Shveta Raina
Thematic Essay
IR 180 (95)

Q. Is it possible to make a documentary about ‘big ideas'?

Based on discussion from 4/11/2007.

A.

The discussion between Gar Alperovitz and Andrew Jarecki in last week’s Global Media Lab prompted the question – “Is it possible to make a documentary about ‘big’ ideas?”

The reason this theme became especially central to the discussion was that Alperovitz wants to make a documentary about one such ‘big’, and rather abstract idea. He is pitching the idea of potential political reform and experiential development through grassroots movements that will collectively drive a systemic change in the coming years. Alperovitz has written a number of papers exploring his theme, which can be found at http://www.garalperovitz.com/gar_auth.htm and a very interesting working paper that discusses the paradigm of asset-based community-building and its relation to 21st century development, http://www.americabeyondcapitalism.com/;section=2&part=1.pdf. While he believes that America should have a future “beyond Capitalism”, it is unclear whether he can project his beliefs and ideas in a successful documentary.

Andrew Jarecki, on the other hand, seems to use a completely different approach to documentary film-making. In Capturing the Friedmans, he does not begin the movie with the intention of leaving the viewer with his ‘big idea’. In fact, I left the screening with the feeling that I was forced to think of my own conclusions to the documentary based on the evidence that was provided to me. No opinions were thrust upon me at all, instead both sides of the issue were presented, evidence was put forth, and the viewer was left to decide for himself whether the Friedman duo were guilty of some very heinous crimes.

The class seemed divided on whether a movie can be made about ‘big ideas’ like those of Alperovitz. I believe that a movie like this can be made. I have watched some brilliant movies that argue a certain point – and sell their point – knowing that about half the viewers will probably disagree with them. The reason that such movies do well is because people often go into a movie because they want to hear about somebody else’s viewpoint, and don’t want to actually come up with their own opinion. While Capturing the Friedman’s was an outstanding movie, it was a lot of work for me – both while I watched it and after I watched it – because it has left me to think a lot and make up my own mind on the issue. A specific idea about a certain kind of systemic change, as pitched by Alperovitz on the other hand, might leave a viewer to think, but perhaps could leave a viewer to act on the idea instead of ponder it. It could be ideal for a viewer that is tired of the status quo and is looking for change, is looking fort an ideology to mentally guide him out of the problems as he sees them and provide him with the necessary hope for action.

So to answer the question after providing some background, I would have to say yes. It is definitely possible to make a documentary about big ideas, even abstract ideas, because in order to make a movie you need a filmmaker who is excited about his ideas and an audience who wants to learn more about the idea. In most cases, you will have both. It is just a matter of what the motive of the filmmaker is – and if the idea has enough support.

As far as Alperovitz is concerned, it seems like he definitely has a clear picture of his idea. The issue is that he is not talking about a historical, or even a very current event. Instead, he is using his skills as a visionary to project a future occurrence that may or may not happen. This could definitely be made in a variety of ways, and the filmmaker could really get creative, in fact someone in the class even interpreted the futuristic angle as an indication that the movie should be a science fiction flick! However, I personally believe that someone like Alperovitz who is such an academic should not try and script the movie or decide on the exact medium to put his idea across himself. He should focus on developing his thesis, making it clearer within his mind and explaining it better to people around him, until this complex thesis is simple enough and easy enough to be put forth to the general public. And that is when he should bring in an experienced film producer/director and together they should work on the documentary. I believe this would work because academic papers are most successful when they pitch complex ideas that no-one has heard of before. However, it isn’t the same for documentaries. Even if they explore big ideas they should be able to touch every viewer and leave some sort of impression on him. This is important especially if the goal of this documentary, like many others, is to create awareness and perhaps spark action along the lines of the theory that it discusses.

I believe that there are many big ideas to talk about – and it is not only possible, but absolutely essential to make documentary films about them. Working with Rob Jensen and understanding his thesis on missing women has alternately shocked, stressed, confused and inspired me. I say shocked because I live in India, but I had absolutely no idea that the number of women missing was on such a large scale. And recently I read an article by Amartya Sen, dated December 20th, 1990, that already highlights this theme in great detail and explores it. I wished then that someone had looked into the future and made a film about what could happen if this problem was not contained, about why its happening and how we can stop it. Ultimately almost seventeen years later, we are still debating the same ‘big ideas,’ female infanticide and gender discrimination. With the television revolution sweeping through India and parts of South Asia, it seems like film is the medium to reach out to general people with about these big ideas, to use easily put a stop to unjust practices on a mass scale, to tell people that the world is changing – there is this world out there and it is very different than how you see it in your village where one in four girls is missing.

A major worry for a person making a documentary on big ideas though, is that ideas can be shot down, they can be ridiculed, they can be shelved, even before they have been fully understood, because people don’t like to listen too long if they have already decided that something is wasting their time. On the other hand, a documentary on an event, or a person, will have always have viewers unless it is really badly made. When it comes to ideas, people need proof, and they need explanation. It is not only the way the documentary has been made, but also in large part the content that is up for speculation, debate, and dreaded criticism. In class a few ideas were shot down before they had even been fully explained, perhaps because they seemed ‘contrived’ to a few. That is the danger of making a documentary about ideas – the story line will risk seeming contrived in order to pitch a certain idea.

Despite the above risk, and the need to combine an academic with an experienced filmmaker when making a documentary about big and abstract ideas, we still need to do these films. It’s because these ideas need to reach the general public so they are thinking, they are listening, they are aware and they are acting. And film is too widespread a medium to miss out on. So forget possible, I would conclude that it is imperative to make documentaries about big ideas. You just need a little conviction, a lot of courage, and a very thick skin.