Because I'm a dramatist, I'm allowed to take liberties, but I want my films to be based in truth, and it's very important to me that the community we're focusing on is happy with the film. From an ethical point of view, that's everything.
I think I have an obligation, to the people who have consented to be in the film, to make a film that is fair to their experience. The editing of my films is a long and selective process. I do feel that when I cut a sequence, I have an obligation to the people who are in it, to cut it so that it fairly represents what I felt was going on at the time, in the original event. I don't try and cut it to meet the standards of a producer or a network or a television show.
Many filmmakers pretend that they never see anything, which has always seemed odd to me.
I always have said, you know it's not for me to forgive or to condemn, I'm a filmmaker.
Clive [Oppenheimer] and I figured out that I'm the only one probably in the film industry who is clinically sane. I say that as a joke, but there's a grain of truth to it. I'm not a stupid daredevil who jumps into the crater of the volcano to get the closest close-up, I'm not one of those. And you have to be aware that you have a crew with you and you are responsible.
I'll be vilified if I shoot a film in Toronto for New York. And rightfully so!
I have made 70 or so films. In all my films not a single actor, a single extra, was hurt. Not one. So statistics are on my side when I say I'm clinically sane.
Film is the manipulative medium par excellence. When you think back on the history of film and the 20th century, you see the propaganda that's been made. So there are moral demands on the director to treat the spectators as seriously as he or she takes himself and not to see them merely as victims that can be manipulated to whatever ends they have.
Audiences are smarter than ever; they know if filmmakers cheat an environment.
It is the responsibility of a director to introduce their politics in their films, and whether you like it or not your politics will be reflected unless you are an opportunist which some directors are.
Whatever films we make we should be honest in the genre we are making.
For me to play any true person in a film based on a true story, I always want to make sure that it doesn't mock and it certainly doesn't trivialize the events that took place.
Obviously you have a responsibility - one would like to think there is such a thing as ethics in filmmaking.
It's probably the last thing you think about when you're making a film is other people's problems. You're thinking about your problem, which is making the movie. But you do have a responsibility. You can't mess around with people's emotions.
If you're going to play a hooker in a movie, the movie has to have the perspective, of course, that it isn't such a great thing. Probably the only way to really play a hooker well is to believe you're doing something that's good. But at the same time, the movie can't have that point of view.
As a filmmaker, I'm interminably curious and nosy, but certain times you meet people and think, 'I don't want to push you too hard because I can see this is painful for you.'
As intelligent and responsible filmmakers, working in a free society, we have a duty to ensure that our chosen medium is a force for good. Especially in this ever-more complex and difficult world.
I think I take what you might call a B-movie story, deal with B-movie subjects, and I treat it as if it's an A-movie in terms of my approach, my crew, my actors, my ethics and so on. I guess that's my trademark or one of them, anyway!
I don't believe in objectivity. I observe the observer's paradox every moment I'm filming. Your presence is changing everything; there's no mistaking it. And you have a responsibility.
You work with the communities to make films. And you just don't go in and take over their territory.
I think that documentaries are bound by journalistic ethics, and I think they have the pressure of trying to entertain someone for 90 minutes. It's hard, but it's the same question no matter what you're doing. Every film I've done, I've approached it the same way with the same level of respect.
I'm from outside most of these worlds I'm focusing on, and I feel there's an ethical approach to making these kinds of films. My biggest fear is that if you paint your characters in, you could be doing them wrong.
People start realising that I'm a responsible filmmaker and I'm not going to run away with the budget or do anything stupid. I think it probably depends on the subject matter and it depends on who's producing and all those things. My hope is that I'll be allowed to carry on making films.
It feels dangerous when people say, 'Oh, Sean Baker focuses on marginalised people.' And offensive. As if I'm standing there with my planner thinking, 'OK, where's the next marginalised group I can make a movie about?'
