Is it ethical for a documentary to arrange information to invoke feeling?

I am asking if it is ethically sound to arrange information in a documentary to invoke the most feeling.

I know documentaries usually have a slant or message and central theme they really try to press on the viewers. That is fine, but is it ok to arrange information by withholding it or strategically placing it in certain parts of the documentary?


A perfect example of this is Dear Zachary. If you've seen it, you know about the part where it gets super crazy. After seeing it for the first time (a couple of years ago now), and getting over that documentary as a whole, I asked myself if it was OK that the director/editor lead the audience that way. Is that ethical?

And one unanticipated consequence of choosing to reveal something in the film like that makes the reveal more important than the subjects in the film. I've read a few times on here to wait for the reveal or not spoil the reveal. So, the horrid events were turned into a gimmick rather than have the documentary be what it set out to be, which it does, and which it can't be (e.g. the title).


Another documentary we see this in is Catfish. Suspense was built perfectly. The directors said they went back and filmed some scenes when they figured out what was happening, but was never stated in the film. Is that ethical? Can that then be called a documentary? Does this approach the same ethical boundaries as in Dear Zachary with direction and editing?

Lastly, we have Exit Through the Gift Shop. The documentary successfully tells a story about the rise of a street artist with the aid of Banksy. Now, knowing the work of Banksy and the lack of artistry caught on camera we see the art, artist, and ultimately, public, and art community he was misleading. We, as an audience know it is not safe to trust the film or direction. Just as the art sold by Banksy's pet project, Exit Through the Gift Shop could be a complete work of fiction. But at least we see the deception on camera in one context and are beckoned to apply that deception to what we are watching.

In neither Catfish nor Dear Zachary do we get this window of possible deceit. It is only presented to us 3/4 through the documentary or after further research.



I am not knocking any of the above documentaries, or any documentary, really, for the subject they explore. I am just wondering if their approach may be slightly unethical in what a documentary is supposed to be. I know documentaries are exposing a topic and letting the public know, but is there a line between that and sort of fixing it to invoke emotion? Or are documentaries supposed to take the role of, say, persuasion?

Who knows.