In much of the world, democracy is under attack, not from would-be military dicators, but from "populist" politicians who rig the game and push lies through a supportive media. India is one such country, and 'While We Watched' follows Rajesh Kumar, an independent journalist under increasing attack from the Indian state. Unfortunately, it's not such a great documentary. It shows us Kumar fighting depression as the government becomes increasingly assertive and his television station faces financial and legal difficulties. But it doesn't explain those issues in detail, focusing instead on his own emotional reaction. And the journalism we see him do only involves him attacking the pseudo-journalism of others, an important job, but if his channel only showed him complaining (as opposed to reporting), it wouldn't be surprising if no-one was watching. I suspect this is the decision of the film's editors, rather than a full representation of reality; but the framing of Kumar as heroic, isolated, and doomed can gives the viewer the feeling of being lectured (as well as the sense that this might also be the experience of Kumar's viewers as well). Fly-on-the-wall is not the only way of making a documentary, and while the technique is good for conveying a situtation emotionally, in this case, it leads to repetition and a lack of deeper explanation. What we do learn, however, is plenty worrying; one can only hope Kumar and his team can keep up the fight.
Review of While We Watched
