This is a brilliant resource for any documentary film makers.
It includes interviews with a lot of the world's most respect documentarians.
All the interviews are about documentary practice, planning and ideas creation, which covers nearly everything we'll be doing on the course.
We'll look at some of these in class, but I really recommend you take some time to get to know this website yourself.
Some of the basic tips on planning, being spontaneous, listening, shooting are excellent and given freely by people with tonnes of experience.
The theme I think though, that runs throughout these clips is twofold:
Firstly, nearly all these film makers are inspired by other film makers whose work they loved and subsequently learnt a lot from.
Secondly, you have to find a method of telling 'reality' that suits who you are and this takes time and practice. You might be suited to a more observational style of storytelling, or if you're like Nick Broomfield, you might find it better to get yourself into the film and make that part of the narrative (participatory filmmaking)
Both these underlying themes I think show why documentary films are so different from one another. Or at least why the good ones are so different from one another, because you are really watching one person's unique view of the world in many ways.
Enjoy!
http://films.nfb.ca/capturing-reality/
Tuesday, 21 September 2010
Thursday, 16 September 2010
102 Minutes that changed America
Jack and Matthew and I think a few other mentioned this film the other day.
Google video is showing it, so it doesn't cost anything.
I haven't watched it yet, just the first three minutes, it does look very good.
In terms of type of documentary, I'd call it creative and observational.
Brilliant idea. The Beastie Boys did something similar at one of their gigs for their film Awesome, I fucking shot that!
102 is here
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-3694706480383919917#
Trailer for Beastie Boys is here
Google video is showing it, so it doesn't cost anything.
I haven't watched it yet, just the first three minutes, it does look very good.
In terms of type of documentary, I'd call it creative and observational.
Brilliant idea. The Beastie Boys did something similar at one of their gigs for their film Awesome, I fucking shot that!
102 is here
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-3694706480383919917#
Trailer for Beastie Boys is here
Tuesday, 14 September 2010
Power of Documentary
It's a testimony to the power people attribute to documentary, that when they see something that they disagree with, they tend to react strongly.
I like this documentary. It's picked a difficult subject. Immigration. And although I think the film is a little biased it provides a platform for people to talk about the issue.
Its certainly got conflict, and characters, don't know about the resolution.
What's very interesting about this doc and is almost part of it I think, is the 7 pages of comments made on the youtube page. Read them, they themselves are a document of some people's attitudes. (link at the bottom)
Maybe the power of documentary is to get people talking about difficult subjects, by having at least some of the information from both sides.
Maybe not. Maybe it is the role of the documentary maker to represent the views of the most marginalised, most persecuted members of society, to let their voices be heard?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fppe85TQ9Fc
I like this documentary. It's picked a difficult subject. Immigration. And although I think the film is a little biased it provides a platform for people to talk about the issue.
Its certainly got conflict, and characters, don't know about the resolution.
What's very interesting about this doc and is almost part of it I think, is the 7 pages of comments made on the youtube page. Read them, they themselves are a document of some people's attitudes. (link at the bottom)
Maybe the power of documentary is to get people talking about difficult subjects, by having at least some of the information from both sides.
Maybe not. Maybe it is the role of the documentary maker to represent the views of the most marginalised, most persecuted members of society, to let their voices be heard?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fppe85TQ9Fc
Letterpress Doc
This is another simple short documentary.
It's got a clear subject, a world, a character (the man himself), some conflict and a possible resolution, although that remains to be argued over!
I think one of the requirements of our documentaries is that they take us into a world we don't know about. Or a world we thought we knew, but didn't. Maybe that is part of what makes a documentary interesting.
It isn't flashy, but the editing is precise and gives the film a shine.
It's got a clear subject, a world, a character (the man himself), some conflict and a possible resolution, although that remains to be argued over!
I think one of the requirements of our documentaries is that they take us into a world we don't know about. Or a world we thought we knew, but didn't. Maybe that is part of what makes a documentary interesting.
It isn't flashy, but the editing is precise and gives the film a shine.
City of Cranes
This is a lovely, if a little slow, short documentary.
It's beyond the budget of our documentaries, but it goes to show you how a simple idea, can build into a treatment and finally become a film.
Although it is modern in its look, the style of laying audio interviews down with pictures over them is an old technique dating back to the 1930s.
You could argue this film is slight in its storytelling. In that sense it has something in common with Vertov. There is a feeling of the film being a 'day in the life' of the crane driver.
The filmmaker exerts a high degree of control over the pictures. It feels tight. The control and lack of free wheeling that characterised kino-pravda, makes you wonder how much 'reality' you are watching.
Maybe it doesn't matter. Maybe the way the pictures and words are put together give us an accurate enough description of what its like to be a crane driver.
It won't let me embed, so you can find it at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bWreui-wxM
This is one of the films accepted for 4Docs.
It's beyond the budget of our documentaries, but it goes to show you how a simple idea, can build into a treatment and finally become a film.
Although it is modern in its look, the style of laying audio interviews down with pictures over them is an old technique dating back to the 1930s.
You could argue this film is slight in its storytelling. In that sense it has something in common with Vertov. There is a feeling of the film being a 'day in the life' of the crane driver.
The filmmaker exerts a high degree of control over the pictures. It feels tight. The control and lack of free wheeling that characterised kino-pravda, makes you wonder how much 'reality' you are watching.
Maybe it doesn't matter. Maybe the way the pictures and words are put together give us an accurate enough description of what its like to be a crane driver.
It won't let me embed, so you can find it at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bWreui-wxM
This is one of the films accepted for 4Docs.
A man with a movie camera
Vertov was a film theorist and dedicated much of his life to broadening the scope of what was possible with a film camera.
He developed a theory of how the camera acts a second eye or kino-eye and considered all the techniques of camera operation - slow motion, time lapse, focussing - could all make reality more 'real'.
His masterpiece, and the film he is best known for is Man with a Movie Camera.
Again, there is little in the way of story. If there is a story it is about a day in the life of a city. But even this is at a stretch.
It is really about happenings and events. We, the audience are led through the city by Vertov's second eye, his camera, to experience life as it happens.
Vertov, like other Russian film makers of the day, was interested in juxtaposition.
All this means is placing very different images alongside one another to create an emotional or mental reaction in the audience.
You can spot some of the juxtaposition in Vertov's film.
Man with a Movie camera still influences today. It would be considered by a modern TV influenced audience like ourselves to be minimalist in its narrative, and probably artistic in its treatment.
Some people would find it boring, or hard to watch. However, if you stick with it, it does reward, just very differently!
This is part one, from the whole film which is watchable on Youtube. Music is completely re-done by the lush Cinematic Orchestra.
He developed a theory of how the camera acts a second eye or kino-eye and considered all the techniques of camera operation - slow motion, time lapse, focussing - could all make reality more 'real'.
His masterpiece, and the film he is best known for is Man with a Movie Camera.
Again, there is little in the way of story. If there is a story it is about a day in the life of a city. But even this is at a stretch.
It is really about happenings and events. We, the audience are led through the city by Vertov's second eye, his camera, to experience life as it happens.
Vertov, like other Russian film makers of the day, was interested in juxtaposition.
All this means is placing very different images alongside one another to create an emotional or mental reaction in the audience.
You can spot some of the juxtaposition in Vertov's film.
Man with a Movie camera still influences today. It would be considered by a modern TV influenced audience like ourselves to be minimalist in its narrative, and probably artistic in its treatment.
Some people would find it boring, or hard to watch. However, if you stick with it, it does reward, just very differently!
This is part one, from the whole film which is watchable on Youtube. Music is completely re-done by the lush Cinematic Orchestra.
So this Russian guy came along
If you've looked at Nanook of the North, Robert J Flaherty's documentary feature, the first of its kind, its hard not to think of it being slightly romantic.
The natives are portrayed as noble savages. The title cards suggest a Disney-esque landscape of white, white snow and more purer times past.
This slight heavy handedness, editorally, on behalf of Flaherty didn't take away from his film. If anything, it made it more marketable to mass audiences. People came in droves.
It did however stick in the gullet of another film maker, film theorist and all rounder, Russian Dziga Vertov.
Vertov, a communist in Russia in the 1920s, wanted something else from reality. He didn't like the slightly romantic versions of reality, nor did he like the way documentary filmmakers like Flaherty constructed 'stories' from reality.
He didn't like stories at all. He considered, which is fair enough, that stories themselves, the very notion of a story, was a way to control people; to make them think the way you want them to.
He hated this level of what he considering brainwashing and went looking for something purer.
In doing so, he laid foundations which many modern documentary filmmakers continue to refind and become inspired by all over again.
For instance. He was fond of just rocking up at a place (he liked normal places, like cafes, and bars, and libraries, where normal people worked, not ice bergs where native people fished) and without telling anyone, he'd just start filming.
Or he'd hide behind plants, and film from there.
He was desperate to catch reality, without reality catching him.
He was an experimenter. Much like you, the student whose having a go for the first time.
All these thoughts were pushed into a body of work known as Kino-Pravda (meaning ''film truth").
Kino-Pravda was a series of news reels.
They didn't have stories and were simply descriptive happenings. Like people building a railway.
Or, in this example, a group of women threshing corn.
What do you think of this style? What's good about it?
Oh, he didn't put the music on. Best to mute this. He had music composed specially, apparently, but its not on this!
The natives are portrayed as noble savages. The title cards suggest a Disney-esque landscape of white, white snow and more purer times past.
This slight heavy handedness, editorally, on behalf of Flaherty didn't take away from his film. If anything, it made it more marketable to mass audiences. People came in droves.
It did however stick in the gullet of another film maker, film theorist and all rounder, Russian Dziga Vertov.
Vertov, a communist in Russia in the 1920s, wanted something else from reality. He didn't like the slightly romantic versions of reality, nor did he like the way documentary filmmakers like Flaherty constructed 'stories' from reality.
He didn't like stories at all. He considered, which is fair enough, that stories themselves, the very notion of a story, was a way to control people; to make them think the way you want them to.
He hated this level of what he considering brainwashing and went looking for something purer.
In doing so, he laid foundations which many modern documentary filmmakers continue to refind and become inspired by all over again.
For instance. He was fond of just rocking up at a place (he liked normal places, like cafes, and bars, and libraries, where normal people worked, not ice bergs where native people fished) and without telling anyone, he'd just start filming.
Or he'd hide behind plants, and film from there.
He was desperate to catch reality, without reality catching him.
He was an experimenter. Much like you, the student whose having a go for the first time.
All these thoughts were pushed into a body of work known as Kino-Pravda (meaning ''film truth").
Kino-Pravda was a series of news reels.
They didn't have stories and were simply descriptive happenings. Like people building a railway.
Or, in this example, a group of women threshing corn.
What do you think of this style? What's good about it?
Oh, he didn't put the music on. Best to mute this. He had music composed specially, apparently, but its not on this!
History: Robert J. Flaherty
So, Grierson has said that documentary, a term he coined whilst writing for a newspaper as a critic, had to represent reality as it happened.
But even from its roots, the purity of Grierson's reality has been muddied.
Especially when you're trying to make 'reality' as interesting as possible for the people paying for the film.
Take for example one of the first documentary film makers to make a documentary feature film - Robert J. Flaherty.
Flaherty's Nanook of the North (1922) , about the Inuit people on Belcher Island is a beautiful film. It is, to the eye at least, a documentary film.
However, and this isn't criticism, Flaherty was very aware of crafting a 'story' from reality. He wasn't shy about staging certain scenes to get the effect he wanted. Just like a... fiction director!
How much he did of this isn't known. But he did ask the Inuit people to use only clubs to hunt, even though they'd been using guns for some time!
What this brings up for you guys I suppose is that when you are filmming documentary you have a choice as to how much control you want to have over the subject whilst filming.
You are also under less pressure. You don't have to produce a film for a budget that someone has given you. In other words, you aren't dependent financially, on the success or lack of success of your film like Flaherty was. And Grierson.
Does money, or the absence of it, make different kinds of documentary films?
Here's a taster of Nanook of the North. There's a lengthy (2 min) intro of title cards, you can skip it and go straight to the meaty stuff by clicking about a fifth of the way down the play bar.
What do you think of it?
But even from its roots, the purity of Grierson's reality has been muddied.
Especially when you're trying to make 'reality' as interesting as possible for the people paying for the film.
Take for example one of the first documentary film makers to make a documentary feature film - Robert J. Flaherty.
Flaherty's Nanook of the North (1922) , about the Inuit people on Belcher Island is a beautiful film. It is, to the eye at least, a documentary film.
However, and this isn't criticism, Flaherty was very aware of crafting a 'story' from reality. He wasn't shy about staging certain scenes to get the effect he wanted. Just like a... fiction director!
How much he did of this isn't known. But he did ask the Inuit people to use only clubs to hunt, even though they'd been using guns for some time!
What this brings up for you guys I suppose is that when you are filmming documentary you have a choice as to how much control you want to have over the subject whilst filming.
You are also under less pressure. You don't have to produce a film for a budget that someone has given you. In other words, you aren't dependent financially, on the success or lack of success of your film like Flaherty was. And Grierson.
Does money, or the absence of it, make different kinds of documentary films?
Here's a taster of Nanook of the North. There's a lengthy (2 min) intro of title cards, you can skip it and go straight to the meaty stuff by clicking about a fifth of the way down the play bar.
What do you think of it?
History: Grierson's Nightmail
John Grierson was interested in modernist art, which he thought expressed the energies of a new age.
His own background was from a highly political family, whose cultivated the belief in Grierson that the media was a method to achieve social change.
His artist side attracted him to early artistic or creative documentaries such as the 'city symphony' films - such as Manhatta (USA, d. Paul Strand and Charles Sheeler, 1921) and Berlin: Symphony of a City (Germany, d. Walther Ruttman, 1926) - because of the way they portrayed the modern city in a poetic manner.
But it was probably his liberal upbringing and interest in his fellow man, as well as his artisan side which gave him an interest in the Soviet films, particularly those of Sergei Eisenstein.
Below is a extract of Night Mail (1936), one of Grierson's most famous films.
He was determined to follow his first principles and use only the actuality of real people, to which he added the very unreal but beautiful poetry of W H Auden, one of the foremost poets of that generation.
His own background was from a highly political family, whose cultivated the belief in Grierson that the media was a method to achieve social change.
His artist side attracted him to early artistic or creative documentaries such as the 'city symphony' films - such as Manhatta (USA, d. Paul Strand and Charles Sheeler, 1921) and Berlin: Symphony of a City (Germany, d. Walther Ruttman, 1926) - because of the way they portrayed the modern city in a poetic manner.
But it was probably his liberal upbringing and interest in his fellow man, as well as his artisan side which gave him an interest in the Soviet films, particularly those of Sergei Eisenstein.
Below is a extract of Night Mail (1936), one of Grierson's most famous films.
He was determined to follow his first principles and use only the actuality of real people, to which he added the very unreal but beautiful poetry of W H Auden, one of the foremost poets of that generation.
Documentary History: Grierson
John Grierson, a Scottsman is the man who history has dictated coined the term 'documentary'.
He also wrote the first principles of documentary and they are worth a read.
I think what is interesting about them is his absolute conviction that documentary, or filming the 'real' was more 'truthful' a view of the world than the 'fantasy' of fiction.
Is that still true today? With news editors being forced down certain lines by their company owners or sponsors, with the realisation that a documentary maker is of course telling his or her 'version' of reality, maybe this version of 'reality' is conflicted.
At the same time, documentary, unlike fiction, does possess a 'truth' value.
The First Principles:
1) ‘We believe that the cinema’s capacity for getting around, for observing and selecting from life itself, can be exploited in a new and vital art form. The studio films largely ignore this possibility of opening up the screen on the real world. They photograph acted stories against artificial backgrounds. Documentary would photograph the living scene and the living story.’
2) ‘We believe that the original (or native) actor, and the original (or native) scene, are better guides to a screen interpretation of the modern world. They give cinema a greater fund of material. They give it power over a million and one images. They give it power of interpretation over more complex and astonishing happenings in the real world than the studio mind can conjure up or the studio mechanician recreate. ‘
3) ‘We believe that the materials and the stories thus taken from the raw can be finer (more real in the philosophic sense) than the acted article. Spontaneous gesture has a special value on the screen. Cinema has a sensational capacity for enhancing the movement which tradition has formed or time worn smooth. Its arbitrary rectangle specially reveals movement; it gives it maximum pattern in space and time. Add to this that documentary can achieve an intimacy of knowledge and effect impossible to the shim-sham mechanics of the studio, and the lily-fingered interpretations of the metropolitan actor.’
He also wrote the first principles of documentary and they are worth a read.
I think what is interesting about them is his absolute conviction that documentary, or filming the 'real' was more 'truthful' a view of the world than the 'fantasy' of fiction.
Is that still true today? With news editors being forced down certain lines by their company owners or sponsors, with the realisation that a documentary maker is of course telling his or her 'version' of reality, maybe this version of 'reality' is conflicted.
At the same time, documentary, unlike fiction, does possess a 'truth' value.
The First Principles:
1) ‘We believe that the cinema’s capacity for getting around, for observing and selecting from life itself, can be exploited in a new and vital art form. The studio films largely ignore this possibility of opening up the screen on the real world. They photograph acted stories against artificial backgrounds. Documentary would photograph the living scene and the living story.’
2) ‘We believe that the original (or native) actor, and the original (or native) scene, are better guides to a screen interpretation of the modern world. They give cinema a greater fund of material. They give it power over a million and one images. They give it power of interpretation over more complex and astonishing happenings in the real world than the studio mind can conjure up or the studio mechanician recreate. ‘
3) ‘We believe that the materials and the stories thus taken from the raw can be finer (more real in the philosophic sense) than the acted article. Spontaneous gesture has a special value on the screen. Cinema has a sensational capacity for enhancing the movement which tradition has formed or time worn smooth. Its arbitrary rectangle specially reveals movement; it gives it maximum pattern in space and time. Add to this that documentary can achieve an intimacy of knowledge and effect impossible to the shim-sham mechanics of the studio, and the lily-fingered interpretations of the metropolitan actor.’
Camera angles
Some of you have a fair bit of experience using the camera, others not a lot. For the documentary unit we'll be getting you to pre-visualise a lot of your shooting. That just means writing out a lot of the shots before you start shooting.
You'll also be doing a lot of shooting and at least one member of your team will be directing. That means giving shot suggestions,where appropriate, to your camera operator.
You will of course, depending on the style of your documentary, maybe do it differently. But either way, you need a really good working knowledge of the different types of shots available to you.
This short vid is nice in explaining the different types of shots and should help you to imagine what you want your film to look like before you go out and shoot it.
You'll also be doing a lot of shooting and at least one member of your team will be directing. That means giving shot suggestions,where appropriate, to your camera operator.
You will of course, depending on the style of your documentary, maybe do it differently. But either way, you need a really good working knowledge of the different types of shots available to you.
This short vid is nice in explaining the different types of shots and should help you to imagine what you want your film to look like before you go out and shoot it.
Monday, 13 September 2010
Telling stories in documentary
Although you are making 'reality', the truth is that most documentary makers admit you are making an edited version of reality. You are making a story. And if necessary helping along your material to make it more interesting.
So, do the same rules that apply to storytelling for say your stop motion animation, that of character, world, conflict and resolution?
Absolutely. At least, I think so. Without them, you run the risk of the story being boring, or purely informational, which is fine if you are making an informational film, like a training video for fire service, or something for McDonald's in how to flip burgers correctly.
Here's a short doc which is a good case in point. Its of a master guitar maker. Its shot very nicely.
Question is, is it a good story?
So, do the same rules that apply to storytelling for say your stop motion animation, that of character, world, conflict and resolution?
Absolutely. At least, I think so. Without them, you run the risk of the story being boring, or purely informational, which is fine if you are making an informational film, like a training video for fire service, or something for McDonald's in how to flip burgers correctly.
Here's a short doc which is a good case in point. Its of a master guitar maker. Its shot very nicely.
Question is, is it a good story?
What it is and the DIFFERENT TYPES
Although Factual TV stretches far and wide from the likes of Big Brother (which is, I suppose, a type of documentary, although its known as factual entertainment just to confuse you) to say something like Michael Moore's Farenheight 9/11 to David Attenborough's Planet Earth, we are going to zoom in on DOCUMENTARY.
The first question that's hopefully rolling around your mind is what's tha', what's documentary?
Documentary is a story, from reality, told truthfully and artfully.
A story: something with a beginning, middle and end.
Reality: that dodgy thing we all try and avoid.
Truth: that dodgy thing we all try and avoid.
Artfully: remembering there is an audience so make your story interesting, pretty, weird or wonderful, but definately NOT boring.
Over the years, since the end of the 19th century, when documentary began, film makers have developed a number of STYLES to tell reality in a truthful and artful way.
But this following video, although maybe a little too American for some of your taste buds, serves as a useful introduction to the styles of documentary, the codes and conventions as well as some examples of how to actually make it. He misses out one beautiful style of documentary: CREATIVE. We'll come back to it.
So watch and listen, you'll see some faces you know, a lot you don't and let the journey begin.
DIFFERENT TYPES OF DOCUMENTARY
In finding and presenting your 'truth' you've a number of options available.
The difference between them, I suppose, is the amount of control offered to you, the maker, and the amount of 'truth' that comes out at the other end when you present your finished film.
There are also other considerations when thinking about TYPES of documentary approaches. Some are easier to do. Some require more patience. Some, for the novice, probably shouldn't be tried until you've grasped even some of the basics of the form.
AT ITS SIMPLEST: EXPOSITIONAL
Most of the docs you've watched are expositional. This is the firm and established staple of documentary and factual programming across the broadcasting universe.
There are certain codes and conventions of the form. For instance - a narrator, staged interviews, cutaways, noddies and presentation of a lot of factual information.
Expositional documentaries are similar to being in a classroom with a fairly entertaining teacher who stands up at the front and talks at you.
Think about some of the theorectical and ethical underpinnings to this form for yourself. Who, for example, has the most control? The film maker.
Is the chance of misrepresentation high? You could argue, yes.
Can they be dumb - potentially. Expositional docs don't neccessary encourage viewers to switch on and engage, they can help to numb the viewer as information is presented in a way that might not encourage thought or discourse. Then again, they can be brilliant. It's all grey areas.
Here's a bit of Michael Moore
They good thing about this film is its also an example of another type of documentary.
PARTICIPATORY
You'll have noticed, much like the ethical and philosophical musings related to documentary, there are rarely clear lines between anything. A participatory documentary can also be an expository documentary.
Anyways. Back to it. Participatory means that you, the film maker, also gets involved in the story. You see a lot of this on daytime TV in various ways (presenters making food, flowing down rivers in rafts, living in forests, etc). Moore does in Roger and Me and becomes an active part of the film.
Another great exponent of this form is Louis Theroux.
What participatory means is the film maker does something that directly relates to his subject. He/she gets involved. Louis, in this case, gets involved when he tries to get a few muscles himself.
BACK TO TRUTH for a short moment.
Remember, good docs that really effect us follow a certain pattern - and at their heart is a genuine effort on behalf of the film maker to be GENUINE and to find TRUTH.
You could argue that Louis is being honest in taking these challenges on and it allows him to reflect more truthfully on what he's investigating. You could. It's also entertaining. Which is great.
What ideas could you come up with in a short documentary that might involve participatory documentary making? You could bake a sweet in Aunt Sandra's Sweet Factory in East Belfast. You could go out with a Sinn Fein counsellor on a day when he/she is on the campaigning trail. In fact, when you think about it, the possibilities are endless.
OBSERVATIONAL
Ob docs have become much misaligned since Big Brother snatched all the life out of the form in its controlled environment. However, at the same time, BB shows you how much people are interested in just watching other people. Even when there isn't much going on.
It shows you the endless fascination (a good thing I think) we have with our own species. The reasons for watching might not always been good but it proves there is an in-built part of our brains which like to watch other human beings.
Observation doc exploits this by offering us a more SUBTLE view of humanity from a gentle perspective - as if we are floating in space close to the subject - and THEY DON'T KNOW IT.
There is no NARRATOR in true ob docs. There is just the unfolding action, cut together to tell a story.
WHAT KIND OF OB DOCS CAN YOU THINK OF
Watch this first, then you'll think of a hundred different ob docs of your own.
The lift. Simple as that. It's down to the artistry of the film maker (and editor, probably him too) to cut together this small, simple vignettes of human behaviour into watchable stories that we're prepared to watch.
No narrator, camera is usually not on a tripod, a certain organic feel, simple story telling, a focus on the human face/person, clever juxtapositions of the unexpected with the expected in everyday settings.
Ultimately, great ob docs find the ORDINARY in the EXTRAORDINARY.
A great ob doc will do something an EXPOSITIONAL DOC can't. It'll promote the very human uniqueness of a place, event, person in a very personal way. However, it'll also allow us, the viewer, opportunity to MAKE THE STORY OURSELVES.
Ob docs leave plenty of room. There is lots of very-little-happening in ob docs. But of course, in that space, there is lots happening.
The problem is most broadcasters find them boring, as do large swathes of the tv public - because they involve more effort. And they are fast being pushed onto the fringes of film making as they are seen to be arty, and EXPENSIVE.
Plus, you can't control your subject. You can't do a big brother.
Problem: how long do you think it took him to shoot it!
CREATIVE
If you thought there weren't many ob docs, you'll probably never have seen a CREATIVE DOCUMENTARY.
The Arbour, winner of countless awards, uses I think a creative approach. The film maker had interviews but used actors to mouth the words of the interviews to put together a picture of her subject. It's a subtle, artistic approach.
The best way to think about CREATIVE documentary is this. If an expositional documentary could be compared to a newspaper article, then a creative documentary, on the same subject, would be a POEM.
Something that uses simile, metaphor, glances sideways at the subject and is generally less obvious, less controlled and possibly more difficult, initially, to get into, because of some original language that's been created.
Check out also CHRIS MARKER.
Or Baraka:
The first question that's hopefully rolling around your mind is what's tha', what's documentary?
Documentary is a story, from reality, told truthfully and artfully.
A story: something with a beginning, middle and end.
Reality: that dodgy thing we all try and avoid.
Truth: that dodgy thing we all try and avoid.
Artfully: remembering there is an audience so make your story interesting, pretty, weird or wonderful, but definately NOT boring.
Over the years, since the end of the 19th century, when documentary began, film makers have developed a number of STYLES to tell reality in a truthful and artful way.
But this following video, although maybe a little too American for some of your taste buds, serves as a useful introduction to the styles of documentary, the codes and conventions as well as some examples of how to actually make it. He misses out one beautiful style of documentary: CREATIVE. We'll come back to it.
So watch and listen, you'll see some faces you know, a lot you don't and let the journey begin.
DIFFERENT TYPES OF DOCUMENTARY
In finding and presenting your 'truth' you've a number of options available.
The difference between them, I suppose, is the amount of control offered to you, the maker, and the amount of 'truth' that comes out at the other end when you present your finished film.
There are also other considerations when thinking about TYPES of documentary approaches. Some are easier to do. Some require more patience. Some, for the novice, probably shouldn't be tried until you've grasped even some of the basics of the form.
AT ITS SIMPLEST: EXPOSITIONAL
Most of the docs you've watched are expositional. This is the firm and established staple of documentary and factual programming across the broadcasting universe.
There are certain codes and conventions of the form. For instance - a narrator, staged interviews, cutaways, noddies and presentation of a lot of factual information.
Expositional documentaries are similar to being in a classroom with a fairly entertaining teacher who stands up at the front and talks at you.
Think about some of the theorectical and ethical underpinnings to this form for yourself. Who, for example, has the most control? The film maker.
Is the chance of misrepresentation high? You could argue, yes.
Can they be dumb - potentially. Expositional docs don't neccessary encourage viewers to switch on and engage, they can help to numb the viewer as information is presented in a way that might not encourage thought or discourse. Then again, they can be brilliant. It's all grey areas.
Here's a bit of Michael Moore
They good thing about this film is its also an example of another type of documentary.
PARTICIPATORY
You'll have noticed, much like the ethical and philosophical musings related to documentary, there are rarely clear lines between anything. A participatory documentary can also be an expository documentary.
Anyways. Back to it. Participatory means that you, the film maker, also gets involved in the story. You see a lot of this on daytime TV in various ways (presenters making food, flowing down rivers in rafts, living in forests, etc). Moore does in Roger and Me and becomes an active part of the film.
Another great exponent of this form is Louis Theroux.
What participatory means is the film maker does something that directly relates to his subject. He/she gets involved. Louis, in this case, gets involved when he tries to get a few muscles himself.
BACK TO TRUTH for a short moment.
Remember, good docs that really effect us follow a certain pattern - and at their heart is a genuine effort on behalf of the film maker to be GENUINE and to find TRUTH.
You could argue that Louis is being honest in taking these challenges on and it allows him to reflect more truthfully on what he's investigating. You could. It's also entertaining. Which is great.
What ideas could you come up with in a short documentary that might involve participatory documentary making? You could bake a sweet in Aunt Sandra's Sweet Factory in East Belfast. You could go out with a Sinn Fein counsellor on a day when he/she is on the campaigning trail. In fact, when you think about it, the possibilities are endless.
OBSERVATIONAL
Ob docs have become much misaligned since Big Brother snatched all the life out of the form in its controlled environment. However, at the same time, BB shows you how much people are interested in just watching other people. Even when there isn't much going on.
It shows you the endless fascination (a good thing I think) we have with our own species. The reasons for watching might not always been good but it proves there is an in-built part of our brains which like to watch other human beings.
Observation doc exploits this by offering us a more SUBTLE view of humanity from a gentle perspective - as if we are floating in space close to the subject - and THEY DON'T KNOW IT.
There is no NARRATOR in true ob docs. There is just the unfolding action, cut together to tell a story.
WHAT KIND OF OB DOCS CAN YOU THINK OF
Watch this first, then you'll think of a hundred different ob docs of your own.
The lift. Simple as that. It's down to the artistry of the film maker (and editor, probably him too) to cut together this small, simple vignettes of human behaviour into watchable stories that we're prepared to watch.
No narrator, camera is usually not on a tripod, a certain organic feel, simple story telling, a focus on the human face/person, clever juxtapositions of the unexpected with the expected in everyday settings.
Ultimately, great ob docs find the ORDINARY in the EXTRAORDINARY.
A great ob doc will do something an EXPOSITIONAL DOC can't. It'll promote the very human uniqueness of a place, event, person in a very personal way. However, it'll also allow us, the viewer, opportunity to MAKE THE STORY OURSELVES.
Ob docs leave plenty of room. There is lots of very-little-happening in ob docs. But of course, in that space, there is lots happening.
The problem is most broadcasters find them boring, as do large swathes of the tv public - because they involve more effort. And they are fast being pushed onto the fringes of film making as they are seen to be arty, and EXPENSIVE.
Plus, you can't control your subject. You can't do a big brother.
Problem: how long do you think it took him to shoot it!
CREATIVE
If you thought there weren't many ob docs, you'll probably never have seen a CREATIVE DOCUMENTARY.
The Arbour, winner of countless awards, uses I think a creative approach. The film maker had interviews but used actors to mouth the words of the interviews to put together a picture of her subject. It's a subtle, artistic approach.
The best way to think about CREATIVE documentary is this. If an expositional documentary could be compared to a newspaper article, then a creative documentary, on the same subject, would be a POEM.
Something that uses simile, metaphor, glances sideways at the subject and is generally less obvious, less controlled and possibly more difficult, initially, to get into, because of some original language that's been created.
Check out also CHRIS MARKER.
Or Baraka:
Friday, 10 September 2010
Welcome
Hi.
If you used the Stop Motion blog then you'll know what the craic is for this.
Lots of information and links to videos, pictures and writing that will help you do assessment and make your productions easier, as well as keep in touch with each other.
The posts happen in date-ish order and follow the format of the classes.
If you used the Stop Motion blog then you'll know what the craic is for this.
Lots of information and links to videos, pictures and writing that will help you do assessment and make your productions easier, as well as keep in touch with each other.
The posts happen in date-ish order and follow the format of the classes.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)