dOCumentality.

org

HOW OUR LOVE FOR

DOCUMENTARY FILMMAKING
IMPACTS OUR MENTAL HEALTH
 CONTEnTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 04
INTRODUCTION 06
Contextualising the Documentary Film Industry at this Moment in Time 06
Research Methods & Participants 08
THE PROBLEMS 10
Funding Scarcity and Power Imbalances 11
Job Insecurity 14
The Pressures of Success 14
A PSYCHOLOGICAL CRISIS 16
NAVIGATING INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS 18
Duty of Care for Contributors 19
Taking Care of the Audience 20
Team Relationships 20
03
Inadequate Mental Health Care 21
Family & Life outside of Work 21
IDENTITY SPECIFIC EXPERIENCES 22
Women & Non-binary Filmmakers 22
LGBTQIA2S+ Filmmakers 24
BIPOC Filmmakers 26
Filmmakers Living with Dis / Ability 28
A BRIGHTER FUTURE - SOLUTIONS FROM THE FILMMAKERS 30
FROM RESEARCH INTO ACTION 40
CONCLUSION 45
RESOURCES 46
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS & CREDITS 47
 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

DocuMentality completed this research

as part of an initiative designed to
ofer insight into a perceived mental
health and well-being crisis in the
documentary flm industry.
Documentary flmmakers face a unique set of challenges in
their work which negatively afect their mental health and
overall well-being. This report explores the major themes
from a series of twenty-one focus groups with documentary
04 flmmakers in Canada, the US, and the UK. The report delves
into the profound impact of the documentary flm industry
on flmmakers, examining the broader cultural aspects,
working conditions, and personal consequences associated
with this dynamic feld. It also discusses identity specifc
themes highlighted in focus groups which included: women
and non-binary flmmakers, LGBTQIA2S+ flmmakers; BIPOC
flmmakers; and flmmakers with disabilities . Each section
also contains a brief discussion of participant suggestions
on how to create a brighter future. This research will inform
DocuMentality’s ongoing work to improve wellbeing in the
documentary flm industry.
“ I feel so deeply proud of
the work i do. The energy
that i am contributing has
an effect on the universe
and on people and on
communities.”

As flmmakers, mental health professionals, and

05
organizational feld builders, we at DocuMentality
have been aware for a long time that conditions in
the industry are damaging to flmmakers well-being
and are causing (often unacknowledged) mental
health issues. We felt that addressing these issues
was long overdue, but needed a comprehensive
understanding of the problem in order to proceed.

We developed a research initiative to understand

mental health in the documentary industry at this
moment in time. Through twenty-one focus groups
with documentary flmmakers we explored the
individual and systemic mental health and well-being
challenges for flmmakers in the documentary
industry in Canada, the US, and the UK. This report
contains the major themes from this research.

These fndings have already begun to inform our

work towards improving systems that impact the
mental health and well-being of flmmakers, crews,
and contributors.
 INTRODUCTION

Moment in Time:
Context for the Documentary Film Industry

This report contributes to a growing body of work, at a time of tremendous change.

While throughout this report we refer to ‘the documentary industry,’ it is also a

puzzle how to define whether this ‘industry’ can even be said to exist. The 2020
“Keeping it Real” report on the UK’s documentary film industry found “the sector
lacks structure and coherence.” The report, and 2021 follow up ‘Making it Real,’
demonstrate that for many people, ‘documentary filmmaker’ is not a viable career
due to the “chronic lack of public funding across the board… Existing production
funds are concentrated in too few organizations… and budgets for feature
documentaries are very low.” This research found that most documentary films are
funded with personal funds, while foundations, private investors and tax relief are
the next most common sources. As documented in the US-focused 2020 CMSI
report ‘State of the Documentary Field’ 75% of documentary makers do other work
to make a living. Only 2 in 10 documentary filmmakers made enough money to
06 cover production costs and make a profit from their most recent film. One finding
from the Whickers 2021/22 “Cost of Docs” report was that “increased production
costs have inevitably led to corner cutting,” most commonly through multi-tasking,
reducing crew payments or filmmaker wage, and cutting down the number of
shooting days. Given the historic strikes by the writers and actors in the US,
filmmakers are acutely aware of the benefits which can be won through collective
bargaining. However, the lack of structure and coherence in the documentary
industry impedes discussions of unionizing, given the wide gaps that exist between
how each person is able to find a way to exist in the industry.

Market and technological forces are shifting the way documentaries are produced
and distributed. Within the last ten years, documentaries have become big
business through their success on streaming platforms. Many have spoken about
(and spoken out against the myth of) a ‘golden age of documentaries’ in which docs
are hugely popular and profitable. The introduction of streaming platform’s
algorithms has led to data-driven development and commissioning in an attempt to
secure predictable ratings and a constant churn of content.

Shrinking budgets and increasing demand for ‘entertaining content’ have led
to productions cutting corners or aiming to create storylines that may be more
dramatic. As a result, there are increasing instances of extractive filmmaking that
takes advantage or harms contributors. In response there has been push from
groups like The Documentary Accountability Working Group to develop an ethical
framework for documentary filmmaking practices.
“ON A GOOD DAY, I FEEL
INCREDIBLY NOURISHED
CREATIVELY, HUMANLY,
INTELLECTUALLY”

For the Love of Documentary

While this report details many of the difculties 07
flmmakers experience by remaining in the industry,
they also fnd joy, meaning, and purpose in their work.
Documentary makers shape narratives from the raw
joy, pain, sufering, and triumph of real people. The
flms they create refect the beautiful and the profound
in the everyday. Documentaries have the power to
start conversations, to unearth forgotten stories, and
highlight marginalized voices – in essence they have
the power to profoundly inform the human experience.
Participants in the focus groups largely talked about
the struggles of their work, but they also refected the
immense pleasure of documentary flmmaking. “On a
good day, I feel incredibly nourished creatively, humanly,
intellectually.” For many, documentary flmmaking can be
a regenerative, therapeutic, healing process. “The energy
that I am contributing has an efect on the universe and
on people and on communities.” Filmmakers love the
collaborative process, as well as the “thrill of a seat of
your pants victory, it’s the joy of it, and it’s the hell of it as
well.”
 Research Methods and Participants
Using focus groups and qualitative research methods, researchers explored how
documentary flmmakers perceived mental health, how their mental health was
connected to their work, and what changes to the industry might improve their
mental health. The term ‘mental health’ covers a broad range of ideas from self-
care to mental illness, thus the discussions were far ranging but largely focused on
personal mental health challenges, challenges participants faced through work,
and the impacts these challenges had on their mental health.

Of the twenty-one focus groups, made up of eight participants per group, there
were seven in Canada, five in the US, and eight in the UK. Recruitment for the
groups was centered around identity. This choice was made with the knowledge
that people from marginalized groups have a diferent experience from non-
marginalized groups. We did not want to repeat the historic patterns of identity-
based exclusion. Our intention was to provide space for creators to raise issues
specifc to their race, gender, ability, sexuality, socio-economic status, etc., which
might be erased in a mixed group setting.

The sum of a person’s identities cannot be contained in one label, and so here, the
concerns of the groups intersected and overlapped with creators with disabilities
speaking to their experience in the women and nonbinary group, BIPOC creators in
the mixed group, queer creators in the indigenous group and so on.

08 The participants spanned a range of career experiences, including full-time

documentarians; those working part-time while also making flms; and those
working full time outside of the industry and making flms in their free time. They
included both freelancers and those with permanent salaried positions. They
represented nearly every role in the industry including producers, feld producers,
impact producers, directors, cinematographers, editors, sound designers, and
recent graduates.

In addition to the flmmaker focus groups, there were also two focus groups
with funders and industry representatives at the 2023 CPH:DOX flm festival,
where a brief summary of the fndings from the flmmaker focus
groups were shared and discussed.
A Note on Language
Throughout this report we endeavor to use language to promote less
hierarchical, more interdependent terms for the industry. We use the term
‘participant’ to indicate people who participated in the research through
focus groups. We use the term ‘contributor’ to refer to people who
appear in documentaries. We have used the terms ‘funders’ or ‘industry-
representatives’ instead of common terms such as ‘decision-makers’
to indicate roles involved with business related aspects of the industry
such as commissioning, funding, distribution, or programming. The term
‘flmmaker’ is used to indicate roles related to the hands-on creation of
flms including development, production, directing, production crew, as
well as post-production and editing roles.

09

“ IT’S THE JOY OF IT,

AND IT’S THE HELL OF
IT AS WELL.”

Limits of this Report

It has not been within the scope of this report to ofer nuanced portraits
of the many variables which create diferent environments for flmmakers
from country to country. Further, as a qualitative study, we cannot provide
specifc statistics on flmmakers’ experiences.

Research was only undertaken in countries where funding could be

procured to pay participants, as our ethical considerations determined this
was essential.
 PA R T 1

THE PROBLEMS

This section outlines the problems as

highlighted by the focus group participants.
We purposefully created optional identity
specifc groups whose experiences proved
to be full of complexity and struggle in a
deeper way than participants from less
historically marginalized communities. The
identity specific outcomes can be found in
a specialized section later in the report.

10

“ the person who

controls the
funding has an
enormous amount
of power.”
 “ I SIGNED AWAY ALL MY
RIGHTS AND IT LED TO
ME BEING MISERABLE
AND BROKE.”

11
Funding Scarcity and Power Imbalances
In the documentary industry, there is not enough funding for the number of flms
that are being made. The lack of funding creates scarcity and fnancial precarity as
well as power imbalances between creators and funders. Filmmakers agreed that
the industry as it currently exists has been built for people with independent wealth
and works better for able-bodied white men without caregiving responsibilities.
Though many people without independent wealth are now making documentaries,
the path through the industry is still a great deal easier with the support and
stability of intergenerational wealth or a partner with a regular income. “You see
colleagues and they seem to be absolutely fne, and then you fnd out their parents
bought them a house here or they’ve got inheritance from there.”

Filmmakers without means to self-fnance a documentary flm career, must be

prospectors, relying on “a narrow funnel to actually get projects funded.” Whether
pitching to commissioners or applying for grants, there are “completely unrealistic
expectations of the work you need to put in before you are even able to apply for
funding.” Filmmakers spend “thousands of pounds [or dollars] and hundreds of hours
on applications, only to be rejected.” Overwhelmed by applications, funders rarely
give feedback on why an application was rejected, leaving flmmakers feeling
devalued and depressed.
 “ THE SENSATION OF
NOT BEING HEARD,
FEELING INADEQUATE,
IT’S EXHAUSTING AND
HUMILIATING”

This funding system creates an imbalanced power

dynamic, where the “the person who controls the funding
has an enormous amount of power.” The imbalance
creates “a struggle between us, the lowly flmmakers, and
those people who occupy positions of power in broadcast,
12 indies, even academic institutions as well.” “There’s
not a lot of money for documentaries; it’s a little bit of
chicken feed. The funders will seed it around, with a bit of
diversity funding for the favor of the year, and make the
broadcasters the gatekeepers.”

The power imbalance allows for abuse: “Because funders

are giving you the money, they expect you to be grateful
that you have that chance and you get that platform. But
they also want creative control because they know the
audience.” One emerging flmmaker shared, “I worked
with a producer for my frst feature, and I was so excited
that someone was going to help me make a flm. I signed
away all my rights and it led to me being miserable and
broke.”
Experienced flmmakers also described being pushed to make decisions that they
viewed as unethical exploitations of trauma for commercial appeal. One director
shared, “My distributor said to me ‘we really love your approach, but could you just
change it? Could you make it more like, Icarus? Or a crime flm?’ I said no. And then
it’s like, ‘Well, then, the flm is not going to sell.’” Another flmmaker shared that
they had experienced “bullying” from funders which led to burnout of her whole
team, “The sensation of not being heard, feeling inadequate, it’s exhausting and
humiliating.”

Many flmmakers, particularly flmmakers of color, were frustrated by the lack

of scrutiny of people in these positions of power. “I think for an industry that is 13
supposed to be moral, and looking at the most difcult questions about existence
and humanity in what’s good and right in the world, there’s a bigger responsibility
to vet the tastemakers, the curators – how do they get put in charge? They are
vetted for their artistic vision, and they’re not vetted for their morals and biases.”
Filmmakers were frustrated that these people, particularly with the growth of
big data and algorithms, subscribe to an ‘entertainment frst’ approach where
“markets determine the value and structure of the work.”

“ markets determine
the value and
structure of the
work.”
 Job Insecurity
The scarcity of resources and opportunities, and the imbalance of power means
there is no job security for flmmakers. Filmmakers are fghting to stay in the
industry. They operate with a level of stress akin to fear for their survival. As one
flmmaker described, “it feels like we’re crabs in a bucket, just trying to make it out
alive.”

Freelancers and independent filmmakers feel tremendous pressure to “never say no

to work, because you don’t know when the next thing is coming.” This leads to a
cycle where “you’re constantly afraid that you won’t get a job, then you accept all the
jobs. Because I’ve internalized that I don’t have any security!”

Even having a permanent position does not create security. “I’ve personally been
told a million times ‘1000 people are lined up ready for your job if you’re not going to
step up.’ It puts on this pressure that you can’t crack. You can’t have that moment of
weakness, because then you’re just seen as not resilient enough.”

One flmmaker shared, “To get to that next step in my career, sometimes I’ve had to
sell myself out on my principles. I’ve felt shameful and it induced low self-esteem. I
started walking around with all this internalized anger.” “I’ve had moments where I’ve
hated myself for not standing up for myself or someone else because in that moment,
I didn’t feel secure enough to do that.”

14

The Pressures of Success

Filmmakers discussed how exhausted they feel in an industry that equates
‘productivity’ and ‘visibility’ to ‘success.’ One director shared, “I’m coming out of a
year and a half of hell that I needed to be medicated to get through. On the outside I
look like I’m doing really well. I’ve released so many hours of content, but personally,
fnancially and for my mental health, it’s been at a huge cost.”

In the documentary industry, success requires “competing against each other, for the
funds, the grants, the pitches. It reinforces this idea of scarcity and that one person
is better than the other.” Festivals and funding create stratifications of worthiness.
“Sundance, Tribeca, if your film’s not in one of those, it’s like you’re a second-tier
filmmaker.” “It’s hard living in a society which values people’s earning power, not
what they can do. I’m so excited about what I’m doing, but I’m often in a very dark
place because I am comparing myself to other people and have no self-worth.”

Many filmmakers feel exhausted by pressure around social media. “We’ve all
become self-promoters and I’m hyper-aware of what everyone’s doing. Who’s
getting what? Who’s doing this? Everybody’s tracking someone’s progress. You feel
like if you’re not bragging 24/7, you’re doing something wrong.”
“ YOU CAN’T HAVE
THAT MOMENT OF
WEAKNESS, BECAUSE
THEN YOU’RE JUST
SEEN AS NOT
RESILIENT ENOUGH.”

15
 PA R T 2

A Psychological Crisis

The current climate sees mental health as

a personal responsibility, and documentary
flmmakers are carrying the mental and
emotional weight of each production.
The results are exhaustion, burnout, and
vicarious trauma. Filmmakers in every
group shared deeply painful experiences
that were a direct result of working in the
documentary flm industry.

16

“ I WAS ALMOST AT A
POINT OF BEGGING.
I NEED TO TAKE A
BREAK HERE.”
Constant Pressure
The documentary industry places unreasonable expectations on flmmakers to
produce content on budgets and timelines that feel impossible. To meet these
expectations flmmakers work themselves into exhaustion – pulling long hours for
extended periods of time for almost no pay, and asking others to do the same. “To
look at our mental health is to actually confront the fact that what we’re doing is
unreasonable. And then we are driving ourselves literally insane, trying to deliver to
impossible schedules on shoe-string budgets.”

To make a flm a reality on small budgets, documentary creators are required to

“wear many hats” – producer, director, cinematographer, and editor. “When you’re
both producing and directing it’s quite a burden. You have 12 diferent balls in the air,
you’re going ‘when’s the catering coming? What’s the location? Let’s send out the
call sheet for tomorrow.’ If I was just directing, I would be able to think deeply about
that greater process.”

Tight deadlines “often mean that you can forget the necessity for care of your own
emotional needs or fnancial needs.” Filmmakers in the US and Canada remarked
that a culture has developed where people glorify a “hustle mentality,” seeing
working itself as a measure of success. “If you are responding to a text or an email
at one in the morning, it’s like, good on you, you are killing it. You are making it in the
industry. And if you aren’t willing to give that level of efort, you probably won’t get
hired again.”
17
Working at this pace is clearly unsustainable and is a barrier for career
advancement especially for people with care-taking responsibilities. “As a parent I
couldn’t necessarily work at that level. That stopped some growth from happening
earlier on in my career.” A junior sound mixer shared an experience of receiving
news of a family emergency and not being able to take time off, “I was almost at a
point of begging. I need to take a break here.”

Several Canadian filmmakers shared the idea that after they finish a documentary,
there is a natural experience of “postpartum.” “When I deliver to a broadcaster,
it’s like all of my energy has been used up to put it on the screen. I don’t have
anything left to spend with renewed force, getting it into festivals, putting it out to other
platforms, getting it distributed.”

Many talked about times they needed to take extended breaks from the industry to
recover or protect their mental health. “I took this break for my mental health
because of burnout. I had lost my passion for working in documentaries and for
everything else in my life.” “I left. In 2019 I had a breakdown and I just had to step
away from the industry because the hours were too long, just the treatment was very
unkind and inhumane.”

The cycle of constant development and production does not allow for the natural
time to heal and recover from a project.
 PA R T 3

Navigating Interpersonal
Relationships

Every documentary is built on an intricate

web of interpersonal relationships with
team, contributors, crew, funders, and
audience. Managing these relationships
is immensely stressful. Filmmakers feel
alone in navigating the confict, creative
diferences, and ethical quagmires that are
inevitable in the high stakes environment of
making a flm.
18

“ IT’S HARD LIVING IN

A SOCIETY WHICH
VALUES PEOPLE’S
EARNING POWER, NOT
WHAT THEY CAN DO.”

Producers, directors, and commissioners, each have unique concerns around

fnances, creative direction, and audience reception. The difering priorities often
pull in separate directions causing friction. When these relationships are built
hierarchically rather than collaboratively, this can cause a great deal of stress within
a production especially given power imbalances discussed above.
Duty of Care for Contributors
Many flmmakers discussed their anxiety around taking care of contributors and
wrestled with questions around duty of care during productions. What was a
reasonable boundary? Why could they not pay contributors? Where is the line
where flmmaking becomes exploitative or extractive? “For example, if I’m making
a documentary about domestic abuse in intimate relationships and I don’t want it
to be extractive. I want to take care of my contributors, but I also want a certain
performance. It would be really helpful to know how to do that in a more balanced,
ethical way.”

This anxiety is magnifed for directors. “Our relationships with contributors are often
very, very intense. They feel like we’re their friends because we come into their lives
in a very particular way. We are needing to make a human connection with someone
in order to gain access. It’s not a two-way relationship.”

Producers and directors want to support their contributors and treat them well,
especially while talking about emotionally charged or traumatic experiences, but
often they do not have the necessary skills, training, or resources. While it can be
benefcial to ask contributors what would help them feel comfortable, it can take up
valuable time. A sensitive production team can come under pressure from demands
from commissioners and broadcasters. “It was hard knowing how much pain some
of the people I was talking to were in, and then navigating notes that wanted to push
for more entertainment.”
19
Finally, there is the question of how a
contributor will be afected by how a
flm is received by critics, festivals, and
audiences. One director shared, “I feel
I am opening the gates to criticism for
a vulnerable person. Making public the
most salacious private aspects of their
lives. We’re not supported to help them
think through what that will mean. In fact,
the industry as a whole actually wants to
disregard that because it’s kind of directly
threatening to an unencumbered release
of a flm.” Directors wondered what
they owe the contributors once flming
was complete, and how to support
contributors that were being pushed into
activist roles.
 Taking care of the Audience
Creators discussed their relationship to the flm and to the audience, raising their
concerns about how to navigate a duty of care for the audience. “There’s a sense
of responsibility that comes from making a flm, and talking about a subject, and
becoming an authority.” One director whose flm is about a family suicide shared,
“It’s really fundamental to me that when we have a screening, we have counselors or
professionals present so that people don’t walk out with no one to share their feelings
with, but we have to fght with festivals to get this to happen.” Another director
felt overwhelmed and unsure how to handle emails from people saying “I was on
the edge, and you saved me.” she said. “I’m just a flmmaker, you know, I’m not a
therapist!”

“ I was on the edge, and

20 you saved me.”
Team relationships
Interpersonal relationships on a documentary are also afected
by the ongoing epidemic of bullying, abuse, and racism, as well
as the awkward questions of how to handle these situations.
“At what point do you call out a name? Or do you just choose to
not work with that person again? What about physical or sexual
assault when, as a flmmaker, you’re just trying to get your flm
made?” For those that do choose to report abuse, there can be
career damaging implications. One participant shared a story,
“My friend is an indigenous flmmaker who was assaulted on
set, verbally and arguably physically, by a white
flmmaker. After they reported the incident, this white flmmaker
proceeded to have their lawyer send a cease-and-desist letter
to my colleague for defamation, and now they can’t even speak
about it. That has a mental health impact, but it also has a
fnancial impact. It has a legal impact.”

In caring for so many others, sometimes documentary makers

neglect their own mental health. “What is the best way to take
care of others while also taking care of myself?” flmmakers asked.
Inadequate Mental Health Care
The systems that production companies have in place are rarely tailored to
documentary makers’ needs. One participant who worked at a large organisation
shared that they had taken advantage of the six free counseling sessions their
workplace offered, but was horrified to learn that their manager had been
automatically alerted by the system that she had done so.

Many companies lack any system to support filmmakers’ mental health, or have
a subscription to an outsourced HR helpline. An editor who suffered vicarious
trauma from her work, shared that when she had asked for support from her
company many years ago, she was told to toughen up. Now the company sends
other people suffering with vicarious trauma to talk to her – though she is still
struggling to support herself and has no training to support others.

Without structural support, many filmmakers pay for private therapy, if they can
afford to do so. Many participants expressed that they had struggled to find a
therapist who could understand the unique issues of documentary filmmakers. “I’ve
had two therapists. When I told them the situation I was in, they immediately said ‘You
should stop making your film’. I mean I understand their logic - reduce exposure to the
trauma- but that’s not going to happen.”

Family and Life Outside of Work

21
Being a documentary flmmaker has a huge impact on choices around family. Many
participants discussed feeling the need to choose between a flmmaking career and
a family. “I had two serious relationships fall apart, and I had to forgo a decision to be
a mother, because I don’t know how I could do this job and have a child. I would be
fired. It’s a human right not to be, but somehow in this business, that’s how it
happens.”

Moreover, having a family or caregiving responsibilities can have a huge impact on

a documentary filmmaking career. Caring responsibilities can make taking on roles or
participating in industry events impossible. “You’re expected to show up and be there
and commit 100%. And that can be really difficult when you have commitments to
your family.”

Families can also be affected by filmmaking projects. One director shared, “Everyday,
I’m bringing all these heavy topics home, and my partner is dealing with my anxiety,
which then enhances his anxiety." Another shared, “my wife at the time said, ‘you see
more of these people in your film than me, you care for them more than you seem to care
for me.’ And it was really true! I lost the border between work and what was healthy in my
personal life. I might make a great film, but it completely screwed me up in the end. I lost
my mind and my wife, she divorced me. I was addicted to work, and the industry loves
people who are addicted to it. It will take your time and your money, as much as it can
take.”

Some filmmakers without families expressed their frustration that family

responsibilities are considered a more legitimate reason to need flexibility and self-
care, or just the desire to do more than constantly work.
 PA R T 4

Identity Specific
Experiences

“ YOU DON’T NEED THERAPY,

YOU NEED A REVOLUTION.”

Women and Non-binary Filmmakers

Participants in the women and non-binary focus groups refected
on their experiences in a culture where they are continually
undermined, sidelined, and belittled in myriad ways both large
and small. As one director put it, “I feel like the whole industry is
designed to work against us.” “There’s is a lot of undermining that
happens both when you’re working with men, but also when you’ve
22 got an industry and power based on male experience.” “I seriously
don’t want to work for male directors or with male cinematographers
anymore because of the number of remarks I’ve heard from men
in the industry, that they never would have made if I was not a
woman.”

“I wish I had the courage to stop tolerating the abusive culture”

said one flmmaker. But for others, being socialized as a woman
makes identifying what experiences are part of gender-based
discrimination difcult. One director shared, “For 30 years I’ve
told myself not to be angry, just be grateful to be in the room.”
Many participants talked about their frustration when they saw
less experienced male colleagues receiving diferent treatment,
for example: men facing fewer hostile questions while pitching;
men being paid their stated day-rate without pushback; men being
handed sizeable projects at a lower experience level than what
would be needed for a woman to receive the same project. “You
internalize these structures of discrimination. You develop this idea
that people don’t have faith and trust in you. You start to think,
‘maybe I’m just not as good as him.’ It afects your confdence.
You start to doubt yourself and in the long run it becomes a self-
perpetuating problem.”
 As discussed above, documentary flm making relies on a web of
interpersonal relationships, and depends particularly on connecting
with contributors to tell emotionally compelling stories. Attending to
and maintaining these relationships is invisible, unpaid labor which often
falls on women. “There is an inherent, often explicit, assumption that
having a woman on a team will create access.” One participant shared,
“I’m the field producer, so interview subjects contact me, which I’m totally
comfortable with, but it’s intense." Multiple participants talked about
realizing that there was a need for aftercare or counseling for crew or
participants and stepping into this role, because “if you don’t do it, it’s not
getting done.” This essential caretaking work is rarely rewarded, “I was
told that I wouldn’t be allowed to advance because I was too useful in a
role of creating access.”

“ I WISH I HAD THE COURAGE

TO STOP TOLERATING THE
ABUSIVE CULTURE” 23

While women’s emotional labor and competency is a key skill, women’s

emotions are unwelcome. “If I’m emotional or say ‘Oh, I’m finding what
the subject said really difficult’ I’m judged."

There is also a backdrop of wider societal systems which

shape the experiences of women and nonbinary people, “like
motherhood, being pregnant on the job, raising kids on your
own, domestic abuse.” Participants pointed out that in the last
30 years more opportunities have become available, but they
also discussed their disappointment about the seemingly disingenuous
or performative change post #MeToo. “There’s a sense right now about
women’s issues, like, ‘Oh, they had #MeToo fve years ago. We did
that, we’re done.’” “We’re also seeing pushback against women having
opportunities for equity, and on social media you’re seeing so many
angry men.”
 LGBTQIA2S+ Filmmakers

24 Participants in the LGBTQIA2S+ groups shared that the greatest pressures they
experience are around identity specifc funding. Identity-linked funding “pits people
against each other for resources. If you’re competing for a grant that’s for queer
people, you are having to fght other queer people.” This competition can fracture
the community, and can be particularly divisive if certain individuals are continually
receiving funding.

They discussed frustration with funders’ expectations that they should only make
content that is ‘on brand’ for their identity. “You’re expected to only put forward that
narrative. You have to be making content about being queer.” There are expectations
about what a sexual or gender identity should look like, both inside and outside the
community. These expectations can leave people feeling like they are too much, not
enough, or both. Participants felt it should not be a requirement to disclose trauma
or perform an inauthentic identity to receive industry support. “I know a lot of
funding bodies are saying, we want you guys to create safe spaces; we want you to
take care of each other. But then where’s the money for that? You know, like, where’s
the money to have a cultural consultant? Where’s the money to have a therapist?
Where’s the money to have mentorship opportunities for other underprivileged
people? Funding organizations aren’t really going to help you with that, but we require
it from you.”

Participants also expressed frustration about diversity “box ticking.” “There used
to be so much unspoken discrimination. Now I feel like I can actually be myself, and
my company sees it as an asset that they have a lesbian in a leadership position. It’s
hard not to feel cynical.”
 “YOU HAVE TO BE
MAKING CONTENT
ABOUT BEING QUEER.”

25

“ I KNOW A LOT OF FUNDING

BODIES ARE SAYING, WE
WANT YOU GUYS TO CREATE
SAFE SPACES; WE WANT
YOU TO TAKE CARE OF EACH
OTHER. BUT THEN WHERE’S
THE MONEY FOR THAT?”
 BIPOC Filmmakers
We want to acknowledge that
this section compresses the
experiences of Black, Brown,
immigrant, Indigenous, and
Muslim flmmakers across three
countries with diferent histories
of colonialism, slavery, settler
invasion, and genocide, and
diferent political frameworks of
white supremacy – and as such
omits cultural nuance. The aim of
this section is to demonstrate the
mental health impacts of working
as a documentary maker in racist,
colonial, white supremacist
systems.

26

Silence and the Status Quo

Many participants shared experience of casual or targeted workplace bullying,
racism, racist microaggressions, and gaslighting. Filmmakers keenly feel the silence
of their white colleagues on issues of race. In the Canadian indigenous flmmakers’
focus group, one director refected that dealing with everyday racism is akin to
trying to keep going while people are throwing grenades into your path. “There’s so
much triaging to do. The damage that they’re doing, it depletes so much energy from
us. When you’re just shaking from the trauma of these grenades, it’s so hard to do
your own work in a good way.”

BIPOC flmmakers spoke about how divisive systems of power can lead to lateral
violence. Lateral violence, also called horizontal violence includes behaviors born
from anger and rage that are directed towards members within a marginalized or
oppressed community rather than towards the oppressors of the community – one’s
peers rather than adversaries. Lateral violence was also discussed by LGBTQIA+,
Disability and Women and Non-Binary group participants. One participant shared,
“The most challenging thing to deal with is the colleagues who look like me, a
minoritized person, who have followed the rules put in place by white power, and
reached a level of success and seniority, and then say, ‘Why are you rocking the boat
for the rest of us?’”
Pushing for Change
In the wake of the growing awareness of systemic
racism due to the work of the Black Lives Matter
(BLM) movement, there has been a great deal
of talk about change, and anger and disappointment when
these discussions are performative. “I’m seeing a lot of
spaces that are saying that they really prioritize our voices,
that they really care about our stories, and our development
and art, and mentoring us. And then the opportunities
themselves are just riddled with power dynamics and toxicity.”

Filmmakers from the US in particular talked about the importance

of groups like Brown Girls Doc Mafa for community support, which
allows sharing experiences of abusive companies and people to
inform other flmmakers who to avoid. The documentary industry
is much smaller in Canada and the UK, and flmmakers there felt
they did not have as much choice in who they would and would not
work with. Several participants who had called out racist dynamics
lost support from friends and colleagues, and were branded
troublemakers. One participant shared, “That has deeply afected
my own mental health. It has led to feelings of profound alienation,
despondency, deep discouragement.”

Filmmakers pointed out unreasonable expectations of the labor 27

expected to be carried out by BIPOC flmmakers to change
these dynamics. “I think there’s a double load of labor: the actual
flmmaking work, and then the labor of making that work within
a context which is anathema to making good work, especially on
sensitive subjects.”

Institutional Discrimination
Participants stated that one of their major concerns was the lack of interest and
investment in BIPOC narratives, flmmakers, and companies. Participants felt
that commissioning discrimination happens behind a veil, as commissioners can
resist releasing relevant data, and there is rarely accountability for discrimination
perpetuated by funding bodies. One Canadian participant talked about her outrage
when a report came out about a broadcaster that showed that “98.3% of funding
went to non-diverse flmmakers.” A British flmmaker shared, “It impacts your
mental health trying to convince a room full of white execs why a non-white story
is important. Then if they reject your application you start to question the validity
of what you’re trying to do. When the gatekeeper is a person of color it makes the
gatekeeping power dynamics even more complicated.”
 Filmmakers with Dis/abilities
Dis/ability is an umbrella term, and the participants in
these focus groups discussed a wide range of
experiences around navigating neurodivergence,
chronic or terminal illness, mental illness, physical
disabilities, and more in the documentary film industry.

“ we’re representing our

identity and have to
get THAT right. if we
don’t... It messes things
28
up for everybody.”

Barriers

and institutional ableism which can prevent

and contribute to the ongoing lack of representation of

people with disabilities in front of and behind the camera.
“I feel like I’m trying to catch up, because I’m not physically
able to deal with things that someone that doesn’t have my

individuals with certain disabilities that have cost implications.

own experiences talked about how vulnerable and exhausting

it can be to always be putting themselves out there, only to be
ignored by the mainstream,

content, there’s no disabled programmers on the panels.”

When Filmmakers’ Needs Are Ignored
One of the greatest frustrations for participants was institutions or funders not
initiating or even resisting open conversations about what fexibility or adjustment
would be best to support creators with disabilities. One director shared, “With
some people I’ve worked with, it’s very open. They want to fgure out how we can
work together around what everyone’s needs are. But when everything’s on the
hush hush, it’s just so much worse. Obviously, as the person who’s receiving funding,
you’re afraid to be the one bringing forward these conversations or coming of
as extra needy, or extra difcult to work with because you have to make these
accommodations to support our team.”

Many participants shared stories of infexibility, decisions about their access needs
being made without consulting them, or just awkward silence, all of which caused
anxiety or in some cases worsened their symptoms. If working conditions did
aggravate their symptoms, or when their mental or physical conditions limited their
working ability in some way, able-bodied colleagues or superiors could become
harsh and judgmental of what they perceived as a “poor work ethic,” leaving
participants with feelings of inadequacy as a result. One director shared, “I’ve had
frsthand experience of the stigma, prejudice and discrimination as a person living
with bipolar mood disorder. The pressure of trying to work in a really unrealistic
timeline was so great, and that led me to having a psychotic episode. That led to me
being fred from my job, and the plug was pulled on the project. It took me ten years
to fnish the flm.”
29
Community
In the face of these challenges, many filmmakers spoke about the importance of
solidarity within their filmmaking communities. Filmmakers with mentors talked
about how important these relationships and support had been to them, though
others struggled with expectations that mentorship should be provided as free
labor.

Some filmmakers felt anxiety and uncertainty about their responsibilities to

a wider community. One director pointed out that if you are representing an
underrepresented community, it’s possible “that your little voice might end up being
quite big, and have an effect on how your people are viewed or heard in the world.”
One filmmaker who described themselves as “sometimes white passing” shared, “if I
apply for certain opportunities using my own underrepresented identities, am I
taking up a space for a Black filmmaker that doesn’t have the same privilege?”

Participants shared that as there are fewer filmmakers with disabilities, they can
feel under pressure because “it feels like we’re representing our identity and we
have to get that right. Because if we don’t, it doesn’t just mess things up for us. It
messes things up for everybody like us, too. So, there’s this enormous pressure to be
the disabled or neurodiverse person that people can work with.”
 Solutions
from the
Filmmakers
 Creating an Equitable and
Supportive Culture

1For BIPOC Filmmakers

Participants want to see more awareness and action from stakeholders
in key positions of power to address the ongoing racial inequalities
of opportunity and access. Participants also made the point that
when opportunities are opened for marginalized flmmakers, these
opportunities need to include genuine support and participants
particularly felt that community solidarity and mentor support are
particularly key to opening opportunities.

32

2
For Filmmakers Living with Dis/ability
Filmmakers shared that they want to see a fundamental
shift in understanding from a medical model that views
people as broken on an individual level to a social model that
understands that people are disabled by infrastructures that
are not built for them. They want to see safety embedded in
production considerations with an emphasis on fexibility,
compromise, and genuine heartfelt inclusivity. Participants
want to see more events with accessibility coordinators, and
organisations with a willingness to learn what they can do to
increase accessibility. Particularly important is ring fenced
accessibility funding to make sure that accessibility needs
can be met. Finally, participants also urged for a more
holistic understanding of what accessibility needs might be
beyond interpreters or physical access - such as a paid
assistant.
3 Increasing Financial Security
These included funding cooperatives, more artist stipends and
residencies, arts funding being 100% tax deductible, universal
basic income, a guaranteed living wage, and the overthrow
of capitalism. Filmmakers would like to see more funding
become available to be able to pay everybody involved in
production a living wage. In the US particularly, but also in
Canada, flmmakers want a better
system for accessing health care
as a freelancer, potentially through
a union. Filmmakers want more
fexibility on how project funding
is spent, and more funding for
flmmakers, not just projects.
Filmmakers also want funding for
training and business development.

4
33

Reducing Power Diferentials

Filmmakers and funders alike called for increased transparent,
democratic and accountable processes around funding. Some
suggested governing boards to oversee organization’s distribution of
funding is equitable or mandating flmmakers are invited to be part of
grant evaluation panels. Many flmmakers are eager for an alternative
to the standard written method of applying for funding, potentially
through interviews or videos. Filmmakers want funding bodies to
recognise the tremendous efort that goes into an application and to
provide feedback on rejected applications.
 5 Vet and Educate the Gatekeepers
In order to dismantle the status quo, flmmakers want to see
changes to positions of power. This could include selecting
festival directors and commissioning editors who have
production experience. Filmmakers would like to see term
limits for positions like commissioning editors. Commissioners
and other managers should receive anti-bullying, anti-
harassment, and anti-racism training. The people in these
powerful positions should be vetted for their commitments
to ethical practice. Filmmakers want to see more diversity in
such high-powered positions.

6
34

Accountability and Solidarity

Filmmakers want to see powerful organizations in the industry move into
authentic solidarity with marginalised creators and work to make the
industry more inclusive and supportive. If necessary, they should bring paid
cultural advisors on board to help them understand their biases and gaps in
understanding. Funders should open conversations with creators to ask about
their needs.
7
Open Conversations
Participants want more open conversations to reduce stigma and shame
around mental illness and fnancial difculties. They want to change the idea
of what a flmmaker has to be doing. They want safe spaces and supportive
environments where they can share difculties and connect with peers who
understand. Participants also wanted support to create comfort agreements
or wellbeing contracts for how co-creators and crew will treat each other on
projects.

35

8
Connection and Support
Across the board, flmmakers talked about their desire for
increased connection with peers and support from mentors.
Some flmmakers raised the point that peer support groups
would ideally be run by a trained facilitator who could hold the
space well and safely.

Mentorship was also requested by many flmmakers, and

flmmakers with mentors discussed how helpful the relationship
had been to them for learning to navigate the industry and
making connections, as well as building their confdence.
Many flmmakers talked about their struggle to fnd a mentor,
or their discomfort in asking for mentorship and uncertainty
about compensation. They wanted to see more parity between
flmmakers and funders with funding bodies listening to
flmmakers and pushing for changes to improve the culture and
conditions in the industry.
 Safe Working

1
Conditions
Standardised Working Conditions
Participants wanted to see more regulation to ensure safety of crew and
contributors physical and mental health, including standardisation around
hours worked, overtime payments, and daily rates. Many believed that
unions and collective campaigns for change would be the only way to see
these changes take efect.

Filmmakers are also frustrated that practices can difer wildly between

2
production companies. They suggest an anonymous ombudsman at the
broadcaster level who could provide general advice or explanation of
standard practice.

Reporting Abuse

36 There is an ongoing epidemic

of abuse, but no system for
reporting abuse beyond calling
out abusers. Some flmmakers
wanted to develop an HR system to
be able to report abuse anonymously. Others spoke about
the importance of using online groups to publicly share the
names of abusive individuals. One flmmaker suggested
creating awards for best mental health practices.

3
Protocol Guidelines
Filmmakers would like protocol
guidelines or an ethical framework– such
as the ones used by journalists. These
would ofer a roadmap to navigate: EAT
DISORING
DERS
discussing potentially triggering topics SUICID
E
such as eating disorders, suicide, mental
illness, and abuse; how to ABUSE
treat and protect contributors; and MENTAL
responsibilities in terms of duty of ILLNESS

care for contributors, crew, and

funders.
4 Building in Mental Health Support
Filmmakers across the board felt that there needs to be a
line item in flm budgets for mental health support as part
of documentary projects. Filmmakers want to budget for
services including on-set emotional support for crew and
contributors, consultancy on trauma informed practices,
or trained professionals to facilitate difcult discussions
during times of confict or tension.

Participants also wanted scheduling that allowed for

time to check-in with the wider crew after an emotionally
charged shoot. Several flmmakers spoke about how
transformative it had been for their wellbeing to have a
scheduled debrief or individual decompression time where
they could acknowledge how an experience had afected
them and start to process those feelings. Filmmakers

37

5
themselves would like more training around mental health.
This includes training in Mental Health First Aid and more
long-term training in self-care and care for contributors.

Supervision Model

Many flmmakers expressed a desire for a trained professional

with mental health experience who understands the documentary
industry, who could support them to navigate the unique challenges
of working in the documentary feld. Several participants discussed
the benefts they received from their experience in supervision
with Film in Mind. Film in Mind ofers a model of Documentary
Film Supervision where an experienced therapist works one-on-
one or with a group of flmmakers to address emotional, creative,
and ethical questions regarding their flmmaking, in a supportive,
accepting environment. Supervision ofers a place for flmmakers
to work through the tangle of professional, personal, interpersonal,
and creative issues that accompany every project. This model could
become standard practice across the industry.
 Support for Filmmakers
and their Families

1
Childcare or Carer Line Item
Filmmakers want childcare costs to become a standard
budget line item. This change will particularly afect women,
who are disproportionately responsible for childcare, by
empowering mothers to take on more creative projects,
and enabling people who want to have children to do so
without giving up their career. Childcare is not the only
caring responsibility, and flmmakers with other caring
responsibilities beyond childcare would beneft from the
introduction of this line item as well.

2
38

Documentary informed
mental health support
Filmmakers want mental health support that is tailored
to their needs. This could include a list of therapists who
would be aware of the documentary world or willing
to work on a sliding scale. Filmmakers also suggested
that the focus group conveners could design a type of
training for therapists to learn more about how to work
with documentary flmmakers.

Filmmakers also talked about the potential for helplines

or artist community spaces which could provide
connection and community support, in lieu of therapy.
39
 from into
research action
DocuMentality is committed to being a
bridge between flmmakers and the industry
– including commissioners and funders – and
to push for the industry to meet flmmakers’
needs. We have already begun taking action
on a number of points raised in focus groups.

Industry Representative Focus Groups 41

Filmmakers told us it was essential that these conversations were not just happening
internally – that funders and commissioners needed to understand what flmmakers
were experiencing and work to change the industry.

Our frst step towards this end was to organize two focus groups with funders and
open a dialogue around potential solutions. We hosted these at CPH:DOX in 2023
and presented attendees with a brief summary of the themes and fndings from
our research. The funders that attended, and gave us permission to publish their
participation, were:

BBC Storyville Gamechanger Films

Actual Films Claims Conference

Lyfta Screen Scotland

Danish Film Institute Finnish Film Institute

Norwegian Film Institute Chicken and Egg Pictures

European Film Academy Guardian Documentaries

Sundance Institute
 Findings
We were surprised to learn that funders are aware of the issues flmmakers are
experiencing. Even with this awareness, seeing the issues written down had a strong
emotional impact. They understand there is an imbalance of power, and suggested
measures to create more transparency and accountability to flmmakers including:
inviting flmmakers to observe or join review panels, or to be external advisors, or
other measures to demystify the funding process; ofering explanations of why
funding questions are being asked and who will be reviewing the application;
sending a few lines of feedback for applicants to reduce feelings of rejection;
opening dialogue with flmmakers to create more mutual understanding and
dispel unproductive myths and imbalances of power. Some expressed that openly
discussing power dynamics would beneft themselves as well as flmmakers, as
they are often under a great deal of institutional pressure from their own funders,
superiors, and the industry as a whole.

To address flmmakers’ desire for emotional support skills and resources they
proposed: training and resources around duty of care information which could be
provided as links in an application; therapists, coaches or supervisors could be
attached to projects; this support could be framed in terms of an investment in the
flmmaker’s career and longevity to increase likelihood of funder support.

To address the stigma around mental health and wellbeing, which many flmmakers

42 discussed made them reticent to apply for mental health support funding in the
frst place, participants in the funder focus groups proposed that institutions could
put out a statement encouraging flmmakers to apply for mental health support in
their applications, or flmmakers could include these costs in ‘fringe’ or ‘benefts’
line items. These groups acknowledged the huge barriers faced by marginalized
flmmakers, but did not ofer concrete action suggestions to tackle these barriers,
outside of what their own institutions were already doing. Participants also
acknowledged that although there were many changes they would personally like
to make, they felt helpless and constrained by their institutions, which seemed to
resist making any real and lasting changes.

Finally, these groups refected that they would like to re-defne the concept of
‘success’ and create avenues to celebrate flms and flmmakers that are making
mental health a priority in the process.

At the close of the focus groups, participants refected that this discussion was
unprecedented. There are currently no spaces for funders to come together on
a person-to-person level to discuss the industry in a safe space. Many had never
considered their own mental health and wellbeing in the context of the work
they do. They refected on how benefcial more lines of communication between
funders as well as between funders and flmmakers could improve the quality of the
experience of working in the documentary flm ecosystem.
Peer Support Groups
Hearing the consistent request for connection and facilitated peer

the facilitation skills needed to create and sustain their own peer

boards and production companies, and will continue to grow.

Documentary Film Supervisors

Film In Mind has been developing a new model of support for

Film Council, Film in Mind will bring together a number of other

experience, to further develop the new role of ‘supervisor’ to the

working title and may change.

43
Pre-Paid Therapy Support
DOC (Documentary Organization of Canada) has just launched a
training and support programme for six producers that includes
funding for access to therapeutic support and also mentorship. This
is a direct outcome of listening to the research outcomes of the
Documentality report in Canada and they hope it will pave the way
for other funders to follow
 next steps

THIS IS JUST THE BEGINNING

The focus groups elicited a multitude of
filmmaker suggestions from the micro to
macro. DocuMentality, The D-Word and Film
in Mind find themselves well positioned to
create spaces for funders and filmmakers to
discuss the issues presented here and
brainstorm solutions in collaboration. We are
also prepared to work towards a more
44 equitable and sustainable mentoring system.
We see there is a great deal more research which must be undertaken to develop

also pursue funding to further this research to understand the pressures on funders,

collectives and advocacy groups whose unpaid work is essential to both challenging
and supporting the industry.

In 2024, DocuMentality is partnering with Peace is Loud to undertake further

research on behalf of contributors to understand the mental health impacts of
appearing in documentaries. In time we aim to develop a comprehensive website

and transformative process.

We are committed to creating change in the industry, and working to engage

industry.
Conclusion
First and foremost, we want to thank every flmmaker who took
part in this research. We hope this report captures the far reaching
problems concerning mental health and well-being for documentary
flmmakers, and the necessity for change. Fixing the problems
outlined in this report will be a collective efort, and this is just the
beginning.

We love and respect the documentary form for its beauty in

storytelling and power to raise awareness about vitally important
issues in our world. However, the dissonance between respect for
the art form and the lived experience of documentary flmmakers
is resounding. This is why it is of vital importance for us, out of love
and respect for the documentary flm community, to highlight the
ways our community is sufering.

The problems we are facing are clear. A dysfunctional industry

thwarts creativity, breeds resentment, fosters mental health and
well-being struggles, and ultimately prevents the art form and artists 45
from living up to their true potential.

We know we can do better. These issues have been neglected

for far too long and it is about time they are tackled head-on.
We are standing with flmmakers and calling for action-oriented
commitment and follow-through to move towards a healthier, better
connected, and more equal ecosystem for all.
 RESOURCE SHEET

Below is a list of existing resources to

support the mental health and well-being of
documentary flmmakers:

Documentary Film Council (UK):

https://documentaryflmcouncil.co.uk/ community-led organisation created
to meet the needs of the UK independent documentary sector.

Film and TV Charity Mental Health Toolkit:

https://flmtvcharity.org.uk/your-support/support-for-employers/the-whole-
picture-toolkit/

DAWG: Documentary Accountability Working Group:

https://www.docaccountability.org/ an ethical framework for the
documentary community

46 The DART Center for Journalism and Trauma:

https://dartcenter.org/ trauma support and resources for documentary
journalists

Film In Mind:
https://filminmind.co.uk/ therapy and supervision practice, supporting
filmmakers internationally.

The D-Word:
https://www.d-word.com/ a worldwide community of documentary
professionals

Screen Well (Australia):

screenwell.com.au Australian Screen Sector’s mental health and wellbeing
destination hub

Samaritans (UK):
https://www.samaritans.org/ a 24hr helpline for people in crisis

International Association for Suicide Prevention:

https://www.iasp.info/crisis-centres-helplines/ links to over 50 support
centres worldwide

Mental Health First Aid (US)

 Acknowledgements
and Credits
This research was conducted through
DocuMentality. DocuMentality is a group of
flmmakers and mental health professionals
who came together to raise the alarm
about mental health and well-being in the
documentary flm industry.

It was founded by Malikkah Rollins and co- hosts of The D-Word: Erica Ginsberg,
Doug Block, Marjan Safnia and Peter Gerard, and Rebecca Day from Film In
Mind. DocuMentality’s aim is to create dialogue and collaborative change to the
key mental health and well-being challenges currently facing the documentary
community: flmmakers, crew and participants.

Focus Group Lead Facilitators: Rebecca Day & Malikkah Rollins 47

Additional Focus Group facilitators:

UK - Lindsey Dryden, Eloise King

USA: Dawn Valadez

Canada: Nika Khanjani, Kim Haxton, Jana Awad

Research Consultant: Valdeep Gill

Research Coordinator: Helen Lawrie

Research Analysis: Clair Maleney

Outreach Coordinator: Becky Ashdown

Report Writer: Clair Maleney

Report Design: David McNaughton

Made possible with partnership from:

Scottish Doc Institute & DOC Canada, Documentary Film Council

With funding from:

Doc Society, Canada Media Fund, Screen Scotland, AM/DOC POV
 DocuMentality is brought to you by The D-Word, Film in Mind, and Malikkah Rollins

MADE POSSIBLE WITH PARTNERSHIP FROM

WITH FUNDING FROM