Hi guys,
I orginally wrote this in dogpatch's post http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/93613/1.ashx but I thought it would be more appropriate to put it in a different topic.
As some of you already know, I own a film production house in New York City. I would like to give you my take on Knocking from the perspective of a documentary maker.
First off, for those that don’t know me so well I’ll start by saying I am absolutely no Watchtower apologist! – “Boo to the Watchtower!”
When making a commentary, either as a movie, documentary or book, you have to decide two things; 1, what is the story (this is the most important), and 2, which type of audience the story is written for. A good example of this is Ray Franz book A Crisis of Conscience. A fascinating story for Jehovahs Witnesses. The prime audience for his book would be anyone who frequents this site, but, for the general public, the book is not that important or interesting. After reading it for myself I became really pissed and shocked, when I explained my findings to my wife (who has never been a Jehovahs Witness) she wasn’t surprised. And her only interest was through me.
It looks like Joel Engardio has had some experience with Jehovahs Witnesses and has decided to write a documentary. He could have written this on many subject lines.
Some that have been mentioned here would have made a provocative documentary. He could have written an all-out attack, showing the corporate greed, mind control techniques, flip-flops that have cause unnecessary deaths, the Adventist origins, biblical and historical inaccuracies. How the rank and file, his mother included, are unaware of the background they are promoting. We all know that there is a ton of material here, enough for a documentary.
However, by doing this he is limiting his audience. When writing a documentary you still have to keep your audience in mind. You do this by making your story have a connection with your audience. A good example of this are the documentaries regarding the 9-11 tragedy. There have been many, but which one do you remember? My guess would be the one with the two French guys. A phenomenal documentary, because, you saw it unfold through their eyes, you went along with them. You could relate to it personally. It could be you. This is very important to the documenter. Making the connection.
I think that Engardio’s approach is to see the Jehovahs Witnesses in a human way to allow his audience to relate to them. The three main subject lines are, Civil Liberties, Holocaust, and Blood.
I’ll tackle each one to show why he could be doing this approach.
Free speech
Everyone can relate to Jehovahs Witnesses because they Knock on your door. The audience has a connection with this. My guess is he will then highlight the organization’s activist role in promoting their amendment rights, which in turn, has helped other types of organizations and people’s rights which the audience are involved in. That’s his connection.
The Holocaust
This one I wouldn’t touch as a documenter. He is trying to connect Jehovahs Witnesses as a type of ‘la résistance’ during WWII in Germany. This is a History Channel type subject. The audience is shown ordinary people becoming heroes. Everybody loves heroes, especially ordinary people heroes. That’s his connection.
Medicine
This should read BLOOD. The audience knows the Jehovahs Witness as the group who don’t celebrate birthdays and refuse blood. That’s the initial connection. So he will probably show how refusing blood doesn’t necessarily mean you will die. He will show how certain areas of medicine have improved because doctors have been able to ‘experiment’ in surgery using different non-blood techniques. This is also a connection.
He will probably do all of this through people. That is, through the eyes of his chosen, ordinary, Jehovahs Witnesses.
I doubt very much if any religious dogma will be in the documentary apart from the subject people explaining why they do these things.
From reading the information so far I don’t think this is either a pro or anti documentary. I also think it’s a risky documentary because, quite frankly, most people don’t give two hoots about the personal lives of Jehovahs Witnesses. As to the subject matter of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, even less.
If he manages to make the personal connection of his subject people and his audience it may do well. That's where he will show his skill as a documentary maker. If he doesn’t it will fall into obscurity.
steve