‘Subject’ Review: a documentary about documentaries advertises rather than solves
At the beginning of Camilla Hall and Jennifer Tiexiera’s new film Subject, we are introduced to Margaret Ratliff, one of the participants of the 2004 documentary The Staircase, who explains that her involvement in the project caused her long-term distress and anxiety. Ratliff is the daughter of Michael Peterson, who was convicted of murdering his wife, making him the subject of Jean-Xavier de Lestrade’s original non-fiction film.
Through Ratliff, we are introduced to Subject’s main focus, which is to examine the impact that being the, erm, subject of a non-fiction film can have on one’s life, with the overarching suggestion being that, as Ratliff claims, it is wholly negative. Ratliff, and several other subjects, most notably Jesse Friedman of Capturing the Friedmans (who spent 13 years in prison after he and his father pleaded guilty to child molestation – with the documentary he was in throwing the conviction into doubt) discuss at length their experience of having their lives become real-life dramas solely for the purpose of entertainment.
Their stories are moving and immediately create a sense of sympathy in us voyeurs, with the usual mode of watching a documentary subverted, making us consider exactly what is happening behind the camera or even when it stops recording. However, with both Friedman and Ratliff’s stories being interrupted by arguably too many other examples of their kind, we are unable to delve into understanding their respective plights, perhaps until Hall and Tiexiera reinforce them at the film’s conclusion.
Considering that, perhaps we must also bare in mind that Subject is a measured account of what it is like to make a documentary and to be in one. There are several instances of the power of documentary, particularly those from a political standpoint, charting the revolts in countries like Egypt (in The Square) and Ukraine (Winter on Fire). But the fact that we are presented with the understanding that the film will closely examine the impact of being a subject at its opening leaves us disappointed that a whole-hearted question is posed and then not really answered.
By flashing through some of the most incredible documentaries that have ever been made, Subject is sadly victim to ultimately not being as good, nor strong in its argument, as those that it essentially advertises. Still, the film raises several important questions: should documentary makers pay their participants? Should therapists be present on set with filmmakers to ensure subjects do not experience trauma at reliving their experiences? What kind of people should make documentaries in the first place?
These are all worthwhile questions in a film that can sometimes feel like a discussion rather than an explication. Then again, it ought to be noted that Hall and Tiexiera likely did not want to add irony to injury by making the likes of Friedman and Ratliff the sole subjects of yet another documentary, even if that same irony is somewhat present in the fact that Subject raises interest in the original films in which they featured anyway.
Ultimately, there is a lack of tension in Subject which makes watching it occasionally feel tedious, even if it simultaneously comes across as vitally important. With little at stake in terms of narrative (due to its reflective method), we cannot invest ourselves fully in the stories it attempts to tell, although perhaps this indicates (as the directors occasionally touch upon) that documentary has indeed become soap drama, solely intended for entertainment purposes, leaving its subjects to clean up the mess once shooting has wrapped.
