SUBJECT, CHARACTER OR PARTICIPANT?
Why Your Vocabulary Matters
Do you call the people you are filming in your documentaries to be subjects, characters, or participants?
You’re probably thinking, does it even matter?
It absolutely does matter, and here’s why.
The words we use to identify the people in our film are representative of how we perceive ourselves and our relationship to the protagonists of the film.

MY POINT OF VIEW
I choose to use the word participant to identify the protagonists in my documentaries.
My philosophy is I’m making a documentary WITH the people that are in the film, not strictly about them.
My current films focus primarily on the viewpoints of the main protagonist – and I tend to choose my participants based on sharing similar values or worldviews. Before I start filming, I like to ensure we have similar goals and objectives for creating the film – hence making it a participatory experience for them, rather than just a film about them.
WORKING WITH YOUR PARTICIPANT
I find this helps build trust and a stronger relationship with the film’s participants, so we can get deeper into the story.
It’s important to have this conversation early in the process, ideally in your first conversation with your participant – it would be terrible to get partway through filming and have them withdraw from the film because you weren’t completely upfront about your intentions.
Now, this doesn’t mean that you won’t run into potential issues further down the line. For example, you may run into a situation where the participant doesn’t like how he’s portrayed in a particular scene – but earning and building that trust through having similar values and goals and being fully transparent about it – and them being seen as a participant in the filmmaking process rather than a character or subject – can help you when you discuss your viewpoint on why it’s important to keep that scene in the film.
This means I have regular conversations with my participants about the ideas and themes I want to explore as they come up or when I have new thoughts. It also means, at the very least, I share the film before we lock picture to ensure they are ok with how they are portrayed.
VOCABULARY MATTERS
I really dislike the word “subject”, as for me (coming from a law enforcement background) the word implies someone under investigation. For my principal protagonist in a film, that feels just plain wrong.
Character, I feel, implies it’s a fictional person, or is meant strictly for entertainment. That is not what I seek to create, or how I feel about my relationship with the protagonists of my films.
And both words imply a sense of power imbalance – the filmmaker has control over how both are perceived. This is fraught with potential issues, particularly when working with participants from a different community than yourself where there is already an inherent power imbalance.
I believe your films protagonist should feel empowered through the process of making and sharing the film – not exposed.
BUT WHAT ABOUT MICHAEL MOORE STYLE FILMS!?
My approach may not be right for everyone. For example, if you operate in a journalistic space, are doing a Michael Moore style doc, or making an archival film based on a historical event, then perhaps subjects or characters is a better terminology to use.
For example, in a film like 20 Days in Mariupol, who’s main protagonists are the filmmakers themselves (even though they don’t appear on camera), the people on screen are not necessarily participants – they are existing in a space and time where the main participants are filming. They are more “subjects” for lack of a better word. They’re not really characters, as, in my mind, character implies a prominent role in the entirety of the film, along with some sort of development along the way in their story arc.
In the film Israelism, where the filmmakers interview the former director of the Anti-Defamation League, Abe Foxman, to get the counter-perspective of the film’s main participant, Simone Zimmerman, I would argue, in this case, he is a subject. While his participation in the film was voluntary, the goal of the filmmaker and the film in general was not in alignment with his goals and values – and in fact interviews afterwards with him have stated he only watched 10 minutes of the film and regretted his participation in the film. From the filmmakers point of view, the inclusion of his perspective was very important to the film, so they didn’t need to be in alignment for what they were hoping to achieve.
FURTHER EXPLORATION
If you’re interested in learning more about the issues and dilemmas on this topic, I highly recommend watching the film Subject by Jennifer Tiexiera, which does a deep dive into the ethics of documentary filmmaking and the effects films can have on the participants of the film. I also recommend reading “A Question of Ethics: The Relationship Between Filmmaker and Subject” by the IDA.