“We Can Always Do Better For Each Other”: DocuMentality’s ‘The Price of Passion’ Reports Doc Filmmakers’ Mental Health

Documentary filmmaking is hardly a viable career for many. Nonetheless, facing unique hurdles that impact their mental well-being, documentary filmmakers put in immense labor as they work to unearth stories, amplify voices, and shape narratives that reflect on and inform the human experience. The pressures related to the industry-specific issues, such as financial precarity, funding scarcity, and power imbalances produced by the funding system, are compounding the demands of documentary productions, which also often require filmmakers to confront stories about traumatic and emotionally charged experiences. 

Recognizing the need to address the mental health challenges of documentary filmmakers, DocuMentality released a comprehensive research report, dubbed The Price of Passion: How Our Love of Documentary Filmmaking Impacts Our Mental Health, in May. Gathered in 2022 and 2023, the research was carried out as part of an initiative to explore individual and systematic mental well-being challenges for documentary filmmakers. The research report draws findings from 21 focus groups with documentary filmmakers from the U.S., Canada, and the UK, which included optional identity-specific groups for BIPOC filmmakers; women and non-binary filmmakers; LGBTQIA2S+ filmmakers; and filmmakers with disabilities. The report also brings forth some of the filmmakers’ suggestions and solutions elicited during the research, as well as findings from two focus groups with funders, which DocuMentality conducted at CPH:DOX in 2023. DocuMentality’s report also mentions its partnership with Peace is Loud, among others, highlighting the importance of participant and audience care, whose mental well-being is often overlooked. 

Documentary spoke with DocuMentality’s Malikkah Rollins, MSW, and Rebecca Day (founder of Film In Mind) in a phone interview, delving into the findings of the report to contemplate how to better build in mental health support and push for the industry to meet filmmakers’ needs. DocuMentality is an initiative of Film in Mind, The D-Word, and Malikkah Rollins. This interview has been edited for length and clarity. 

DOCUMENTARY: Before diving into the report, let’s talk about the context of this moment in time for the documentary industry. Why is addressing mental health challenges facing the documentary community particularly important now?

REBECCA DAY: We started this research about three years ago. The documentary landscape has changed in many ways, but I think the key issues are still the same. The first thing we knew was that the issue of mental health of filmmakers, communities they were filming, and audiences, was not being addressed in our industry in any meaningful way. Through our work as mental health professionals who were also embedded within the industry, we heard of various points of crisis that filmmakers were facing: from funding scarcity, to trauma that they were coming into contact with, to bringing themselves into their work, to conditions and relationships in their workplace. People are ready to see a change now, and we hope this report can kickstart it. 

MALIKKAH ROLLINS: I would echo what Rebecca has said and add that I think mental health and well-being should have been a priority all the way from the beginning of documentary filmmaking. The need has always been there. I think what’s new is that we are at an incredible moment in time with this confluence of global events that have helped push this forward. In America, the murder of George Floyd has contributed to people being much more open and honest about some of the injustices and inequalities marking our society. I think we’ve been able to use that general openness and transparency, which we have observed the past few years, to really build upon mental health needs that have been there since the beginning of documentary filmmaking. 

D: In this research, you ran 21 focus groups. How did you ensure diversity in conducting effective focus groups? Why was it important to center recruitment for the groups around identity? 

MR: We know that people from marginalized groups have a very different experience in the documentary filmmaking world from people who are not from historically marginalized groups, and we did not want to repeat the historic patterns of identity-based exclusion. Just because one was a BIPOC filmmaker does not necessarily mean they had to join that group, but we wanted them to have the option to come together and be in a safe space with people who share similar experiences working in this industry. Speaking of the countries, we also very much want to acknowledge that DocuMentality is not meant to be an initiative that just supports filmmakers in those three countries. We had to begin where funding could be procured because we were committed to paying the participants. Even though we’ve focused on the three countries so far, our vision is definitely global. We’d like to support the documentary community across the world. And we also acknowledge that mental health is approached differently based on cultural context and geography. Thus, this is a complex topic! 

D: Your report has a note on language. Essentially, it all goes back to language and how we name things. How did you use language in this research to promote a less hierarchical and more interdependent industry?

MR: This reflects a larger shift in the documentary industry where more and more people are using the term “participants” (or as in our research, “contributors”) versus “subjects” because the latter can connote certain power dynamics and hierarchy. The word “subject” is very loaded in America. In a broader historical context, people of color have been the subject of experiments on their bodies and health, for example. The term “participants” or “contributors” is useful as it connotes that people who appear in your documentary are participating in it in a consensual way, that they are collaborating with you, or at the very least, that they have given an informed consent to be in the film. This also redefines the director-participant relationship, bringing them closer together, because a person is not seen as a subject but as someone who is contributing to the film in a knowing and willing way. 

As for “decision-maker,” I grapple with that term because technically there are certain people who make decisions about various aspects of our industry: whether or not films get greenlit, or whether or not filmmakers get funding. That’s a reality. But I would like us to create a language that we can continue to aspire towards. So I prefer to use the term “gate-opener” as opposed to “gatekeeper” because to me that connotes an opportunity for someone who is traditionally in a gatekeeper role to actually open gates for people, rather than keeping them out. I think that unless we want to change the power dynamics and relationships in our industry, we have to change our language. If we keep calling people “decision-makers,” then we are going to keep the hierarchical relationship in place. 

RD: This power imbalance between filmmakers and funders or industry representatives comes up a lot in the report. And that’s a massive systemic shift that we need to work on with a great deal of focus over the next few years because again it feeds into this sense of value that filmmakers don’t feel for their work, which boils down to the question: Where would our industry be without the filmmakers and their projects? What we are really trying to focus on here is the filmmakers’ key role, rather than the hierarchical structure that puts them in this massive power game.

D: The report includes a pull quote that states: “The person who controls the funding has enormous power.” Could you talk about the filmmakers’ experiences of funding scarcity and power imbalances in the industry that have negatively affected their well-being and mental health? What are some of the industry-specific solutions that they have proposed?

RD: We can’t fix the lack of funding that’s currently an issue within the industry with this report, but we can begin to be very thoughtful with the language that we use. There is a healing element to the work of documentary making, which is a massive driving force behind a lot of these films. And that has nothing to do with awards or getting a sale to a streamer. There is a deep human need there. And we ask ourselves: How can we respond to that? How can we create a healing environment while making political, social, and cultural change? And I think the sort of business relationship that exists between funders and filmmakers is a place where there isn’t currently enough compassionate language, there isn't enough transparency of how and why decisions are made. We feel like we don’t have time to be caring with one another, and it impacts everyone. Not just the filmmakers, but the funders as well. 

MR: When I talk to filmmakers, part of what they are stressed out about, besides the challenges of making a documentary, is the need for a sustainable income. If we were a society that had, for example, a Universal Basic Income, which I know some countries have tested, that would take a lot of the pressure off filmmakers, as their basic needs like rent would be covered. So that’s why I say these problems are not specific to documentary filmmaking. They are societal, and they have to do with the whole system. 

Some other examples of solutions that the filmmakers came up with were a funding cooperative, art funding being 100 percent tax deductible (maybe that’s more so in America), and a guaranteed living wage. Some filmmakers wanted to overthrow capitalism, which is not going to happen soon, but, at least, they suggested it. Another desire that some filmmakers expressed is that they wanted more flexibility with how their funding was spent. As for tackling power imbalances, some filmmakers said they would like to see term limits for positions like film commissioners. I think that’s a good idea because it brings new energy into the system as well as new ideas and ways of going about problem-solving and looking at grant applications. Another element some filmmakers are wondering about is to what extent funders and film festivals are examining their own biases and how these biases are impacting their decisions. There are a lot of organizations that offer bias training that allows us to learn about our inherent biases, which we all have. To me, that is a very specific suggestion that can have a huge ripple effect to the power dynamics that exist in the industry. 

D: Inviting filmmakers to the funding process could be fruitful.

MR: Yes, filmmakers could get behind the scenes and understand how the processes unfold with who gets grants, and who doesn’t. That could be eye-opening for them to see the pressure on these organizations. Perhaps some may think that if you are a funder, then life is easy for you, but that’s just not how it is. When we ran the funder focus groups at CPH:DOX last year, we definitely heard many funders talk about the institutional and financial stress and pressure that they feel every day, and that no matter how much they want to give money to filmmakers, they have their own restrictions. But filmmakers don’t often see that because they are on the other side of that process. 

One wish that we have—and we still haven’t cracked that nut yet—is to bring funders and filmmakers together in a facilitated safe space, which is not recorded and maybe not even public, where they can have these conversations to cross this ginormous divide. And the divide, by the way, to me, feels like the Grand Canyon. That space would allow for honest conversations about the pain points for each group, and I think that could also help shift some of the power dynamics that exist within our industry. 

RD: I think that last bit definitely feels like the hardest thing to do. How do we bridge that gap? How do we bring people together, so that it is actually an ecosystem, and not the Us versus Them system? 

D: The report discusses the “supervision” model as a standard industry practice. Could you elaborate on that?

RD: I realize the word “supervision” has different meanings in different contexts, so we may need to find a different name for it. But essentially, the idea came from my experience of supervision as a therapist. As a practicing therapist, I am in regular supervision, as all therapists need to be to be practicing ethically. Supervision [in the documentary film industry context] is a non-judgmental space where you take your work and think about it in a way that allows you to look beyond the business side of things and talk about ethics, self-care, the relationship with your participants, and so on. The producer, who would be in supervision, may talk about their relationship with the director and the rest of the team, for example. It’s an open space, where this work is the focus, and so are the ethics around it. 

Film In Mind is currently working on a new model of documentary support, temporarily titled Film Supervision. We will train five new film supervisors and offer subsidized sessions with the help of a research grant. Sessions will provide space for filmmakers to explore questions around ethics, duty of care, relationships and the self in their filmmaking practice. If you would like to participate in a pilot of this service, please sign up for our newsletter to receive details on how to get involved.

MR: I am a social worker, so part of my clinical social work licensing requirement is that I have to go through a certain number of hours of supervision. And I think Rebecca was brilliant in bringing that model from the therapeutic context over to filming. Because frankly, so much of being a documentary filmmaker overlaps with being a social worker. And the fact that there is no supervision or support, if you will, for documentary filmmakers, is really troubling. 

RD: And the lovely thing is that cost can be included as a line item in your film budget and be paid for by your project. Of course, as therapists, it’s a cost that we accept at the very beginning of our journey. If we are going to do this work, and we are going to do it responsibly and with accountability, then we will be in supervision. 

MR: There is this amazing documentarian named Amanda Mustard who did a very personal story about trauma in her family, and she knew—going into it—that she would need to support herself and her team to help them deal with the traumatic nature of the topic. So she was able to get funding from her distributor and her streamer which was solely dedicated to mental health. I wish funders would be more vocal about their wish for filmmakers to put mental health support in their budgets so that filmmakers are aware that it’s okay. 

D: In your report, you mention “stratifications of worthiness” that festivals and funders create, and how this affects filmmakers’ mental health. Could you talk about the need to redefine “success” in the documentary industry, as expressed by some filmmakers and funders in the focus groups? Perhaps, we can consider a production a success when mental health becomes a priority.

MR: As you embark on this process of making a documentary, it’s important to go deep into yourself and question your own motivations for making this film, and what your own measures of success are. Not every filmmaker wants to go to Sundance, or should go to Sundance, or even can go to Sundance. But if you truly know what your motivation and measures of success are, then a big-tier festival may not be on your radar. And maybe it shouldn’t be on your radar. In general, there should be as many measures of success as there are documentary filmmakers. Your motivation reflects your personal values and can provide sustenance and fulfillment, especially in the rough moments. If you are clear on your own measures of success, it’s easier to weather the storms of rejection.

RD: If you can get to the end of a project and the film team and participants feel a sense of fulfillment, a sense of joy and a sense of pride, that’s a huge success. If you’ve said what you wanted to say, if you’ve connected with an audience in a way that is surprising, emotive and moving, that’s a success. It may be harder to quantify, of course, but it is a success. 

D: How has this research informed your ongoing work so far? 

RD: I think this report is one of many initiatives that people are pushing forward to try and create change within the industry. We can’t talk about the change this specific report has had yet due to its fresh release, but we hope that it gives us power to have more meaningful conversations about how we can do things differently. We’ve been doing this work consistently, from working with directors and production teams in confidential private sessions, to running workshops, to speaking at film labs as mental health consultants, or publicly at festivals. There is so much work that’s going on to ensure that this conversation is front and center across all the different experiences and points of contact that filmmakers are having with the industry. The biggest challenge—and hopefully the report helps overcome it—is in making sure that the load of labor doesn’t fall on individual filmmakers or groups but on our ecosystem at large.

MR: Our hope is that this report, infused with the insights of filmmakers, will serve as both a thoughtful and practical contribution to the ongoing collaborative efforts for change within our community. It is intended to be a reflective link in the chain of transformation that so many are striving towards, fostering a collective journey towards progress and understanding. We are part of a community of people striving to make this industry as healthy as possible because we believe in the power of documentary storytelling to positively impact hearts, minds, laws, and policies. For me, all of this work goes back to love. Love of humanity and a belief that we can always do better for each other.

Sevara Pan is a freelance film critic, journalist, and curator, working in the documentary field with a special focus on human rights, social justice, and activism. She contributes to such industry publications as Documentary Magazine, Modern Times Review, and Cineuropa. She is on the Activist Film Committee of Movies that Matter, an annual human rights film festival taking place in The Hague.