watch footage that presents the plethora of perspectives surrounding a single issue. This push for absolute objectivity within film would most likely hinder a filmmaker’s vision as well as subject an audience to arbitrary scenes in a documentary. Elizabeth Barrett’s style of documentary seems to adhere to the ideal of full circumspection. Despite this, there is little doubt that the events could have been interpreted dramatically different from the two perspectives that were most prominently featured in the film.