Making With

RESEARCH STATEMENT

Context

This work explores the process of creating a series of three short films for a group of village elders who call themselves “Attitude: Ageing Well in Clunes”, and how my practice changed to align with their philosophy of working “with” rather than working “for.” Using a creative practice research methodology approach, I interrogate my own experience as a filmmaker working with Attitude as I began to develop an understanding of what working “with” in filmmaking might mean in terms of production processes.

Research question

How does working “with” affect filmmaking processes?

Discussion

Making “with”

Attitude: Ageing Well in Clunes members were not interested in using a participatory mode where they would “take part in the data collection and analysis,” instead they were interested in “a role in setting the agenda of inquiry” (Brown 2021, 3). The Attitude working party saw me as the filmmaker, and my role in the working party was to bring that skill to the group and create the films. They were busy creating change in other ways, and, at the outset, did not feel disempowered or particularly voiceless. As a result, they did not want to be empowered to create films, they wanted me to create the films in consultation with them. Rather than calling this participatory filmmaking, I would say that this process is closer to co-creation. For Brenda Longfellow “co-creation acknowledges distinct areas of expertise” (2020, 59), where lived experience is valued as highly as the skills of the filmmaker. Filmmaking “with” also shares aims with “collaborative documentary practice” described by Arezou Zalipour and James Nicholson (2023) as an aim to chronicle as well as reflect and create works that express group ideas in a way that persuade officials. Where this project diverges from the collaborative documentary process, is that Attitude did not see the films as a persuasive tool, more as a tool for sharing ideas.

Interestingly, while the film became a type of co-creation project, the processes used were derived from radical notions of care (The Care Collective 2020) and informed by Attitude’s own philosophy. Care philosopher Joan Tronto uses the term “with” to define a process that “requires that caring needs and the ways in which they are met need to be consistent with democratic commitments to justice, equality, and freedom for all” (2013, 23). Essentially, for both Tronto and Attitude, “with” is a political and social form of caring with inbuilt reciprocity in the processes. “With” is used in other contexts by philosophers interested in care, for instance Haraway uses “with” to challenge existing interspecies relationships, where she is seeking to describe a process of “becoming-with each other in response-ability” (2016, 125). While Haraway is describing an interspecies relationship with a power imbalance, power imbalance is also found in the experiences of ageing, and her ideas can be applied. Haraway also notes that “It matters what stories make worlds, what worlds make stories” (2016, 12). Haraway recognises that the narrative we create is informed by our understanding of relationships and structures.

Joy Film

It was during the creation of this second out of three films that I was best able to create a work that is “filmmaking with.” From my perspective as the filmmaker, the Joy Film comes from a place of “care with” rather than “concern for.” I feel that for most of my documentary career I have made films that reveal a “concern for” rather than a “care with.” In this project, I was shifting my process to attempt to “care with” as a way of “making with.” What I mean by this is that I saw caring with as political in nature and that it needs to be social and dialogical in quality. The people I was “caring with” did not need to be participants in the strict sense of that term, as they were not interested in being involved in the recording of the footage, the creative decisions or the editing process. Instead, they set themes, underlying philosophies, and responded to edits with suggestions. As the filmmaker, and part of their team, it was my job to be hyper-aware of their needs and interests and how these can be expressed in the narrative structure of a short film. There is an advocacy quality to this process, in part because their needs are placed above the needs of the film. In my documentary work, while I am concerned for who and what is in my frame, the needs of the film narrative have driven what I film, rather than the needs of who is in my frame. Whereas in this work, the needs of the people were core to the filmmaking process.

I saw my care role in the Joy Film as reminding Attitude members of the positive aspects of what they were doing at a tough time for them, but I did not realise that the film would move beyond a morale booster to become a reflective tool. In this way, the film corresponds more with the aims of Video Reflexive Ethnography, a methodology that uses film as a reflective tool, often in a medical setting. These ethnographers explain that “people rarely get the opportunity to scrutinize themselves and each other in action” (Ledema et al. 2019, 2) and that viewing themselves on film doing their daily tasks offers them “the opportunity to reshape their behaviour” (2019, 3) through the act of observing what they are doing, and reflecting upon that behaviour. The Joy Film was primarily a dialogue with the people in the film, and it was used as a reflective tool by them to stop, rethink and change direction. Attitude significantly changed their organisational and project aims and what they were willing to do as volunteers after seeing the film. While the film alone did not bring about this change, it was a reflective catalyst for their actions.

Findings

I find that filmmaking “with” processes borrow from methods used in Video Reflexive Ethnography and co-creation alongside relational ideas of care. I find that this style of filmmaking “with” is most effective when creating film works that form a reflexive tool that is a useful part of the participant’s processes. I find that filmmaking “with” is best used in situations where there is a cohesion of purpose for the group, as this method does not allow for the effective synthesis of divergent views in the narratives generated. I find that it is a process that takes time for trust and understanding to develop between the filmmaker and the participants, and so, works best on projects that have time for this process. This research is of interest to screen practitioners and researchers thinking through connections between care and non-fiction filmmaking processes.

Dissemination

Works created as a part of this project have been:

• Screened at Revelation Film Festival, 2024; Giving Voice Symposium, 2024; and Booktown Festival, 2025.

• Included in an anti-ageism package produced by the Department of Communities in Western Australia.

• Included in the basket of knowledge created by Attitude: Ageing Well in Clunes as part of a project funded by the Australian Government Department of Health and Aged Care.

• Covered by regional TV, radio, and print in Victoria, Australia.

• Presented at ASPERA 2024 and Visible Evidence 2024 conferences.

PEER REVIEW 1

Which aspects of the submission are of interest/relevance and why?

The submission, which comprises a video essay and a research statement, explores the process of producing a series of three short films for a group of village elders who call themselves “Attitude”. More specifically, the submission interrogates the implications of co-creation with the subjects of the project (which the author defines as “working ‘with’”) for production processes. The submission provides some interesting insights in terms of both the ways in which the subjects of the project took a significant role in setting “the agenda of inquiry” and how the films became a self-reflective tool for them. The author’s discussion of these issues is informed by an engagement with a number of theoretical and methodological frameworks including participatory film-making, video reflexive ethnography and scholarly debates about care, co-creation and power imbalance.

Does the submission live up to its potential?

This is an ambitious project exploring a very worthwhile set of issues, however, in its current iteration, the submission does not fully deliver on its promise. The submission, particularly the research statement, does not clearly contextualise the project and the films. Why did Attitude contact the film-makers? What was the exact purpose of the films? What is Attitude’s philosophy? Who was the intended audience? What is the ”larger project” alluded to in the video essay? Who are Attitude’s “partners” and what were the causes of the disagreement or conflict?

Furthermore, some of the submission’s points are a bit vague or underdeveloped. As mentioned above, the research statement invokes a number of theoretical and methodological frameworks, however, it does not always engage with these issues in a deep or meaningful way. For example, what are the “radical notions of care” that informed the project? While the research statement mentions Haraway (2016) in relation to the power imbalance found in the experiences of aging, it fails to articulate the causes and consequences of such imbalance. Similarly, the submission raises a number of questions that remain unanswered: how is caring “political” in nature? How does the project explore the relationship between human and non-human or that between human and place (as promised at the beginning of the video essay)? How was the film project understood as a reflexive tool useful to the Attitude group (as mentioned in the research statement)? More broadly, both the research statement and the video essay would benefit from a clearer and more specific focus.

How does the submission expose practice as research?

The submission explores a set of questions and features evidence of innovation. It also attempts to contextualise such questions within a number of different theoretical fields, but it often lacks scholarly depth and a clear focus. 

PEER REVIEW 2

Which aspects of the submission are of interest/relevance and why?

Making With examines the ethics and practices of care in documentary filmmaking through the author/filmmaker’s own critical reflection framed by the re-representation of selected segments from three documentary works with accompanying voiceover commentary and text on screen to produce a “fourth” (the submission) film in the form of a reflexive documentary essay. 

This work (film and statement) raises important questions about the continuing discourse on the relationships between documentary filmmakers and their participants. The author takes us on a journey with the Attitude: Ageing Well in Clunes community group and offers insights on her experience, challenges faced and decision-making process in redefining roles and responsibilities and the impact on the creative outputs.

Does the submission live up to its potential?

Making With is a well-crafted practitioner reflection on the value and impact of inclusive and negotiated filmmaking practices that may help other documentary filmmakers further their knowledge and develop skills in implementing participant centred-care processes. 

The work straddles an interesting tension between being a critical reflection on documentary filmmaking and the author’s own creative works and process. As a viewer, I wanted to see the other three films to get the full picture. The off-screen “conflict” and strained relationships between Attitude and their project partners (Clunes Neighbourhood House, Central Highlands Rural Health) referred to was potentially frustrating, but the author strategically anticipates my viewer response and puts forward a rationale as to why the conflict is not enacted on screen. Considering the ethics of participant-centred care being examined in Making With she states, “In the end I had to make a choice. I was making ‘with’ Attitude not the larger project.” The conflict would not have been a good thing nor of any benefit to Attitude. It is a compelling argument and consistent with the making “with” ethos “borrowed from advocacy filmmaking” where ideas are “shared rather than allowing space for divergent views and disharmony.”

The research statement supports and expands on the practitioner's reflections whilst remaining consistent with the ideas and concepts presented in the visual component. 

How does the submission expose practice as research?

One of the strengths of this work is the integration of critical practitioner reflection, creative works and analysis supported by the cross disciplinary research literature that draws on health, education and media.

This work will be an excellent learning and teaching document on how to frame creative practice as research, with particular attention to the care debates in documentary filmmaking and demonstrates how the essay format can be a dynamic and informative critical reflection tool. It offers a working “with” model of practice that may also assist the documentary filmmaker in overcoming resistance to collaborative co-creation and co-designed practices.

RESPONSE TO PEER REVIEWS

Firstly, thank you to the reviewers. I both dread and love this process, with its dialogical knowledge sharing and shaping. I want to acknowledge the time and labour the reviewers and the editors put into this process.

Changes to the film

As a result of the reviews, I have changed the opening voiceover that sets up the film. It now makes it clearer what the film will explore.

Response to the reviews

“Lacking scholarly depth and a clear focus”? Ouch, but, yes. I would like to own that and even celebrate it, as I think this is true of my work. I find that I am uninterested in what is traditionally considered to be “scholarly depth.” Instead, I follow Le Guin’s (2019) provocation to create different narrative modes that better reflect a feminist ideal of society. I bring ideas together in the same basket where I notice, and invite the viewer/reader to notice, the links that form. This is connected with my interest in the relational quality of all things. Here is an example of my approach explained in a paper that I wrote on ethics:

This approach influences the construction of this paper which, rather than providing a singular argument, is a piece that listens to various opinions, including my own. The Gay'wu Group of Women talk about a narrative structure in which "not everyone is saying the exact same words. We are drawing a picture, collaboratively" (Gay'Wu Group of Women 2019, 109) and ‘together we make it come alive" (Gay'Wu Group of Women 2019, 110). In this paper I am attempting to bring this ethics discussion to life, not to resolve it.

(quoted in Gough-Brady 2019, para. 4)

I hope this gives some context for my approach in the film and the statement. Having said that, some clarity is always needed and I do not intend to confuse the viewer. This is why I changed the opening of the film.

I agree with the reviewer that the promise of Haraway (2016) was never fulfilled in this project. It is where I began as a filmmaker, my starting point. But not where I ended up. The thing is, I feel a bit naked if I do not put some Haraway on; she has become a comfy t-shirt bra that I always reach for first. So, while she is important to who I am as a filmmaker, and a researcher, she is not crucial to this project and could disappear from the statement (back space-back space-unclasp).

Finally, one reviewer was unclear on Attitude’s philosophy, and I feel this is important to make clear: it is for all actions to be “with” not “for” them. It is also the philosophy I engaged with as the filmmaker working with them.

Please note that the creative work associated with this submission has been updated in response to the peer reviews. 

REFERENCES 

Brown, Nicole. 2022. “Scope and Continuum of Participatory Research.” International Journal of Research & Method in Education 45, no. 2: 200–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2021.1902980.

Chatzidakis, Andreas. 2020. The Care Manifesto: The Politics of Interdependence. London: Verso.

Gough-Brady, Catherine. 2022. “Questioning Creative Practice Human Research Ethics.” International Journal of Creative Media Research 9. https://doi.org/10.33008/IJCMR.2022.07.

Haraway, Donna J. 2016. Staying with the Trouble: Making Kin in the Chthulucene. Durham: Duke University Press. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/rmit/detail.action?docID=4649739.

Iedema, Rick, Katherine Carroll, Aileen Collier, Su-Yin Hor, Jessica Mesman, and Mary Wyer. 2018. Video-Reflexive Ethnography in Health Research and Healthcare Improvement: Theory and Application. Boca Raton: CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781351248013.

Le Guin, Ursula K. 2019. The Carrier Bag Theory of Fiction. London: Ignota.

Tronto, Joan C. 2013. Caring Democracy: Markets, Equality, and Justice. New York: NYU Press. https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt9qgfvp.

Zalipour, Arezou, and James and Nicholson. 2023. “Shama, an Insider Looking in: A Community-Centred Collaborative Documentary Production.” Media Practice and Education 24, no. 3: 291–308. https://doi.org/10.1080/25741136.2023.2180711.