The ethics of documentary film

The Melbourne International Film Festival, which begins today, will be screening a highly misleading and fictionalised film account of life in the Saharawi refugee camps in Algeria. The film screens, inexplicably, as a documentary.

This film, Stolen, vilifies its subjects, presents falsehoods as facts and insults a population of refugees who struggle under the shadow of a militarised occupation. It was funded by Screen Australia and its inherent fabrications are damaging Australia's image and cultural standing.

The young filmmakers of Stolen have "discovered", they said, widespread race-based slavery in the Saharawi refugee camps. These camps have existed since Morocco's abrupt, illegal invasion of Western Sahara in 1975. The people in them, the Saharawis, have been in an international limbo for a long time now.

The referendum on their independence that the United Nations promised them has been repeatedly postponed because of the Moroccan monarchy's political agenda, which is like that of many a previous as colonial power in Africa in the past two centuries.

Thousands of independent journalists, human rights organisations, and well-known world leaders have visited the refugee camps over the past three decades. The UNHCR has a permanent presence there. None of these varied witnesses have spotted any evidence of the slavery.

Not only has all such evidence been ignored, but those who are in a much better position to offer real insights have seen their words twisted, blurred and turned upside-down by the film-makers.

One such victim is Ursula Aboubacar a senior UNHCR official. Her interview was manipulated and included in the film without her clearance or informed consent.

More recently, the film's official translator, Oumar Sy, has backed away from the project, saying his corrections were ignored.

In his letter to the filmmakers he offers a detailed description of the young film-makers' bizarre methods.

He writes: "I did not certify that the translations, from Hassaniya into English of the final version of the film called "Stolen", directed by Ms Violeta Ayala and Mr Dan Fallshaw, and produced by Mr Tom Zubrycki, are correct".

According to an article published in the Sydney Morning Herald, on 13 July 2009, a "translator from Australia's National Accreditation Authority for Translators and Interpreters will check the film".

But NAATI confirmed to me on 16 July that there are "no accredited people for Hassaniyya" - the language spoken in the film. The organisation added "it is important to note that NAATI does not normally get involved in the provision of translating or interpreting services as we are only the national accrediting body".

I am quite certain the filmmakers will not rectify the wrong and invented subtitles, not only because there are so many of them, but also because those mistranslations go to the heart and substance of the film. Any changes of any of the subtitles will tend to destroy the whole film and its premise.

As an example of the invented subtitles:

The film subtitle says:

Fatma: There was nothing unusual about Deido taking Fetim. Deido is her master. And obviously controls her.

Correct translation: Bottom line, she is tracking the story of Fetim. Frankly, she thinks Deido owns her.

Embarka: Not true. (She doesn't own her).

Fatma: Fetim told me that someone told her [Violeta] that Deido kidnapped Fetim. But she did not kidnap her.

There are other such examples of startlingly incorrect translations in the film.

Screen Australia's Terms of Trade state that it "expects all successful applicants to act fairly and reasonably to third parties involved in their project. Fairness and reasonableness includes...respecting intellectual property of all relevant persons whether those rights be copyright, moral rights or indigenous rights".

The Saharawis interviewed in the film have been so distressed they have sought to have their appearances in the film removed. They have been ignored by the film-makers. Many of those interviewed did not give their informed consent or sign releases to use the material in which they are featured.

There are also verifiable examples of some scenes being faked or set up without proper notification.

In these instances, alone, it seems clear Screen Australia's own standards on fair and reasonable dealings have not been met.

A further issue for Screen Australia and the federal Arts department to consider is the connections that have developed between the film-makers and the Moroccan government, an undemocratic monarchy.

The storyline of Stolen includes an apparent "escape" and smuggling out of the tapes of the interviews. This stunt – no such escape was ever needed and the film fictionalises the events surrounding it – was aided by Moroccan diplomats (who, for instance, paid for the young film-makers' side trip to New York) and was done in return for their working, or so I believe, for Morocco's political advantage.

As such, we have a political plot-twist which does not seem to be in Screen Australia's brief and would not, presumably, be in Australia's wider interests in an era in which it is striving to seem less racist than in previous times.

Given the myriad of problems with this film, we believe its back story requires a serious investigation.

We have requested the federal Arts Minister Peter Garrett facilitate this.

Until informed conclusions are reached, the government should remove its imprint from the film.

We feel this can be done appropriately. We are not seeking to censor this film, or prevent any interested or curious person from seeing it as it is. We are simply raising our concerns that its fundamental content is false, that taxpayers funded it, and that it wears the Australian Government's imprimatur.

And we are asking that anyone viewing it should know how it was made – as a fiction, not a documentary, and as a fabrication not a legitimate, ethically-produced government-backed project.

The slavery allegation is libellous, and should be corrected and withdrawn.

ENDS

© Scoop Media