BTS Documentaries and Ethics
The purpose of music documentaries is usually to put a spotlight on a particular artist, band or major event, with an aim to cast a light into the behind the scenes. It can be intimate, offering fans a glimpse into the thoughts of their favorite artists. It can be expository, which is the main category of music documentaries, like No Direction Home, Gaga: Five Foot Two, Kurt Cobain: Montage of Heck, or it can take other shapes in order to tell a story differently than what is the norm, like Scorsese's Rolling Thunder Revue, a mockumentary that used footage from Renaldo and Clara, a film shot by Bob Dylan in the 70s while on tour, slightly altering some facts which would be caught on only by hardcore fans. Another example, which is a favorite of mine, would be 20.000 Days on Earth, which was a musical-documentary which portrayed a fictional day in the life of Nick Cave.
Turning to BTS now, their documentaries are expository, focusing on their tours, beginning with 2017. Burn the Stage is frankly quite relevant as compared to others as it was also the first one released. It's relevance is in showing the band on tour and also how they work. Not only that, it revealed on camera something which is absolutely normal, that is disagreement and honestly, it made it all more real. Not only that, it worked in terms of a documentary structure, that glimpse of conflict. Besides that, it showed some hardships and hard truths about the effect of such a tour and what a hectic work schedule can do to an individual. It's interesting to note that in the BTS case the purpose of a music documentary it's not the usual one. Fans don't really need to wait for it in order to find out more about the band, since BTS has had an online presence ever since the beginning, exposing part of their work life as much as they could. Either way, Burn the Stage had all the elements of a classic on the road documentary that managed to offer information that was not usually revealed up until then. I will not delve too much into the rest of the releases, as they're not at the same standard and over the years, not only it became a bit repetitive, it did not offer a ''realness'' like in the first one, a lot of footage was recycled, as it was used for other DVDs.
What my focus is on today is the question of ethics in documentary practices and I will talk about what was shown in Burn the Stage, specifically the parts of Jungkook getting sick, as this is an issue that was talked about a lot with many divisive opinions. My point stands for all similar instances in the BTS documentaries.
Documentary ethics is a very vast topic of discussion and a very complicated one, to say the least. A filmmaker has to think about what is considered to be necessary to get a story, how close can they get, is it ok to film some things, what impact it has on its subject, is it too intrusive? Or who benefits from it all? A filmmaker may say it benefits the subject or a certain community, depending on the topic, but it also benefits the filmmaker, as they can make money out of it, get some prestige if the documentary is part of film festivals, receives awards or it's shown on a major tv network. Or simply, money out of sold DVDs. There can be differences between what a filmmaker thinks and deems to be right, his subject and his audience. The first two can negotiate the lines of what is acceptable and come to an agreement and in some cases, a filmmaker spends years documenting, showing the subject what they have, what is their direction, getting their approval, while still maintaining artistic autonomy. It cannot be said the same thing when it comes to the audience, as there can be differences between what they think it's (un)ethical and the filmmaker's own position. I recommend this article that tackles this subject and the interesting part was the one that answered the question if the subject is to be treated differently, depending if they are average people of famous people:
“We say this to everyone at the beginning, we say you’re going to see this film before it’s done. You can see it when it can still be changed. We’re going to try to convince you that we need you in this movie; that it’s important for the story that it’s good for society in general to tell this story, and why your part of it is so important. At the end of the day, if I can’t convince you we’ll take you out of the movie.”
Quinn then went on to explain that the rules that apply to an average person, might not apply to someone who is already famous.
“If they’re already famous, they already have agency in the world,” Quinn said. “We want to get the facts right of course, and if it’s really something that bothers you or that you’re not happy with, you’re going to be listened to. But at the end of the day it has to be my decision.”
This doesn't mean there is a complete disregard towards someone just because they are famous, but the lines are drawn a bit differently when someone is a public figure and has consented to being filmed and appear in a documentary.
Now, how do all these ethical questions work on that particular part in Burn the Stage? When it comes to a documentary, in the best case scenario, the subjects consent to being filmed, they sign a contract. If there's something that should definitely not be seen, that part does not end up in the final cut or simply, not being filmed. As an audience, we have the outsider's point of view, which means we cannot possibly know what kind of discussions or agreements have taken place. The logical option is to understand that in that particular moment when Jungkook was sick, he more likely had not even payed attention to the camera as being intrusive. Not just because of the state he was in, but also because the camera is always there, ever since the beginning. If, after the entire situation, he would want that footage to not be included, he could have had the option to say so, but since that was not the case, we can assume that he consented to it. Of course we could come up with a bunch of scenarios, but that is too much speculation about information that we are simply not privy to so there's no point in going into that direction.
As I mentioned above, the way in which an audience perceives something shown in the documentary could be different than what was the filmmaker's intent, or in this case, also Big Hit. Before I proceed I would like to mention that when it comes to such situations we have to ask ourselves: is it gratuitous or it's there to reflect a reality? The purpose of the documentary was to show life on tour. It means that in such a work environment and given their profession, accidents can happen, people can get sick. It's not uncommon. And if the point is to show reality, then it makes sense that the decision was to film and include that particular situation. But why is there such a strong reaction to it? Is it because of the emotional connection fans have with the person being filmed? This is one answer and it's to be expected (I'm not judging it). Would this reaction be the same if the documentary was about a random average person? We should ask ourselves that, especially when we question intent because it's only fair that the audience as well can be aware of their own bias or preconceived notions.
