Development Cooperation Handbook/The video resources linked to this handbook/The Documentary Story/The challenge of distribution
The challenge of distribution
In a sense the story of how a media product is distributed can never be a part of the story of the product itself, because it has to be completed before you go for distributing it. But this is really a deficiency of the story. Because distribution is the main challenge. Everything gets sense only as far as distribution is a success. So how can we miss in the story the most important part of it?
In many cases the logic of distribution dictates all the terms to the logics of production and postproduction. In such cases there is no real sense to tell the story of the distribution because it is first pre-conceived and then super-imposed on the whole product.
But in our case it is different. We had a research to do which was independent from any distribution logics. We follow an organic thread that we did not know where it will lead to. We did not know if we will get the right answers to our search. Then we did not know is we would have been able to rearrange the whole answer in a meaningful product. And surely we do not know now if we would be successful in the distribution effort. So we need to put the distribution challenge at the core of our story. But how to do it?
In a sense we can do narrating how the product was being shared and broadcast as it was being developed through internet (the Wiki and the YouTube channel). But as the editing is finalized we need to narrate how we used internet for promoting the access to the resources and how we contacted media distributors for airing it in the normal television channels. So we need now to keep on producing and editing this portion of the story until the end. Possibly including in the documentary also “the faces” of the distributors. And this would be very much in line with the documentary approach. Where we wanted to put the faces of all projects. Where we wanted to avoid the “God voices” and put the stakeholders voices. Where we wanted to substitute the false plenteousness of “news neutrality” or news “objectivity” with the truth of the subjectivity of ongoing discourses and the humility of ongoing dialogue. A documentary which does not pretend to present “facts” to a passive viewer. Instead a documentary which is an ongoing “act” inviting the viewer not to be passive but put his subjectivity also on board of this action. And respond to our appeal with a choice of responsibility. And that is the meaning of “Vrinda” that we want to convey with this product.