Colour Adjustment: Race and Representation in Post-Apartheid South African Documentary by Kristin Pichaske Thesis Presented for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in Film and Media Studies UNIVERSITY OF CAPE TOWN October 2009 Supervisor: Associate Professor Martin Botha ABSTRACT The goal of this dissertation is to examine the process of racial transformation within South Africa‘s documentary film industry and to assess how the nation‘s shifting identity is both influenced by and reflected in documentary film. Drawing examples from a diverse collection of local and international films, I have examined changes in who is making documentaries in South Africa and how, as well as the representations of race that result. In particular, I have focused on how the balance of insider vs. outsider storytelling may be shifting and to what effect. At the same time, I have qualitatively examined the representations produced by black/insider filmmakers as compared to those of white/outsider filmmakers in order to assess the impact of the filmmaker‘s racial status on outcomes. Finally, I have investigated ways in which the tradition of white-on- black storytelling must change in order to satisfy the political shift that has taken place in South Africa and the cultural sensitivities that have resulted. This study draws multiple conclusions: 1) Thanks largely to the legacies of apartheid, the already high barriers to entry into the documentary field are considerably higher for people of color in South Africa. For this and other reasons, black South Africans remain more often the subjects of documentaries than their makers. Overcoming this barrier must be a long- term priority, as it is the only means by which an equitable plurality of voices may reach South African audiences. 2) This persistence of racial inequity has fueled tensions throughout the industry. In particular, white filmmakers who seek to document black subjects face mounting criticism, regardless of the purity of their intentions or methods. These tensions are ultimately a burden on the industry as a whole, and the inability to look past race has inhibited progress. 3) While racial parity must remain the industry‘s ultimate goal, the intent, integrity, and approach of the filmmaker is ultimately a more significant determinant of representational accuracy than the color of his or her skin. In particular, the ii following three factors are critical to accurate and ethical representation, regardless of the socioeconomic status of the filmmaker vis-à-vis subject: a. First-person and/or reflexive approaches to documentary story-telling which help frame documentary narratives as subjective – i.e. representations of one filmmaker‘s viewpoint as opposed to objective representations of pure, unadulterated fact. b. The cultivation of meaningful relationships between filmmaker and subjects that endure beyond the scope of the project – the presence of which elevates the filmmaker‘s level of understanding and empathy toward his or her subjects, and also helps ensure a sense of responsibility for their long-term wellbeing. c. Collaboration between filmmakers and subjects such that subjects have greater agency in determining the construction of their images. This strategy helps to mitigate both concerns regarding power imbalance, and inaccuracies that may arise through the practice of outsider storytelling. iii Declaration I declare that this thesis is my own unaided work. It is submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the University of Cape Town. It has not been submitted before for any other degree or examination at any other university. Kristin Pichaske 15 October, 2008. iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Like any good documentary, this thesis was a collaborative effort. I owe a debt of gratitude to many individuals who coached, cajoled, advised and supported me throughout this process: To Mike Rahfaldt and Monica Patterson, for being present on that critical day in 2006 when I faced the decision of whether or not to embark on this journey. Thank you for pushing me in the right direction. To my father, who unwittingly taught me nearly everything I know about how to write, and inspired my journey into academia. To Ian Glenn, Leslie Marx, Anne Wegerhoff, and everyone else at the University of Cape Town who suffered through the nearly unbearable task of getting this foreign student registered for a Ph.D. To my advisor, Martin Botha, who not only provided critical ongoing feedback but also endured all manner of unforeseen consequences associated with advising a student who was often halfway around the world. To Michael Niederman and my fellow faculty at Columbia College Chicago for their patience and support, without which I could not have simultaneously survived my final year of doctoral studies and my first year as an assistant professor. To each of the dozens of filmmakers and industry professionals who contributed their time and insights to this study. And finally, to Tim O‘Callaghan, who has, no doubt, learned more than he ever wanted to know about documentary filmmaking in South Africa as a result of my obsessions, and without whose support and editorial services this thesis might not yet be finished. v CONTENTS ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................................... i ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................................ iv CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND, RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES 1.1 BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE ..................................................................................... 1 1.1.1 The Significance of Documentary in South Africa ..................................................... 1 1.1.2 An Industry Divided ................................................................................................... 2 1.1.3 The South African Documentary Maker‘s Dilemma .................................................. 4 1.1.4 A Scarcity of Existing Literature ............................................................................... 6 1.2 OBJECTIVES AND KEY QUESTIONS................................................................................ 7 1.2.1 Examining Historical and Contemporary Barriers to Transformation ........................ 7 1.2.2 Exploring Fundamental Theoretical Questions ......................................................... 8 1.2.3 Bridging Theory and Praxis ....................................................................................... 9 CHAPTER 2: APPROACH AND OUTLINE 2.1 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ......................................................................................... 10 2.1.1 Documentary ―Truth‖ ............................................................................................... 10 2.1.2 The Ethics of Representation .................................................................................. 12 2.1.3 Historical and Political Framework .......................................................................... 12 2.2 METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................... 15 2.2.1 Historical Overview and Industry Assessment ........................................................ 15 2.2.2 Selection of Films for Analysis ................................................................................ 17 2.2.3 Approach to Film Analysis ....................................................................................... 18 2.3 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................. 19 CHAPTER 3: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK: TRUTH, DOCUMENTARY AND NICHOLS’S MODES 3.1 DEFINING DOCUMENTARY ............................................................................................. 20 3.2 DEFINING TRUTH ............................................................................................................. 22 3.3 ON THE MAKING OF ―TRUTHFUL‖ DOCUMENTARIES: NICHOLS‘S MODES ............. 24 3.3.1 Expository Mode ...................................................................................................... 25 3.3.2 Observational Mode ................................................................................................ 26 3.3.3 Participatory Mode ................................................................................................... 30 3.3.4 Reflexive Mode ........................................................................................................ 34 3.3.5 Poetic Mode ............................................................................................................. 37 3.3.6 Performative Mode .................................................................................................. 38 3.4 MODES AND AUDIENCE EXPECTATIONS ..................................................................... 39 3.5 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................. 41 vi CHAPTER 4: ETHICAL FRAMEWORK: THE CHALLENGES OF DOCUMENTING THE OTHER 4.1 DOCUMENTARY AND THE ETHICS OF REPRESENTATION........................................ 44 4.2 LESSONS FROM ETHNOGRAPHY .................................................................................. 46 4.3 DOCUMENTING THE EXOTIC OTHER: HISTORICAL CONTEXT ................................. 47 4.3.1 The Origins of (Ethnographic) Film ......................................................................... 47