Fairness in Subjective Documentary Storytelling

Town

Cape FAIRNESS IN SUBJECTIVEof DOCUMENTARY STORYTELLING Johann Abrahams

Ever since filmmakers started making non- fiction Univeristyfilms, they have been plagued by the question of objectivity. Is the content truthful, is it accurate, and is it fair in dealing with opposing views? Today modern television consumers have become sophisticated and media savvy. They know that with any documentary, a number of editorial and creative decisions are being made often by a number of Johann Abrahams people working in a team. The question is how a film Buitenhof, 103 can still be truthful and fair for viewers despite a Buitengracht Street, clear bias on the part of the filmmaker. This essay is Tamboerskloof, Cape about journalistic ethics, bias but fairness, and an Town. analysis of my own personal film, ‘Coming Home’, 082 416 3759 weighed against the opinions by various film theorists. 10/31/2014

The copyright of this thesis vests in the author. No quotation from it or information derived from it is to be published without full acknowledgementTown of the source. The thesis is to be used for private study or non- commercial research purposes only. Cape Published by the University ofof Cape Town (UCT) in terms of the non-exclusive license granted to UCT by the author.

University DECLARATION

By submitting this dissertation electronically, I declare that the entirety of the work contained therein is my own, original work, that I am the sole author thereof (save to the extent explicitly otherwise stated), that reproduction and publication thereof by the University of Cape Town will not infringe any third party rights and that I have not previously in its entirety or in part submitted it for obtaining any qualification.

Town

Cape

Univeristy

Fairness in subjective documentary storytelling.

A Reflective Essay supporting the Documentary Film 'Coming Home’

By Johann Abrahams

ABRJOH008

A minor dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the award of the degree of

MASTERS IN MEDIA THEORY AND PRACTICE Supervisor: Dr Liani Maasdorp

Centre for Film and Media Studies Faculty of the Humanities University of Cape Town 2014

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract...... 5

1. Introduction………………………...... 6

2. Historical background…...... 10

3. Maintaining fairness despite bias……………………………………...... 14

4. Designing the film ‘Coming Home’...... 21

5. The Documentary film Production: ‘Coming Home’...... 27

6. Conclusion...... 34

Bibliography...... 36

Filmography...... 38

ABSTRACT

Ever since filmmakers started making non- fiction films, they have been plagued by the question of objectivity. Is it true, is it accurate, and is it fair? Today television consumers have become sophisticated and media savvy. They know that with any documentary, a number of editorial and creative decisions are being made often by a number of people working in a team. The question in this study is how a film can still be truthful, fair and relevant for viewers despite a clear bias on the part of the filmmaker. Michael Rabiger, Stella Bruzzi, and Sheila Bernard gave great insight into the importance of fairness toward participants, while the P.O.V series aired on PBS in the US show how to make films from a particular point of view to stimulate debate. Based on this I will argue that it is possible for a filmmaker to hold a particular view and to still make a film that is fair and accurate.

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

Ever since filmmakers started making non- fiction films, they have been plagued by the question of objectivity. Is it true, is it accurate, and is it fair? Documentaries work with fact not fiction and therefore filmmakers cannot invent plots, character and story arcs. Instead the filmmaker must be creative in the arrangement of the material without compromising journalistic integrity. (Bernard, 2007, p.2). But creativity knows no boundaries and in order for a film to be entertaining, or gripping, filmmakers do tend to bend the truth, or change the order of events. (Bowling for Columbine,2002).

Rabiger, in an article published online in the Nieman Report 2001, says non-fiction films are more often perceived to be true and objective. He ascribes this to the perceptions that were established during the heyday of television news when stalwarts like Walter Cronkite personified objectivity, truth and fairness in television journalism. (Rabiger, 2001, para 1). Documentary also seemed impartial because an inanimate instrument like a movie camera, taking “truth 24 times a second,” seemed incapable of deception. Film (including video) is always in the present tense, while print journalism tends to reside in the reflective past tense. (Rabiger, 2001, para 1).

Today audiences have become sophisticated and media savvy. They know through the long line of credits at the end of the film that a number of editorial and creative decisions are being made, and usually by a number of people working in a team. As filmmakers we know that before the camera even starts rolling decisions are being made as to how the story will be told. A hypotheses is developed, research done and a site visit undertaken to find sources, compelling characters and experts. Who appears in the film eventually and who is left out is a decision taken sometimes months before filming. (Snyman, 2007). During the shoot more decisions are made, including about the lens used, camera placement. A high angle on an interviewee, for example, can make her look

6 insignificant, on lighting - strong fall-off with deep shadows can make an interviewee look ominous and less truthful.

In contemporary journalism and non-fiction films new forms are emerging. More and more filmmakers like Michael Moore, Nick Broomfield and Louis Theroux connect with viewers on a subjective level. Although Moore’s films raise suspicions as to their truthfulness, they still have relevance and his overtly subjective approach has become his trademark. There are also films, such as PBS’ P.O.V series, that explicitly declare that they are not objective, but claim to be fair while putting forward the filmmakers’ point of view. (Mertes, 2001).

RESEARCH QUESTION

This research is about objectivity and fairness, and an analysis of my own personal film, Coming Home, weighed against the opinions by various film theorists. My question is what are the strategies a filmmaker can use to ensure fairness is maintained in a documentary that he/she is subjectively involved in?

The film Coming Home, about Genadendal’s land transformation process, is written and directed by me. I am also telling the story and often appear in the film. I recently built a house in Genadendal and I consider it my spiritual home. Both my paternal and maternal ancestors are from the old mission station. My uncle serves on the transformation committee and I share the view of the majority of Genadendal residents that the whole village is communal land and should be governed by the residents themselves. This is in conflict with the views and actions of the Theewaterskloof district municipality.

I therefore have a clear bias and the film is made from my point of view. I am also an advocate for the aboriginal rights of the Khoisan. Most of the residents of Genadendal are direct Khoikhoi descendants giving them UN recognised aboriginal rights to the land although this is often ignored in South Africa in general and in the case of Genadendal in particular. (United Nations, 2007, p.10).

The question is how the film can still be truthful despite the clear bias of the storyteller. In this essay I will argue that it is possible for a filmmaker to hold a particular

7 view and to still tell a truthful and balanced story. In this study, I therefore aim to question conventional notions of objective distance by demonstrating how I remained fair in the face of my own bias while producing a film about a community I’m closely related to. In order to do this, I provide some historical background, a literature review and analysis of existing films and insight into my own production process.

In the chapter that follows, chapter two, I paint a picture of my family history and my connection to Genadendal. It is a nostalgic look at a village where I spent my high school years and now it is my partial home and where I hope to retire one day. I also sketch the history of Genadendal, with references to the rich cultural heritage and artefacts found in the local museum. This is very important because the argument to preserve the town is based on its being a national treasure and actually should be declared a national heritage site.

In the third chapter I examine the ideas of various theorists in order to establish a theoretical framework for my film. I also explore the work of other filmmakers.

In the fourth chapter I outline my professional career as a reference to my style of filmmaking. I explain how I designed the film style, and how I applied the different theories. It also contains a short synopsis of the film with production notes and personal notes from me as director of the film. Finally, it looks at the relevance of the film to ordinary audiences. It also clearly spells out the point of view of the film and its aims.

The methodology used was a review of literature on the topic of subjectivity and bias in filmmaking. I also analysed a selection of documentary films in order to explore the position of the filmmaker towards his/her subject matter and how this relates to perceived expectations of objectivity in a contemporary context where there seems to be a greater general awareness of subjectivity. By watching the different films’ styles and practices I could develop a way to tell the Genadendal story by remaining subjective yet fair. I especially looked at films by Michael Moore, Louis Theroux and Nick Broomfield. I also drew great inspiration from watching clips from In the Light of Reverence by Toby Mcleod. The film tells the story of three indigenous communities and the lands they struggle to protect. This film was part of a series called P.O.V. I go into more detail with this series in chapter three.

(P.O.V, 1988). Finally, I use my own filmmaking practice as a case study by describing aspects of my process and some analysis of scenes from my film, Coming Home.

CHAPTER 2

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

FAMILY HISTORY

My earliest impressions of Genadendal was when our family packed the old grey Morris Minor and we set off on this long journey from Cape Town to Genadendal, mostly at the start of a school holiday because both my parents were teachers at the time. It was a journey stretched even longer because of my car sickness, overheating of the car, and a stopover on Houw Hoek Pass for sandwiches and coffee. It was great to finally round the last bend and see the lights, from cooking fires and oil lamps, of Genadendal … and the feeling of coming home.

Now, more than four decades later, I still get that feeling. Coming Home, my film about Genadendal, at the foot of the Sondereinde Mountains in the Overberg, is imbued with those emotions and nostalgia. I was never a permanent resident of this village, yet I consider it my spiritual home. Both my late parents were born here, and most of my family and beloved cousins still live here. I’ve always felt a special connection to this valley and a love for its people that is difficult to describe. Every trip there has a feeling of homecoming. I don’t know if I’m drawn to the huge rugged mountains with “Grootkop” towering over the village, the clear stream of water running through the village, or its people, but there is definitely an invisible pull that reaches deep into my soul. It is the place of my ancestors going back thousands of years.

In making this film I investigate the loss of the land in this region and some critics might say that there is a certain amount of bias in that. The issue of objectivity and my obvious bias will be discussed in chapter 3. As a descendant of the first nation, I’m frustrated by the early historical versions of how land belonging to the indigenous Khoikhoi in this region was lost to European settlers. In the film I draw from the diaries of the missionaries in telling the real story of what happened during the period 1790 to 1850 when most of the

10 land was taken away by colonists moving into the region. (Bredekamp & Pluddemann, 1999). In the film I also show my direct connection to one of the first Khoikhoi converts baptised by Georg Schmidt in 1738.

I grew up in Cape Town, about 140 kilometres away from Genadendal. However I spent my high school years at Emil Weder High when my parents were the Superintendant and Matron at the boarding house for high school boys during the early seventies.

My paternal grandmother comes from the Jonker and Balie families and they (the Balies) stem from two freed slaves who made Genadendal their home following emancipation. These slaves were imported by the Dutch East India Company from the Indonesian island Bali. By 1824 most of the residents were descendants of the mixed relationships between the indigenous Khoikhoi, Dutch and German farmers and freed slaves. (Balie, 1998).

My mother’s maiden name is Wessels and the Wessels family of Genadendal allegedly stem from a union between a neighbouring German farmer, a Jonas Wessels and a young Khoikhoi woman from Genadendal, Maria Oktober. According to the church baptismal records she had her child baptised as Jonas Wessels. He was my great-great grandfather. (Genadendal Mission Museum, Baptismal Records, 1793 – 1805).

The Jonker and Balie clans also played leadership roles in the Moravian Church and Genadendal community. Both my parents have since passed on and my mother is buried in Genadendal, a stone’s throw from my house there. My father is buried on the mission station, Mamre, where he served as a school principal and pastor.

GENADENDAL HISTORY

When the Dutch East India Company started their refreshment station at the Cape in 1652, the intention was not to start a permanent settlement. A bartering system was used to get cattle from the indigenous Khoikhoi for the supply of fresh meat to the ships. (Boonzaier et al, 1996). However this was not very reliable because the Khoikhoi were reluctant to give up their cattle. When the decision to settle here became a fact, the demand for agricultural

11 land and livestock grew, leading to clashes with the Khoikhoi. Slaves were imported to meet the demand for cheap labour. Within a hundred years the Khoikhoi were stripped off their land and because of European diseases like small pox, that were brought to Africa by the settlers, their numbers dwindled. Tribal life disintegrated and many became virtual slaves on farms. (Boonzaier et al; 1996).

In 1737 a German missionary, George Schmidt, arrived in South Africa to bring Christianity to the indigenous population. After delays with his work permit, he was finally granted permission by the Cape authorities who did not believe that he would succeed in his work. (Kruger, 1966). At first he started working with a group near Soetmelksvlei but later moved to Baviaanskloof which would become known as Genadendal. Other Khoikhoi from surrounding area moved to Baviaanskloof and soon he had a flock of 28 people. (Kruger, 1966, p.22).

Schmidt experienced a lot of opposition from the Cape Dutch Reformed church and the surrounding farmers. They did not believe that the heathen Khoikhoi should be taught to read and write. They needed labourers on their farms. Khoikhoi labourers started leaving the farms and moved to Baviaanskloof. Schmidt then began to baptise his converts, which led to great dissatisfaction among the Cape Dutch Reformed clergy. According to them, Schmidt was not an ordained minister and so was not permitted to administer the sacraments. Consequently he had to abandon his work, and in 1744, after seven years at Baviaanskloof, he left the country. He left behind forty-seven converts. (Bredekamp et al; 1992).

Fifty years later three missionaries, Marsveld, Schwinn and Khunel, arrived to continue Schmidt’s work at Baviaanskloof. They were amazed to find an old woman, mother Lena who had been one of Schmidt’s early Khoikhoi converts and had continued the missionary work. When Marsveld and company arrived, mother Lena could show them the small Bible that had been a gift from Schmidt and which she used to carry on her work as an evangelist. This Bible can still be seen in the local museum. (Kruger, 1966, p.52).

The missionaries battled to hold onto the land and despite many attempts by settler farmers to take control over the land, they managed to preserve it as a mission post. Throughout the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries Baviaanskloof became a safe haven for the region’s Khoikhoi and freed slaves. (Bredekamp, 1995, p.52).

Noteworthy developments took place in the early nineteenth century and Governor Janssens, after his visit in 1806, decided to change the name of the mission from Baviaanskloof to Genadendal (Balie, 1998). What we see in Genadendal today is the legacy of that work. The quaint little historical village just five kilometres outside of Greyton is described as the oldest Moravian mission village on the continent. During the eighteenth century it served as an example for other mission towns to follow.

During the 1790’s Genadendal went through its golden era. It had thriving industries, and a growing population making it the second biggest town in South Africa after Cape Town. It had a watermill and most farmers in the region came to Genadendal to mill their wheat. Genadendal also became famous even in Europe for its knives called Hernutters (Kruger, 1966). Some of these can still be seen in the local museum. They also started a training college for indigenous teachers – a first in the country. (Kruger, 1966, p.131).

Today parts of the village are still reminiscent of the past. In some streets the black- thatched white-walled cottages can still be seen. Some of these houses have been restored as part of a project funded by the Dutch government. The old water mill still grinds wheat. An old bell, formerly used to summon people to the church, children to the school, and to signal the beginning and end of shifts for workers in the fields, has been proclaimed an historical monument.

Soon after becoming president of South Africa, Nelson Mandela paid a visit to Genadendal. He was so impressed with the village and its legacy of culture and history that he renamed the presidential residence in Cape Town, Genadendal. (Du Preez et al; 2009, p.vii). In the film I try to point out the significance of the whole village as a national heritage treasure. Genadendal is not an ordinary town or village, it’s a national treasure and its preservation for generations to come is in the interest of the whole South Africa. The film Coming Home attempts to drive home this point. Given this rich history, I tried to paint a picture of a community in transformation and the reason behind the passion of the residents in keeping this land and preserving its cultural heritage. To document this in a film is not easy and I had to consult various film theorists to find a proper approach to the making of “Coming Home”.

CHAPTER 3

MAINTAINING FAIRNESS DESPITE BIAS

The focus of this chapter is to explore existing perspectives on fairness and objectivity in documentary filmmaking and to analyse how other filmmakers have dealt with their own position within their documentary films. The aim is to address the central research question of this study, in other words: how can a filmmaker making a film about a topic he is involved in maintain fairness in his representation of both sides of the story?

In order to engage in a discourse on objectivity and bias in documentary filmmaking it is important to first explore the definition of documentary filmmaking. In his book Introduction to Documentary, Bill Nichols describes it as an ever-changing chameleon. (Nichols, 2001). It is certainly possible to argue that documentary film has never had one commonly accepted, very precise definition. It remains common today to revert to some version of John Grierson’s definition of documentary, first proposed in the 1930’s as the “creative treatment of reality”. (Nichols, 2001, p. 24). This view acknowledges that documentaries are creative endeavours and already casts a shadow on objectivity or non- interference by the filmmaker. (Nichols, 2001).

Michael Rabiger talks about the objectivity as something devised by journalists who originally used it as a safe passage through possible lawsuits, and out of fear of being proved wrong (Rabiger, 1992). This is still very true today especially in the case of news documentaries. The journalist or filmmaker would present both sides of the issue, attribute every statement that he or she wants to make to someone else, and seemingly let the audience decide. They would carefully select characters and experts to camouflage all opinion as that of others and ostensibly present a balanced view. This deception has created audience perceptions that non-fiction films are objective. Rabiger says nothing could be further from the truth. He says too many choices, such as what to shoot, and how to use the material in the editing process, can taint objectivity. (Rabiger, 1992, p.8).

Every documentary film has a “voice”. Bill Nichols says just like an orator or public speaker who uses his entire body to give voice to a particular perspective, documentaries speak with all the means at their disposal. (Nichols, 2001). In the film Roger and Me, for example, director Michael Moore tells us about the layoffs at Flint, Michigan and his attempts to speak to the General Motors CEO Roger Smith about it. Moore himself is from Flint Michigan and he is clearly biased. Moore uses everything at his disposal including music, clever editing, his own working class image, his own narration, and even the manipulation of chronology of events to give voice to his perspective. The most explicit form of voice is the spoken word and in this film Moore states his position particularly through narration. This is not the omniscient, Voice-of-God narration established in the early years of the documentary through the expository mode of representation. (Nichols, 2001, p.47). It is personal and according to Nichols:

... is a voice that addresses us directly, it lays out its point of view explicitly ... the voice of direct address proposes a position that says, in effect, see it this way. ... its tone provides us with a ready-made point of view to which we will, it is hoped, subscribe (Nichols, 2001, p. 47/48).

Critics like Harlan Jacobson from Film Comment and Pauline Kael, the New Yorker film critic, led a scathing attack on Moore’s film. Here are a few of the points they make: Ronald Reagan visited Flint as a candidate and not as president, as the film suggests; the massive boondoggle of the Auto World amusement park opened and closed before the big GM layoffs, and was not built in response to them; and closer to 10,000 jobs were lost in Flint, not 30,000. (Bernard, 2007). In Moore’s defence the well known film critic Roger Ebert wrote:

I liked it because it felt like Michael Moore was getting away with something. He was thumbing his nose at GM, he was taking cheap shots, he knew it, we knew it, and it was about time.” (Ebert, 1990, para. 7).

Ebert also wrote that there is no such thing as a truly objective, factual documentary. All documentaries manipulate factual material in order to make a point. (Ebert, 1990, para. 11).

Sheila Curran Bernard was not so sympathetic with regards to Moore playing loosely with the facts. Bernard says: “The power of documentaries comes from their veracity, and it’s undermined if people discover that in the interest of a compelling argument, they’ve been misled”. (Bernard, 2007, p.80).

In the film Coming Home, as filmmaker I function as the orator. Just like Moore I’m campaigning for a particular viewpoint. I make use of sound, music, images, my own appearance and narration to make that point. I hope that people will see it my way. However I make it clear from the start that it is my way. I do not take cheap shots at the municipality, though there were plenty of opportunities. In my opinion the interview was fair because the municipality was given enough time to prepare and in the final edit although they were given fifty percent less airtime, it contained the crux of their argument. Nothing that they said that could contribute to further their case was left out.

Stella Bruzzi in her book New Documentary wrote about the use of narration as a tool to influence audiences. She analyses two films, World at War(1973), and The Times of Harvey Milk(1984). She found that the narration used in the World at War “maintains a semblance of instructional objectivity”, whereas “the degree of bias in Harvey Milk is evident throughout” (Bruzzi, 2006, p. 56). She however argues that the filmmaker can use narration to persuade but not necessarily change the facts in the story. (Bruzzi, 2006, p.56). From this I concluded that using a narrator does not necessarily mean that the facts won’t be correct. Narration is a storytelling tool and is used as such in my film to clarify things and to personalise the film. I speak about what it feels like to be living there, and try to explain the pride of the people in their rich heritage.

Nichols analysed documentaries and identified different modes of documentary filmmaking (Nichols, 2010). Modes often overlap and some films are examples of different modes. Participatory documentary is the mode that best describes the films of Michael Moore and to some extent the films of Nick Broomfield and Louis Theroux. My film about the land process in Genadendal is also an example of the Participatory mode.

Nichols describes Participatory documentary as giving the viewer a sense of what it’s like to be in a given situation and how that situation alters as a result. We view the documentary with an expectation of the representative to actively engage with others,

16 rather than observing, and argumentatively assembling what others say and do. “The filmmaker steps out from behind the cloak and of voice-over commentary, steps down from a fly-on-the-wall perch, and becomes a social actor (almost) like any other”. (Nichols, 2001, p. 116).

When inviting people to participate in a documentary film, one rarely has an idea of how they will be used, how they will come across, and how much of their interview you are going to use. Given such a shadowy outcome, films can only be made on the basis of trust. (Rabiger, 1992, p.308). It is up to the producer to assess the risk of particular individuals and make them aware of it. Often filmmakers do not do this. In my own experience we often hear someone say something that would contribute greatly to the film, but we know that it could get this person in trouble at work or in the community for making those statements. Rabiger cautions against this saying if you find someone runs an undeserved risk, you should explore it with them before including it in the film. (Rabiger, 1992, p.308). In my film, I tried my best to explain to participants how their contribution will be used. In the case of the interview with the municipality, the mayor did not want to speak on camera. He brought the lawyer to do the talking. I agreed to this. He sat next to the lawyer and during the interview he started to participate. I knew that his comments were vital to the film and added greatly to the emotions around the issue. I felt that since I adequately explained every aspect of the film to them, and the fact that the camera was rolling and everyone was aware of the fact, I could use the mayor’s comments. He also did not ask me to cut his comments from the film. I felt that there was no personal risk for the mayor if I use his comments, and that he merely gave his opinion in very complex matter.

Sheila Bernard calls the process of finding people to participate in your film, “casting”. Decisions on who will be filmed, how they will be chosen, and what they’re expected to contribute to the storytelling are important (Bernard, 2007, p.129). Bernard says balancing the point of view of a film does not mean simply presenting two opposite sides. Two opposing sides talking past each other do not lead to understanding the issue (Bernard, 2007, p.133). In the Genadendal film, the opposing views, however, show the complexity of the issue. The Genadendal community says town establishment never took place and there is no proof of it. The Theewaterskloof municipality says town establishment took place although they don’t have a date or documents to prove it. I don’t think it was unfair to use

17 this argument in the film, because it makes an important point in the film in my opinion, that town establishment never took place, but that it was built on an assumption and perpetuated by government institutions.

The ambush interview is widely practiced by shows like CBS‘s 60 Minutes, and local SABC’s Special Assignment. Michael Moore uses it in almost all his films and for some it borders on unethical behaviour. Moore often ambushes people who are not prepared for the interview. A fierce critic of Moore’s, David T. Hardy, in his analysis of the film Bowling for Columbine cites the interview with the elderly Charlton Heston as an example of Moore’s deception. In order to prove his point that the National Rifle Association was insensitive towards victims of gun violence in America, Moore carefully sets up an unprepared Charlton Heston for an interview. In 2000, a little girl, Kayla Rolland was killed by a classmate near Flint, Michigan on February 29. On October 17, months after this event an election rally was held by Heston in Flint. In the film, by clever editing and manipulation of soundbites, Moore creates the impression that it was a pro-gun rally in response to the shooting and that it was held 48 hours after the tragedy when in fact it happened 8 months after the shooting (Hardy, 2003). In the film Moore narrates: "Just as he did after the Columbine shooting, Charlton Heston showed up in Flint, to have a big pro-gun rally" (Bowling for Columbine, 2002).

Moore then proceeds with an interview with Heston. It is clear that during the interview, Heston is not sure about when the rally was held and cannot really recall the tragedy of the young girl that was shot (Hardy, 2003, point 2C). Moore, who obviously had plenty of time to prepare, asks Heston: “After that happened you came to Flint to hold a big rally and ... did you feel it was being at all insensitive to the fact that this community had just gone through this tragedy?" Moore continues, "you think you'd like to apologize to the people in Flint for coming and doing that at that time?" (Bowling for Columbine, 2002).

I agree with Hardy that parts of the interview were deceptive and exploitive. Especially the lingering camera shot of Heston shuffling off and Moore showing the picture of the dead child, calling out to Heston, and then placing it at the foot of a pillar on the Heston property. What could have been a very powerful moment is destroyed by the deception and the false context that was deliberately created (Bowling for Columbine, 2002).

In the film Roger and Me (1989), Moore does a similar thing when he interviews Miss Michigan about the economic conditions in Flint, Michigan. She obviously has no authoritative knowledge of plant closings and the global economy. Nichols questions Moore’s action ethically:

Is it all right to make Miss Michigan look foolish by asking for her opinion about local economic conditions in order to mock the irrelevance of beauty pageants to the damage caused by automotive plant shutdowns in Flint, as Michael Moore does in one scene from Roger and Me? (Nichols, 2001, p. 11).

Miss Michigan is not at fault for the closing of the plants but he makes her look dumb. This ploy backfires in my opinion and the whole interview makes Moore appear callous, arrogant and insensitive. In the film, Coming Home I door stepped the unsuspecting officials at the information centre in Greyton. This scene was significantly cut because it did not really contribute to the overall message in the film. Moore could well have left Miss Michigan out of the story and approached the Heston interview without the manipulation of time and facts and still conveyed a powerful message.

P.O.V., a series on PBS in the US and a showcase of non-fiction filmmaking, claims to air only well researched, fair and accurate documentaries. Cara Mertes, executive producer of P.O.V., wrote in an article published in the Nieman report of 2001, that the show was created in recognition of the power that nonfiction film has in promoting civic dialogue and around controversial issues of common concern (Mertes, 2001, para. 12). One of its films, Scout’s Honor (2001), was heavily criticised as being biased. The film documented the work of twelve year old Steven Cozza who cofounded an organization working to change the stated Boy Scout policy of excluding openly gay members. Conservative groups questioned the message of the film as propaganda. Apparently the filmmaker repeatedly approached the Boy Scouts but they refused to comment. Mertes explains that P.O.V. and PBS accepted the film precisely on its merits as a fairly and accurately compiled story. It is a thoroughly researched, well-documented piece, and the filmmaker had approached the Boy Scouts numerous times requesting an interview, but was refused (Mertes, 2001, para. 14). According to Mertes, Shephard employed high standards of journalism, which involved thorough research, and sensitivity to interviewees. According to Shephard, in the article, the

19 test of fairness and accuracy is in how the filmmaker presents the collected material and whether it fairly portrays the position of the characters and events used in the film (Mertes, 2001, para. 14).

A film by Toby McLeod, In the Light of Reverence (2001), is also hailed by Mertes as a carefully crafted film. McLeod’s film covers a controversy over the use of lands sacred to the Native tribes. The film makes it clear that its goal is to educate non-Natives about Native concerns. According to McLeod his goal was to report a complex story of clashing world views accurately and fairly. He feels that he portrayed both sides but was committed to clearly expressing the Native-American point of view, which caused some critics to call it a ‘sympathetic treatment’ (Mertes, 2001, para. 16).

Both films overall, because of choice of characters and treatment, show support for a particular interpretation of events, however, these techniques draw the viewer in for further debate. Mertes says: “... a point-of-view documentary is an incredibly powerful tool to bring people to stories and experiences they would otherwise never be exposed to...”. She says these stories often move people emotionally causing them to re-examine previous assumptions and attitudes (Mertes, 2001, para. 17). It is for this reason that I chose to produce Coming Home as a point of view film.

In planning a style for Coming Home I decided to build it around the principle of fairness. I committed myself to express both sides accurately, yet take great pains in explaining the position of the residents of Genadendal.

CHAPTER 4

DESIGNING COMING HOME

EXISTING APPROACHES TO MAINTAINING FAIRNESS

To find a filmmaking approach for Coming Home that would allow me to be part of the story while maintaining fairness, I had to break with lifelong learned traditions and habits in making films. I honed my craft as journalist during my more than four years in the US, studying and working as video journalist, and then seventeen years at SABC News, first as reporter and camera person and later as producer and executive producer for the program Special Assignment. I have produced and executive produced more than a hundred news documentaries. In this context, programmes or films had to follow a particular style guided by the SABC code of conduct and ethics. This code of conduct is also reflected in the guidelines of the BBC. The BBC is committed to striving for accuracy. In its editorial guidelines it says:

Accuracy is not simply a matter of getting facts right. If an issue is controversial, relevant opinions as well as facts may need to be considered. When necessary, all the relevant facts and information should also be weighed to get at the truth (BBC, 2014: Section 3.1).

According to the BBC and SABC, films have to stand the test of accuracy, balance and truth. Films have to be based on thorough research and Special Assignment producers, for example, are usually given two weeks to research a film. Producers had to give subjects accused of wrongdoing ample time to respond. Every fact needed to be corroborated by more than two different sources. Under my watch we were only found guilty once of unethical conduct by the Broadcasting Complaints Commission of South Africa, for a film that accused a certain UCT music professor of being a paedophile who sexually abused street children. The film was found to be biased, defamatory and that the SABC had been negligent in broadcasting it. In the film the producer ambushed the professor by lying to him about who she worked for and about the nature of the interview. I took the advice from two SABC lawyers who were convinced that we could defend the allegations of defamation with public

21 interest and based on that we decided to broadcast. It proved to be the wrong decision. In retrospect, I have to admit that the film was not fair even if he was guilty. This, and similar experiences, made me very sensitive to adhere to high standards of journalism. My past experience, however, was predominantly limited to situations where the filmmaker is not directly involved in the subject matter of the film. In addition to relying on my years of broadcast television production experience, I had to therefore reflect critically on my role and position as filmmaker before and during the making of Coming Home.

The following checklist and criteria based on BBC guidelines are useful in testing fairness in documentaries. The film Coming Home was produced while striving to adhere to these principles. (BBC, (2014). Editorial Guidelines.www.bbc.co.uk.).

 Conduct thorough research.  Gather material using first hand sources wherever possible.  Check and cross check facts.  Validate the authenticity of documentary evidence and digital material.  Corroborate claims and allegations made by contributors wherever possible.  Explain to contributors why they are asked to contribute.  Explain the context it will be used in and ask for consent.  Use the contributions in all fairness. Do not edit out vital points from those contributions that do not support your own opinion or hypothesis.  When the film contains damaging critique against an individual or institution, those criticised should be given a "right of reply", that is, given a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations.  Do not mislead audience with production techniques. Commentary and editing or camera angles must never be used to give audience a misleading impression of an event, e.g. Staging events without informing the audience.  Statistics and risks should be reported in context.

As investigative reporter, a particular viewpoint is hidden by carefully selected interviewees. Both sides are presented but it is always clear whose story it is, and the filmmaker guides the audience to who they should care for; a poor family who are fighting eviction from their home; the rape victim dealing with trauma; the employee fighting a big corporation from unfair dismissal; the community who is fighting the big company responsible for polluting their drinking water. In making Coming Home, I had to break from my comfort zone. I had to make the choice to participate in the film as character and as

22 storyteller. I could not find another character who could drive the whole film. I decided that I would be perfectly suited as a character since as resident I’m also directly affected by the decisions around Genadendal. That meant appearing on camera and directly engaging the audience, something I’m not comfortable with. I have always managed to hide behind the camera. It also meant showing a clear bias or admitting that I have a particular viewpoint. Just like McLeod’s film In the Light of Reverence (P.O.V. 2001) it is about explaining clashing world views.

In choosing a format I started researching other films, looking at different forms. In developing a narrative spine for the film I realised that it all points to my personal experience and journey home. This could be my “train” as many filmmakers call it. Shiela Curran Bernard in her book, Documentary Storytelling, writes: “The train is the element of story that drives your film forward, from the beginning to the end” (Bernard, 2007, p.17). By placing myself in the film I could use myself as the train. I visit the different characters in the film, for example my visit to the old shopkeeper Mr Adonis. I also attend the different cultural events, such as Kinderfees, the Easter Sunday sunrise service and others.

I found inspiration in the writings of the American scholar Joseph Campbell. He wrote The Hero’s Journey, in which he describes a pattern of narrative that appears in drama, storytelling, myth, religious ritual, and psychological development. (Campbell, J. 1994). It describes the typical adventure of the archetype known as “The Hero”, the person who goes out and achieves great deeds on behalf of the group, tribe, or civilization. Modern writers like Christopher Vogler adapted Campbell’s structure where he explains the journey in a screenwriter-friendly way.

He breaks it down into the twelve following steps. Heroes are introduced in the ORDINARY WORLD, where they receive the CALL TO ADVENTURE. They are RELUCTANT at first or REFUSE THE CALL, but are encouraged by a MENTOR to CROSS THE FIRST THRESHOLD and enter the Special World, where they encounter TESTS, ALLIES, and ENEMIES. They APPROACH THE INMOST CAVE, crossing a second threshold where they endure the ORDEAL. They take possession of their REWARD and are pursued on THE ROAD BACK to the Ordinary World. They cross the third threshold, experience a RESURRECTION, and are transformed by

23 the experience. They RETURN WITH THE ELIXER, a boon or treasure to benefit the Ordinary World (Vogler, 2007).

As soon as I started formulating my approach to the film, I came to the realisation that this film is in essence my journey. I am the “hero” who goes out and achieves great deeds on behalf of my “tribe”, the Genadendal residents. At first I received the “call”, and I refused to get involved with the plight of the fight for the land. I also fought with the idea of using myself in the film as a character. I also encountered “tests, allies and enemies” in the form of existing perceptions, town residents, and municipal representatives respectively. Together with the residents, I experienced the irrational billing from the municipality. We saw how Genadendal land is advertised on the internet. One farmer, for example, wants to build a complex for his workers on Genadendal land. An “ally” came in the form of the representative of Rural Development, Lionel Beerwinkel , who explained the issues and provided clarity with regards to whether Genadendal is trust land or not. The “ordeal” in the “inner cave” was my experience when we waited for the outcome of a report that would state whether Genadendal is a town or not. The “resurrection” is when the report came out. There is no proof that Genadendal ever received town status and therefore it is trust land and cannot be sold to individuals. In the end I “return with the treasure or the elixir” (the film) that will benefit the Ordinary World.

During my research I watched films by other filmmakers who appear in their own films to find inspiration for the style for my film. In films by Michael Moore he often uses himself and his journey in finding the truth as the “train” of the film. In his Oscar – winning film Bowling for Columbine he uses his search for the truth around America’s obsession with guns and the high level of gun violence, as opposed to other Western nations, as a narrative spine. Moore uses a hybrid form of expository and interactive styles. He narrates the film and drives exposition while he also interacts with his characters on screen.

I also looked at the later work of Nick Broomfield. His work is a good example of what the theorist Bill Nichols calls performative and participatory modes of representation. Nichols, B. (2001). It wasn’t until 1988 that Broomfield first appeared on camera in his film Driving me Crazy. He did this to show the process of making the film with all its associated problems such as failed interviews.

Louis Theroux works in the participatory mode of documentary filmmaking. In one of his films called Law and Disorder in Johannesburg, about the crime situation in Johannesburg, he immerses himself in the city’s underworld. I was inspired by the style and ease with which he deals with the people he interviews. I studied his style of interviewing in particular. It appears as if he befriends his subjects and then uses his charm to get them to reveal to him more than they would to the normal journalist. In one scene he seems to get on well with the taxi boss. The subject is all smiles and takes Theroux around and even to his house. He gives him great access. It seems as if the friendship is genuine with Theroux asking almost any question. The taxi boss talks openly about how they beat crime suspects until they confess to their crimes. He even allows Theroux to film one suspect that was caught. After working for years in Johannesburg underworld, I have first-hand knowledge of how difficult it is to gain access to that world with a camera unless the subject is paid. In many cases it would have to be done with a hidden camera. His interview technique was influential in how I approached interviewing the representatives from the municipality.

Both of these filmmakers are outsiders examining the “other”. In my case I’m not an outsider, but I’m also not entirely an insider. I was not born in Genadendal but partly grew up in the village. I do, however, have strong family connections in the village. In one scene the old shopkeeper remembers how I came to his shop as a child. My interview with the aging shopkeeper is therefore quite easy. He trusts me, which makes my task a lot easier than that of other filmmakers who are outsiders. The interview with the Theewaterskloof Municipality was a different story.

In Genadendal the conflict is between the Theewaterskloof Municipality and the Genadendal Transformation committee. In 2010, I tried to interview the municipality for months, but without success. It was only on my second request in 2013 that I was successful and they agreed to be interviewed. It is not clear why they agreed to do it then. I was pleasantly surprised when they asked me to be at their offices on the day that I requested. I suspected that they wanted to tell their side of the story after what they perceived as a barrage of unfavourable media reports.

On the day of the interview I had to put them at ease by having a friendly chat at first. Before the cameras started rolling we spoke about trivial matters. I then explained that

25 the film was specifically made to clear the air and give everyone a chance to state their case. By this time it seemed as if the atmosphere was quite relaxed and we proceeded with the interview. I definitely here drew from my own years of experience and also the influence of the style of Louis Theroux. I asked the difficult questions and it all went well.

CHAPTER 5

THE DOCUMENTARY FILM PRODUCTION: COMING HOME

In this chapter I will provide an overview of the production of Coming Home. I used this film as a case study to apply the learning I gained from my literature review and analysis of existing documentary films. The checklist and criteria for testing fairness in documentaries provided in the previous chapter were applied throughout pre-production, production and post- production.

Synopsis of Coming home

Television journalist Johann Abrahams, a Khoikhoi descendant, returns home to his roots in a small mission village called Genadendal in the Western Cape. The documentary film is set in the picturesque Overberg, nestling at the foot of the Sondereinde mountain range. Over the centuries, the small community fought European settlers, colonial and Apartheid governments to preserve their culture and ownership of their land. On his return Johann finds that this fight is far from over, and that residents are locked in a legal battle with the district municipality who are selling off Genadendal land in an open market. He joins the residents’ last stand against forces threatening a cultural heritage on the brink of extinction.

Production notes

This was a low budget film since I had to fund everything myself, with some support from UCT. The production period spanned over a year from Christmas 2012 to around October 2013. It was shot by a friend, Clinton Nefdt and me. Clinton has about two years experience working mostly as my camera assistant on professional shoots. We used a SONY NX 5E shooting 16:9 on High Definition on 25 progressive frames. Most of the material was gathered over weekends and during events in Genadendal such as Christmas, Easter weekend, Kinderfees (children’s festival), and the brass band festival.

Declaring bias & interview approach

From the very beginning I introduced myself to all parties featured in the film and stated the purpose and focus of the film. I am also known by both parties and everyone knew that I was a resident in Genadendal. I explained that the film would air the views of both parties but that it would also be about the importance of Genadendal as a cultural heritage site. During the edit I selected sound clips from the interviews that clearly stated the opinions of both. There is no door stepping of anyone or attempts to make anyone look foolish. Both parties received questions in advance. The Theewaterskloof Municipality had more than a week to prepare for the interview. I requested to speak to the mayor, Chris Punt. He brought an advocate with him to clarify some of the issues. I used the advocate’s responses extensively in the edit. The formal interview with the Transformation committee was done with three members, one being the main spokesperson.

Cinematography & location sound recording

The film was shot electronic news gathering (ENG) style and we used conventional broadcast documentary techniques. Camera angles during the interviews with both municipality and transformation committee members were at eye level. I did not want to manipulate and make the transformation committee members looking more powerful by using a low angle. Also I did not use a higher angle to make the municipal officials smaller and insignificant. The composition of the shots were similar for all the settings, combining wide, medium and close-ups.

Most of the film was shot with available light. But for the formal interviews I used a classic three point lighting setup with a key, fill and backlight for both parties. No dramatic lighting was used on any of the interviews. This would also make the interviews seem more natural. I did not use low light and dark shadows to portray the municipality in a negative light. Equal lighting was used for both parties.

I included myself in both interviews showing my presence. Sometimes I also included my questions or interjections, acknowledging my role as interviewer. This formal stylistic approach was adopted purposely to remove any aesthetic bias.

During the last part of the process we acquired a GoPro (a small, rugged, wide angle camera) that enabled us to do better shots of me driving towards Genadendal. Mostly Clinton would follow me around with the camera while I interacted with people in the village.

Editing

I could not afford an editor and had to do the editing myself. This was quite a daunting task. We shot hours and hours of material. My narrative focus was not very clear in the beginning and I tried to get everything on camera. As I narrowed my focus I started shooting less. I ended up with more than twenty hours of material.

In the editing process I juxtaposed the comments of the municipal advocate and the municipal mayor with those made by the Transformation committee members. It is a complex story and there is clearly a clash of different views and interpretation of different policies. I tried including all the main points made by the different parties. The primary disagreement between the two parties is the issue of whether Genadendal is trust land belonging collectively to all without title deeds, or whether town establishment took place.

In the final edit, and especially the sequence where I juxtapose the different viewpoints, the Genadendal residents were given more airtime (see graph below). The Genadendal contingent appears on screen for 225 seconds and the Municipality spokespersons for 113 seconds. Less time was given to the municipality than residents, but this was done because Genadendal resident needed more time to explain the history of the town and why they consider it to be trust land. The municipality only wanted to make the point that the Department of Human Settlements considers Genadendal to be a town and that is their key defence. In my opinion they were given a fair chance to state their case and I’ve included all the points they wanted to make.

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 RESIDENTS MUNICIPALITY

GRAPH

Other interviews with residents such as my cousin Olwyn Wessels, the local shopkeeper Christie Adonis, a butcher Anton Neethling, and a group of emerging farmers, were included to provide information about the way of life in Genadendal.

Sound

For sound recording we used a radio microphone on me or the subject and another Sennheiser 416 (also called a rifle microphone, for more directional work) for the field interviews.

The film makes use of local brass band music as well as recordings of the local church choir. This contributes to the feel of the story and of a town steeped in culture and history.

Some of the participants preferred to speak Afrikaans and were encouraged to do so in order to ensure that they express themselves clearly and authentically. English subtitles were added to those interviews in order to facilitate audience access to the information.

Voice & narration

I battled with the idea of using myself as a character. I am not an experienced presenter and I often feel uncomfortable in front of the camera. I consulted with colleagues and everyone felt that I was the perfect character to drive the story, both on camera and as narrator. My friend Clinton helped a great deal in filming all the scenes that I appear in. Together we watched films by Michael Moore, Louis Theroux, Nick Broomfield, and others so that he could get a feel for the style I was looking for. In two scenes, where I interacted with emerging farmers and the men busy slaughtering, he filmed it just the way I wanted it. The idea was for the camera to move and to seamlessly get myself and subjects on camera without the need to cut.

In the narration I carefully explain the different opinions in my own voice. I then go a little bit further and I explain in detail through various cultural events, and interviews, the ordinary resident’s point of view. This is clearly subjective and sympathetic to the cause of residents but in my opinion informative and giving the municipality and everyone else a space for their different perspectives. It also serves the purpose of explaining why Genadendal should be considered a national heritage site, and the need to preserve the whole town.

Narrative arch & conflict

I found it difficult to get any visible conflict in the film. By the time I started filming most of the conflict between the two parties was over. Between 2008 and 2010, Theewaterskloof municipality and the Genadendal Transformation committee, had a few confrontational meetings and court appearances. I obviously missed all those. By 2012 the municipality was already out of the picture, and negotiations were already underway to transfer the land to the community. However the municipality was still of the opinion that the Genadendal residential area is a town and not trust land. According to them the trust land is only the commonage, the gardens and agricultural land, around the town. They were therefore continuing to demand rates and taxes on land. The residents argue that the residential land is also trust land and commonly owned. They therefore don’t have to pay

31 rates and taxes to the municipality but rather into another account held by the Minister of Rural Development. I used these arguments to create conflict and to create turning points in the story line.

My other challenge was to build to a climax. The obvious climax to the story would be whether Genadendal would get their land back or not, but that decision is still pending. To build tension and a climax into the story, I used the Department of Rural Development’s decision to appoint a commission of inquiry to find out if Genadendal had town status or not. This could have far reaching implications. If the municipality could prove that town establishment took place, they could continue selling off plots of Genadendal residential land in an open market. Genadendal would become gentrified and another Greyton, a retiring village for rich foreigners, which would change the culture of the town forever. The report by the commission of inquiry became my climax, no evidence of town establishment could be found, and the denouement was the fact that the entire Genadendal, including the residential land, would be handed over to the residents for self-governance in 2014.

One of the scenes that I decided to change in the film on advice from my supervisor dr. Liani Maasdorp, was a confrontational scene with the local information office. I am very disappointed that the history of Genadendal is largely ignored in publications, travel brochures and coffee table books. I confronted a young woman who works at the information office and asked for historical information about Genadendal. She tried to avoid the camera and I proceeded to read the misinformation printed in a brochure straight to camera. This was done with the camera rolling and in retrospect I concurred that it was a bit unfair on the information officer, as she is not the person responsible for compiling the biased tourist information in the brochure, and this scene did not really add to the story.

THE RELEVANCE OF ‘COMING HOME’

For the most part the film investigates the current deadlock between the Theewaterskloof Municipality and the Genadendal Transformation Committee. The municipality does not see the entire village as trust land. They make a distinction between communal agricultural land surrounding the village and a separate residential area. They

32 view the residential area as a separate entity where they can demand property tax and where municipal laws and bylaws apply. Residents, fearful of gentrification, argue that the land, both residential and agricultural, belongs to everyone in the village. Individual ownership does not exist. The municipality spokesperson and mayor disagree saying town establishment took place. This has far reaching implications as some residents have already sold property to individuals who are not originally from Genadendal. The municipality allowed this despite knowledge of a moratorium on all such transactions. Some residents also refuse to pay for rates and tax claiming that they refuse to pay tax on land that they don’t own.

The film explores the reason behind the Genadendallers’, and my own, fiercely protective attitude towards the land. I look at the cultural heritage left behind by generations, and I can already see the erosion of those traditions. Easter weekend is not what it used to be. “Kinderfees” and the Christmas Eve services are poorly attended by the children. Economically the town is in decline. Most businesses are run by Somalian shopkeepers. One of the last remaining shopkeepers is old Oom Christie Adonis, who I interviewed in the film.

Since the arrival of the Dutch and other European settlers, the Khoikhoi who lived here along the Sondereinde River and elsewhere faced a battle to protect their land. The Moravian missionaries managed to secure the mission station for the last remaining Khoikhoi in the region. Within a few decades the first people of this region lost all their land and cattle.

The Transformation Committee on behalf of its residents is making this last stand to protect the land and the rich cultural heritage of this small community for the sake of its children and their descendants. The film will portray this point of view, and hopefully bring a better understanding of the issue to all parties involved. From an activist point of view it argues that this entire village should be granted heritage status.

CONCLUSION

This essay could serve as a roadmap for film students and young filmmakers in achieving accuracy and fairness when making films about topics they are personally involved with. It shows that despite having a clear bias, a filmmaker can still tell a truthful and ethical story. It also shows the importance of how the filmmaker presents material in the film.

In looking at the P.O.V series on PBS, I researched the importance of ethical and professional behaviour by the filmmaker. A film should be thoroughly researched and the characters fairly portrayed. Rabiger says since our profession exists only by virtue of the voluntary cooperation of participants, one should take great care to avoid exploitation, unless it cannot be helped and is for the greater good. Using the camera placement, choice of music, narration and editing in a subliminal way to influence the audience one way or another can easily be done, but is not necessary.

Stella Bruzzi shows us that the facts do not necessarily change when narrating your own film and that the power of documentaries comes from their veracity. Sophisticated audiences will see through deception and manipulation. It may entertain (as in the case of some of the films of Michael Moore) but it will not stand the test of fairness. Moore’s Bowling for Columbine lost a great deal of credibility after critics exposed blatant manipulations and disregards for facts.

My research shows that having a particular viewpoint and arguing that point by using personal narration, good choice of characters, and fair treatment of the material, can be powerful to stimulate further debate. Furthermore my list of criteria for fairness in documentary filmmaking should be a useful guide for young filmmakers striving to tell compelling stories from their own point of view. In the words of filmmaker Tom Shephard, ultimately the test of fairness and accuracy is in the material; how does the filmmaker present the material she researches and collects? (Mertes, 2001,p.14).

My list of criteria for fairness was used to guide me during the making of Coming Home, whether it was effective, can only be tested through the opinions of viewers when publicly screened. A suggestion for further research, therefore, is to conduct focus group interviews with a representative sample of viewers after a screening. I can only hope that

34 viewers will see it as fair, which is the ultimate test according to Michael Rabiger when he says “And *fairness+ ... more than objectivity—is, after all, what journalists and documentary filmmakers should strive to produce” (Rabiger, 2001, p.14).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Balie, I.H.T. (1998). Die Geskiedenis van Genadendal. Cape Town: Perskor.

Bernard, S. C. (2007). Documentary Storytelling. Making Stronger and More Dramatic Nonfiction Films. Amsterdam; Boston: Focal Press.

BBC, (2014). Editorial Guidelines.www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines.

Boonzaier, E. , Malherbe, C. , Berens, P. , & Smith, A. (1996). The Cape Herders. Cape Town: David Phillip Publishers.

Bruzzi, Stella.(2006). New Documentary. New York: Routledge .

Bredekamp, H.C. and Hatting. J.L. (eds).(1981).Das Tagebuch und die Briefe von Georg Schmidt. Bellville: University of the Western Cape.

Bredekamp, H.C., & Pluddemann, H.E.F. ,(ed) , (1999). The Genadendal Diaries, Bellville. University of the Western Cape.

Bredekamp, H.C. & Ross, R.(1995). Missions and Christianity in South African History. Johannesburg: Witwatersrand University Press.

Campbell, J. (1994). The Hero with a Thousand Faces. New York: MJF Books.

Du Preez, H., Van Oers, R., Roos, J., & Verhoef, L., (eds). (2009). The Challenge of Genadendal. Amsterdam: IOS Press.

Ebert, R. (1990). Attacks on Roger & Me completely miss point of film in Ebert.com, 11 February, 1990. http://rogerebert.com/attacks-on-roger-and-me-completely-miss-point-of- film

Genadendal Mission Museum, Baptismal Records, 1793 – 1805, 3/8 Microfilm Book 1.

Glasser, T. 1992. Objectivity and News Bias. In Cohen, E. (ed). Philosophical Issues in Journalism. New York: Oxford University Press: 174 - 178.

Hardy, D.T., Bowling for Columbine, Fact or Fiction, 2003. www.hardylaw.net/Truth about Bowling.

Krüger, B. (1966). The Pear Tree Blossoms. Genadendal: Moravian Book Depot.

Latrobe, C.I. (1818). Journal of a visit to South Africa. London: L.B. Seeley.

Marchelli, J.V.(1998). The Five C’s of Filmmaking. Los Angeles: Silman-James Press.

Mertes, C. (2001). Where Journalism and Television Documentary Meet in Nieman Reports, Sep 15, 1991. http://niemanreports.org/authors/cara-mertes.

Nichols, B. (1991). Representing Reality: Issues and Concepts in Documentary. Indiana: Indiana University Press.

Nichols, B. (1994). Blurred boundaries. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Nichols, B. (2001). Introduction to Documentary. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Rabiger, M. (2001). Documentary filmmakers decide how to present compelling evidence in Nieman Reports, Sept 15, 1991. http://niemanreports.org/authors/michael-rabiger

Rabiger, M. (1992). Directing the Documentary. Boston: Focal Press.

Rabiger, M. (2003). Directing. Film Techniques and Aesthetics. Amsterdam: Focal Press.

Snyman, A. (2007). Producing Documentaries: A Practical Guide. Pretoria: Van Schaik Publishers.

United Nations. (2007). Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Vogler, C. (1998). The Writers Journey. Studio City;CA: Michael Wiese Productions.

FILMOGRAPHY

Bowling for Columbine. 2002. Michael Moore. Alliance Atlantis Communications, Dog Eat Dog Films, Iconolatry Productions Inc. 120 min.

Chicken Ranch. 2007. Nick Broomfield. Central Independent Television. 74 min.

Driving me Crazy. 1988. Nick Broomfield. 58 min.

Fahrenheit 9/11. 2004. Michael Moore. Fellowship Adventure Group, Dog Eat Dog Films, Miramax Films. 122 min.

In the Light of Reverence. 2001. Toby McLeod. P.O.V Series. 73 min.

Kurt & Courtney. 1998. Nick Broomfield. Strength Ltd. 95 min.

Law and Disorder in Johannesburg. 2008. Louis Theroux. BBC. 60 minutes. Nanook of the North. 1922. Robert Flaherty. 79 min.

Roger & Me. 1989. Michael Moore. Dog Eat Dog Productions. Warner Bros. 91 min.

Scout’s Honor. 2001. Tom Shepard. Independent Television Service. 57min.

Super Size Me. 2004. Morgan Spurlock. Kathbur Pictures, Con, The, Studio On Hudson. 100 min.

The Uprising of Hangberg. 2010. Dylan Valley and Aryan Kaganof. 86 min.

The Times of Harvey Milk.1984. Robert Epstein. Black Sand Productions. 90 min.

World at War. 1973. Jeremy Isaacs. Thames Television. 26 x 52 min.