The Hierarchy of Choices When Showing Documentary on Public Television

I believe one of the most important elements in the dissection of the documentary is the various levels of choice that an individual program must go through before it is displayed to the viewing public. There is the level of the individual film makers, who create the piece, on what they want to create or who will fund what subject matters and presentations. There is the top level of PBS (considering the American hierarchy), that holds most of the money distribution, and decides what sort of programmes to fund or buy. There's the government pressures involved on what sort of topics or perspectives gain presidence when using grants, etc, which often have guidelines for their use. As MM sensei brought up for my presentation, there are the pressures of the foreign governments and grants involved in their use, and the host country in what the film maker may 'access'. Then there is the local station, trying to gauge what the host community will most 'appreciate'.

In all of these decisions leave an evidence of discourse upon the Documentary Film on the Topic of Japan. Intersections with American Foreign Policy, in other words, things of American Interests. History that focuses on the time period of christian mercenaries entering into Japan, despite the apparently thematic focus upon 'ancient pre-Westernized' Japan in terms of typical cultural artifacts of the Samurai culture, etc. Then the 'spectacle of culture', the wacky and weird that titillates interest. Why do we approach Japan this way? Why is this sort of treatment of subject the only times we see Japan in Public Telelvision? Because someone thought that this would be 'educational', that this would be 'useful' to the audience/the company. Yet we do not see other treatments of the topic of Japan. We do not see the history of Japan, when there is not also a focus upon some key Chrysanthemum Sword concept, or an important Western Perspective point from which to 'not alienate' (I argue this is something of a weak idea) the audience, because otherwise the audience could not possibly relate to something so foreign.

Part of the question isn't just 'what are these documentaries saying', it's 'someone decided that these are the specific programs worth the 'viewers money'. If they are trying to, on a certain level, play to the forces that would put out the money for these programmes--the funding viewers, the funding acadamia, the funding governement, the fundiing company--then these choices reflect what they think these groups want, which reflects how they think it's appropriate to interact with the idea of 'Japan'.