The New York Times put together an article that
suggested this decision re-ignites a debate over whether a documentary
filmmaker should have journalistic privileges or not.
In his interview with ArtsBeat Blog, Moore said, "Documentaries are a form of journalism."
The lawyer for Chevron, Randy M. Mastro, according to the New York Times, firmly believes that "Crude" should not be considered journalism. And, Mastro claimed that this decision is not about "the First Amendment" or journalistic privilege.
Mastro said, "This is about a plaintiffs' lawyer who decided he wanted to star in a movie and gave a sympathetic filmmaker extraordinary access to the plaintiffs' case and strategy."
Porter said of this statement, "The cynical dismissal of the film "Crude" as '...a case of a lawyer who decided he wanted to be a movie star' would be laughable if it were not so obviously disingenuous, self-serving and untrue."
A key problem is the fact that documentary filmmakers are expected to have subjects sign releases that they agree to appear in the film. With "Crude," pact agreements were actually formed between the filmmaker and the settlers and those agreements would clearly be violated if Chevron was able to use the footage for their own agenda.
What are documentary filmmakers supposed to do in the future if this stands? What will filmmakers need to look out for and do to protect themselves? What additional amount of self-censorship will filmmakers have to engage in?
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
