By Trevor Chidzodzo

THE objective of a documentary film is to show a story from a certain point of view, therefore, it is acknowledged world over that a documentary film can never be objective, rather it is subjective.
Although most documentaries are subjective, they are interesting to watch for they show to the world the unimaginable and most shocking human experiences or adventures.
Stories in documentary films are a point of view especially of the concerned filmmakers, who think they have something unique to show to the world.
In most instances documentaries are controversial and also create a sense of bravery and heroism on the part of the filmmakers.
In this democratic and civilised global world, there is a hunt for stories which seem to expose and highlight the bizarre human experiences especially those purported and condemned by the Western sponsored non-governmental organisations at the crisis period of African governments.
The international funders have budgets for such stories around the world.
Zimbabwe, in particular President Robert Mugabe and the ruling party, has not been saved from these accusations of making Zimbabwean citizens go through unimaginable human experiences especially from 2000 up to the present.
We have such documentaries by local filmmakers, to be precise, Shungu by Saki Mafundikwa and The Forgotten Children of Zimbabwe by Xoliswa Sithole.
These documentaries narrated from the filmmakers’ point of view blame President Mugabe for the breakdown of the education system, health delivery system, Operation Murambatsvina, hunger, hyperinflation, unemployment and the taking of land from white farmers.
Mafundikwa and Sithole present their stories as if they are in danger from the national security agents and are risking their lives to tell these stories when in reality they are on allowances and salaries affording them a luxurious extravagance.
At one time Xoliswa Sithole meets President Mugabe in person and His Excellency is made to believe that she is making a good story on Zimbabwe wherein she turns around, goes ahead looking and capturing for moments she knows will tarnish the image of President Mugabe.
Mafundikwa and Sithole present themselves as if they are the mouthpiece of these marginalised communities when in reality it is them who stand to benefit much because they are collecting and documenting these stories on a cheap ticket while receiving huge amounts from their funders.
One would be outwitted to think they are showing an act of bravery by telling stories of the unemployed fathers and the underprivileged children in Zimbabwe when in reality it is simply a false sense of responsible reporting and heroism.
I do not find credibility in their stories, rather they are portrayals of rehearsed and exaggerated events performed so as to make their documentaries look credible.
Another issue, is, most of these voices encouraged by the filmmakers to narrate their ordeal have words put or scripted into their mouths.
One example in Shungu is a guy called Mabasa who even narrates his experience of Murambatsvina while reading from a scrap book which he claims he diarised.
In The Forgotten Children of Zimbabwe, there is a worse situation where a child openly says she cannot continue with the interview because she is sick and has not eaten anything in a day, but Sithole keeps pushing the ‘struggling’ and ‘starving’ little child.
I wonder why Sithole would not first find something for the little girl to eat and go for the interview afterwards.
Is it because Sithole felt she is making history, desperately wanted this moment to show the most convincing grotesque human experience?
I am not in self-denial of these human experiences of the disadvantaged members of the society in Zimbabwe but I find the manner of gathering information from them by the filmmakers as an exercise of a ransom package earned on an act of violating basic human rights.
The world out there may applaud their stories and view them as storytellers telling the most unique and degrading human experience in Zimbabwe, but this is manipulative psychology and emotional blackmail to make us believe that they are a voice, a mouthpiece of the unfortunate members of the society.
In reality these filmmakers are making a bargain, securing huge funds, earning international acclaim and extravagance through exaggerations of situations of unfortunate and resilient members of the society.
If they were so concerned by the situations they encountered, why do these filmmakers not put aside a little amount of money from their budgets and talk proudly of personal acts of benevolence and meeting medical expenses and paying off outstanding school fees of the children they were interviewing?
That would be a heroic deed indeed. You want to change the world, it begins with you!
There has to be some sense of integrity and responsibility among filmmakers!