How does television personally affect the healers?
The relationship between the filmmakers, their crew and the subjects creates a dynamic in which they influence and react to each other. In order to empower the viewers of a documentary with the necessary knowledge to evaluate it critically, it is important to make reflexive references to the filmmaking process. In this section some of the realized and possible effects of television exposure on these healers and the decisions made by the filmmakers when considering those effects are discussed.

After Lawrence appeared on TV, I started noticing some remarkable changes in his practice. One of the most noteworthy that he demonstrates in the film is his "TV-preacher" prayer style. Although Lawrence denies that television has changed him in any way, after questioning him about praying aloud (for many traiteurs silent, secret prayer is necessary for the rite to work), Lawrence admitted that he believed his patients "needed something more," besides the silent traiteur prayers.

The camera did indeed affect his behavior, but, contrary to what the viewer might assume, Lawrence did not "ham it up" for his audience. Conversely, he became much more humble and unassuming when the camera was turned on. Usually, he has a tendency to veer toward boasting when discussing his treatments, but he was very aware of how that might sound on television. One of the decisions we confronted in producing the film was whether to point out this "observer-effect." We decided against it, first, because no narrator was employed after the introduction and, second, because Lawrence did not see himself as being affected by the camera as we, the outside observers, did.

In every documentary, many decisions are rendered by the filmmakers that determine what gets filmed, what the structure of the finished film will be, and how that chosen footage is edited. In the end, our three principal treaters were given approximately eleven minutes of screen time basically to "tell their stories." Choices had to be made in editing, and, inevitably, it seemed that there was insufficient time for many aspects of their lives and personalities to be understood. In representing Lawrence's character, the task was complicated by some unsettling statements that he voiced on camera towards the end of filming. Ultimately, we filmmakers decided not to include these statements. We felt that after establishing the positive aspects of his personality and healing gifts, it would be a "cheap shot" to leave the audience with a negative view of this man who had graciously let us into his life and contributed to the making of this film.

For the purpose of this study guide, however, these statements raise provocative questions about how TV has affected Lawrence's self esteem and ambition. When asked how he would deal with the large number of patients he may receive if this film is broadcast on nation-wide television, Lawrence asserted,

...When you call my home, you're healed, and that's my strong belief. But if you really want to see me in person, you have to be patient and wait your turn because I am already praying for you when you call....Why I have over five hundred (calls), in fact, probably more by now....I am gonna heal everybody nationwide.

This "automatic healing" belief is not a common concept among traiteurs. The arrogant tone and "wide-eyed" enthusiasm Lawrence adopted when making these assertions combined with his declaration that he will heal everybody nation-wide, as well as other examples not recorded, suggest the effects of TV exposure on this healer — for good or bad. Although it was disconcerting to see Lawrence assume such airs, it was also wonderful to see the feeling of pride and status he gained from becoming a local celebrity for a while. The problem comes in when, at times, I have witnessed Lawrence pontificating about his own knowledge and power (through God) to the point of telling his patients that his treatments are all they need to get well — even with serious conditions like diabetes. Also, his immense talent at improvisation can seem dangerous when he speaks with great authority about treatments grounded less in "tried and true" years of tradition than his clients may realize.

In the end, perhaps, an evaluative judgment of television's effects is not for "us," the viewers, to decide. As Barry Ancelet notes, "All the treaters are going to have to determine what effect this documentary process — the fact of having it filmed and having it aired — will have on them....and they are the best and only ones to do it."

How much is showing too much?
How responsible is the filmmaker for the effects of a documentary?
Some situations and topics are more sensitive to film and represent than others. In the case of witchcraft, the filmmakers were dealing with a highly secretive practice that healers are usually uncomfortable discussing (if they discuss it at all). When interviewing Miss Ella's patients on camera, they initially would speak of their illnesses in medical terminology. Only after more questions and discussion would they reveal that the underlying cause of their distress was witchcraft. However, without the use of narration, it takes quite a few "steps" of dialogue to disclose the more occult diagnosis. When editing a documentary in which the filmmakers desire to convey so much information and give adequate context to the issues, demonstrating procedural incidents without narration requires too much screen time. In other words, showing every step of a process takes much more time then quickly explaining it in a few words or sentences. Once again, the filmmakers had to decide what was more important: allowing the subjects to tell their own story without the framing of an impersonal, "omniscient" voice, or verbal exegesis that would nicely define and clarify all the issues?

Along with this problem of secrecy about witchcraft, we filmmakers encountered an ethical dilemma as well. Miss Ella was somewhat hesitant to talk about her witchcraft-removing practices on camera. When discussing her abilities as a "two-headed person," she stated that the information was for us "to keep to [ourselves]." Yet, she explained her status as a two-headed person (without elaborating on her specific powers) twice — at separate times and locations — while clearly aware that the camera was running. She also had refused to do something on camera earlier that day because she believed it would be too revealing for the witchcraft practitioners who eventually might watch the film. Yet, not to include her status as a two-headed person would be presenting an incomplete picture of her practice. We struggled with the questions: How much is revealing too much? and Will Miss Ella be placed in any perceived harm by what we show?

In the end, we edited the "Witchcraft Removal" section as respectfully as possible — keeping many sections in straight interview form. We did not include details about her specific powers. I also returned to visit Miss Ella during the editing process and asked if she could think of anything said or done on camera that may be harmful in any way, which she could not. By ending the segment with Miss Ella's following line, we hoped to convey that much of her practice is to be understood by she alone: "...but I can't explain you for that. That's for me to keep for myself. I can just tell you part of it."