Erhalten Sie Zugang zu diesem und mehr als 300000 Büchern ab EUR 5,99 monatlich.
- Herausgeber: Creative Essentials
- Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
- Sprache: Englisch
Andy Glynne subjects the whole documentary process to scrutiny with advice on: - Developing your concept - Funding - Writing pitches and treatments - Interview technique - Narrative - Writing commentary - Dealing with ethical issues - Camera technique - Sound - Lighting - Post-production, editing and grading - Marketing and distribution - Film festivals - The history of documentary With additional interviews with industry insiders and award-winning filmmakers who contribute their tips,tricks and advice, as well as layouts for budget spreadsheets, release forms, contracts and more...
Sie lesen das E-Book in den Legimi-Apps auf:
Seitenzahl: 477
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2013
Das E-Book (TTS) können Sie hören im Abo „Legimi Premium” in Legimi-Apps auf:
Ähnliche
Andy Glynne subjects the whole documentary process to scrutiny with advice on:
Developing your concept Writing pitches and treatments Narrative Dealing with ethical issues Sound Post-production, editing & grading Film festivals FundingInterview techniqueWriting commentaryCamera techniqueLightingMarketing and distributionThe history of documentaryWith additional interviews with industry insiders and award-winning filmmakers, this new edition has up-to-the-moment technical information on the latest cameras and equipment and a fully updated resource guide with contact details of current commissioning editors.
About the Author
Andy Glynne is a double BAFTA award-winning documentary filmmaker, and is the Founding Director of DFG – the Documentary Filmmakers Group – the UK’s national organisation to promote innovation and talent in documentary filmmaking. Andy is also Managing Director of the production company Mosaic Films. He has directed and produced numerous documentaries both in the UK and across the World, and has spent much of his career working with, and mentoring, new and emerging filmmakers.
Praise for the First Edition
‘An efficacious… and comprehensive introduction’ – Scope Journal of Film & TV Studies
‘Essential reading… endlessly fascinating’ – Empire Magazine
‘Funny, insightful and realistic… they’re like filmmaking courses bound and at a fraction of the cost’ – Library Journal
‘Everything you ever needed to know about the nuts-and-bolts, from idea development to screening’ – Quentin Falk, Academy Magazine
Andy Glynne
DOCUMENTARIES
… and how to make them
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This book is really a result of the many years I have worked as a documentary producer, director and tutor, and my knowledge has developed from the words and vision of so many people that it would be impossible to thank everyone individually. Nevertheless, there are certain people whose direct contribution has made this book a possibility rather than just a probability. First of all, to all those who I have worked with at the Documentary Filmmakers Group in the UK, who I have known since the beginning, and who have inspired me to continue on the path as a documentary maker. The same goes for all the staff of Mosaic Films who have put up with my seemingly crazy ideas and aspirations. Of particular note is Kerry McLeod who, as well as contributing to specific elements in this book, has been there as a source of invaluable help. Also Amanda Scott who undertook some of the book’s research. Thanks are also due to all the contributors and filmmakers, producers, journalists and other media professionals who gave their time and words of wisdom to this book, without which it would make for a poorer read.
CONTENTS
LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS
Throughout this book, industry professionals and insiders have kindly lent their words of wisdom, cynicism and expertise. Below is a brief description of who these people are:
ALMA HAR’EL – Born and raised in Israel, Alma began her work as a photographer and video artist. While working in New York and London her live video-art performances with musicians led her to directing music videos and her frequent collaborations with singer Zach Condon of the band Beirut brought her several nominations in film and music video festivals around the world. The video for Beirut’s ‘Elephant Gun’ was chosen as one of the best videos of the decade in 2010 by several publications. Her work is recognised for her expression through modern dance, landscape and character and for her ability to create images with an honest balance of emotions: heavyhearted as much as they are joyful and playful. Currently she lives in Los Angeles where she recently directed Bombay Beach, her first film.
KIM LONGINOTTO – Kim is an internationally acclaimed documentary filmmaker from the UK who has often provided unique portraits of the lives of women. The award-winning The Day I Will Never Forget examines the practice of female genital mutilation in Kenya and the pioneering African women who are bravely reversing the tradition. The recent Sisters in Law (co-directed by Florence Ayisi), about the landmark achievements of the Women Lawyers Association (WLA) of Kumba, in southwest Cameroon, won the Prix Art et Essai at the Cannes Film Festival.
BRIAN WOODS – Brian graduated from Cambridge with a first-class honours degree in psychology in 1985. In 1995 he started his own production company, True Vision. The company’s first production, The Dying Rooms, rapidly became Channel Four’s most widely sold single documentary, and picked up a clutch of international awards including an Emmy, a Peabody and the Prix Italia. Since then, Brian has produced, directed, filmed, edited and exec’ed numerous international documentaries through True Vision for the BBC, Channel Four, HBO and Discovery. Most of these films have had a campaigning human-rights theme. The company has the highest ratio of awards won to hours produced of any independent in the UK. Among over 50 international awards Brian has won five BAFTAs, eight Emmys, seven RTS Awards, three Peabodies and four One Worlds.
JO CLINTON-DAVIES – Jo is Controller of Popular Factual at ITV. Previously she was at UKTV where she was head of commissioning across the ten channels. Prior to that she was head of independent factual commissioning at the BBC. She directed and produced BBC1’s documentary series Making Babies and The Shop and many single documentaries as well.
MARC ISAACS – Born very near the location of his first film, Lift, in London’s East End, Marc Isaacs began working on documentary films as an assistant producer in 1995. He then assisted Pawel Pawlikowski on Twockers and the award-winning Last Resort. After completing Lift in 2001, Marc directed two further documentaries for the BBC about the subculture of shoplifting, both of which were nominated for a BAFTA Craft Award in the UK. His documentary film Travellers, for Channel 4, was followed by Calais: The Last Border, which offers an original view of England from across the Channel. Marc continues to be a prolific documentarian with recent films including All White in Barking, The Curious World of Frinton-on-Sea, Men of the City and Outside the Court.
SIMON CHINN – Simon conceived and produced Man on Wire, which won over 30 international awards, including the Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature, the BAFTA for Outstanding British Film and the Sundance Grand Jury Prize, and was named by the Observer as one of the best British films of the past 25 years. Simon’s most recently released film, Project Nim, won the World Cinema Documentary Directing award at Sundance, the Directors’ Guild Award for best documentary and was nominated for a BAFTA and a Producers’ Guild Award, among many others. He has recently premiered two films at Sundance: Searching for Sugar Man, which won the Special Jury Prize and the Audience Award and was acquired by Sony Pictures Classics, and The Imposter which secured multiple theatrical distribution deals.
MARILYN GAUNT – Marilyn is a British freelance award-winning filmmaker, having made over 50 documentaries for most of the major broadcasters and the BBC. Her films include the BAFTA award-winning Kelly and Her Sisters, which looks at three months in the lives of Kelly and her five sisters, six children who live with their mother – their father left some months ago – in poor housing on a run-down estate in Birmingham.
EMILY JAMES – Emily is a filmmaker who studied at the National Film and Television School in the UK. Her first film, The Luckiest Nut in the World, follows an animated American peanut, which sings about the difficulties faced by nuts from developing countries. She has continued to use animation and puppetry in her documentaries, and her most recent current-affairs television series, Don’t Worry, featured a cast of investigative puppet reporters.
KEVIN MACDONALD – Kevin has made the Academy award-winning One Day in September about the 1972 Munich Olympics. He has also directed Touching the Void and the recent award-winning fiction feature The Last King of Scotland. Macdonald has been associate editor at Faber & Faber since 1995: he co-edited The Faber Book of Documentary (1997), and wrote Emeric Pressburger: The Life and Death of a Screenwriter (Faber, 1994, winner of BFI film book of the year and shortlisted for the NCR non-fiction prize).
ROGER GRAEF – Roger is a writer, filmmaker, broadcaster and criminologist. In January 2006, it was announced that Roger had been awarded an OBE in the New Year’s Honours List. In 2004 he was awarded the prestigious Fellowship to the British Academy of Film and Television, again for his outstanding contribution and achievements. Roger also won a BAFTA in 2003 as the producer of the Flaherty Best Documentary for Feltham Sings! Among his more than 80 films, he is best known for his pioneering work in gaining access to hitherto closed institutions ranging from ministries and boardrooms, to police, courts, prisons, probation and social work.
SIMON AEPPLI – Simon is an editor and filmmaker who has a background in Artist’s Film and Video. He has tutored for the University of Wales Institute in Cardiff and the Documentary Filmmakers’ Group, and has also been a media educator in London at the Institute of Education, ARCO PLUS, WAC Performing Arts and Media College, The Place and New Vic College.
JENNIFER ABBOTT – Jennifer is a documentary maker, cultural activist and editor with a particular interest in producing media that shifts perspectives on problematic social norms and practices. In addition to co-directing and editing The Corporation, she produced, directed and edited A Cow at My Table, a feature documentary about meat, culture and animals, which won eight international awards.
JERRY ROTHWELL – Jerry is a documentary producer-director with a 10-year track record in broadcast documentaries, specialising in programmes about arts, mental health and education. He has produced and executive produced documentary, news and drama for Channel 4, Carlton and the BBC. He is the co-director of the recent feature documentary Deep Water, and is currently completing another feature documentary, Heavy Load, which documents a year in the life of a punk band, whose members include musicians with learning disabilities.
ESTEBAN UYARRA – Esteban is an award-winning director, editor and cinematographer of documentary films who has worked for several UK television channels, including the BBC and Channel 4. His recent work includes the award-winning feature documentary War Feel Like War, which focuses on the role of journalists covering the Iraq War in 2001.
RUSSELL CROCKETT – Russell is an editor who has worked on many documentaries including Marc Isaacs’ award-winning Lift.
LINDA STRADLING – Linda has spent more than 20 years in the TV industry, and is an experienced and well-established production manager working predominantly on large documentary series.
AL MAYSLES – One of America’s foremost non-fiction filmmakers, Albert Maysles, along with his brother and partner David (1932–87), has been recognised as the creator of ‘direct cinema’, the distinctly American version of French ‘cinéma vérité’.
ANTON CALIFANO – Anton is a filmmaker based in London. He began making films in the 1990s when he originally trained as an editor. His experience in filmmaking includes working on feature films, documentaries and short drama. His short films have been shown in over 60 film festivals worldwide and have won several awards. His work has taken him to a variety of countries including India, Iran, United Arab Emirates, Argentina, Gran Canaria, Poland and Portugal.
INTRODUCTION
If you’ve bought, borrowed or stolen this book, or if you’re browsing through it whilst sitting in a bookshop on a long, wet, miserable Sunday afternoon, then it’s probably because you’re interested in documentary filmmaking. Maybe you are actively making films, and want to read up on some techniques, approaches or tips. Maybe you’ve never made a documentary film and you’re looking for a good place to start. Or perhaps you’re not sure whether or not you’re a filmmaker at all, but know that you want to learn more. But, whatever stage you’re at, I hope this book will prove an invaluable tool, and help you to advance your understanding of documentaries and how to make them.
The word ‘documentary’ can refer to many different types of film. From the earliest classics such as Basil Wright and Harry Watt’s Night Mail through to the latest feature documentaries in cinemas, the word encompasses as many different types of films as there are people making them. Today, with the clever use of graphics used in historical and nature documentaries, the distinction between fiction and fact has become significantly blurred. And the advent of reality television and various other forms of ‘factual entertainment’ have made the definition even broader.
Documentary filmmakers can be a peculiar bunch of people, driven by an amazing drive to tell a specific story and impart a message. It’s a hard slog to make a documentary film, both physically and emotionally, and there are easier, less precarious ways to earn a living. But there are numerous rewards that make it worthwhile. Firstly, as documentarians, we get to completely immerse ourselves in fascinating, hitherto unknown, subject areas. As a result of documentaries I’ve been involved in, I have learned about the hormones in men, life in women’s prisons, missionaries in the Middle East and unreported wars in West Africa, to name but a few topics. Secondly, we have the opportunity to effect change, or make some kind of difference. A recent survey conducted by the Documentary Filmmakers’ Group showed that over 80 per cent of documentary filmmakers made films in order to ‘make a difference’, be that on a global, national, community or individual level. And there are countless examples of films that have either created or contributed to change (see the following chapter). Thirdly, we get to observe people. We are the ethnographers of the modern age, meeting a huge variety of individuals, often from all corners of the world; fascinating and sometimes inspirational, they can help us tell stories about unique and interesting subject matter.
There may be many more reasons that compel people to make documentaries, but for me it’s primarily about learning. I learn about other people, other cultures and other concepts, and maybe I can share this knowledge or perspective with other people by making a film. Most importantly, though, I learn about myself. Every film I’ve been involved in has changed me a little bit, given me something and helped me to reflect on who I am.
There is no better time to be involved in documentary filmmaking. In the past few years there has been something of a renaissance in this area, and our televisions and cinemas are now full of hundreds of films that come under the banner of ‘documentaries’. We also have much cheaper technology at our disposal, so now anyone, in theory, can inexpensively shoot and edit their own documentary film. And now, with hi-speed broadband, TV on demand, and the next generation of smartphones, iPods and iPads, the possibilities for distributing our work are changing rapidly.
This book talks about the art and craft of documentary filmmaking. But, more importantly, it also discusses the ways in which this craft works in today’s industry. For example, there is no point in discussing shooting technique on 35mm film, or how to work with an eight-person crew, when such trends rarely exist any longer in the real world. The types of stories we tell, and the ways in which we tell them, are also considerably influenced by today’s market. And if we want to distribute our films, as well as simply making them, an understanding of this market is not only invaluable, but also essential. Throughout the book, I have often used the term ‘independent filmmaker’ and this probably deserves some clarification. Many of you who read this book will be at the start of your ‘career’, if you’re even thinking of it in ‘career’ terms. You will often be making your film independently rather than as part of a broadcaster’s in-house team. Sometimes you might be attached to a small ‘indy’ (or independent production company); or you might be on your own. In addition, you may find that you are often working as a multi-skiller, meaning that you are producing, directing and shooting your own documentary – perhaps even sound recording and editing too. As such, you need to keep your costs down, work flexibly and develop skills in as many different areas as possible.
I have tried to break the first part of this book into three sections according to the various stages of the production process. ‘Section One’ deals with the initial idea and how to develop this into a concrete treatment. I then discuss what the fundamental ingredients are for a documentary film, and how one can think about getting various types of funding. ‘Section Two’ discusses the actual filming process in detail: what equipment you need and how to use it, along with the important skills of being a documentary filmmaker – interview technique, production management, the art of storytelling, and so on. ‘Section Three’ deals with post-production and how to deliver the finished product (either to television broadcast, cinemas, festivals, DVDs or the Internet).
Thereafter, ‘Section Four’ looks at some of the ethical issues that can affect documentary filmmakers. ‘Section Five’ (new to the Second Edition) deals with the increased output of what can loosely be defined as ‘campaigning documentaries’ – films that, together with a strong outreach strategy, are specifically aimed at raising awareness and bringing about change regarding a particular issue. Although it’s often seen as an intrinsic aim of documentaries to bring about change in the world, this new zeitgeist of the campaigning documentary does it in a unique way that merits extended comment. ‘Section Six’ (also new to this edition) looks briefly at the role documentaries can play in the new ‘multi-platform world’ and how the convergence of games, websites, smartphones and iPads, etc, has created both an additional home for documentaries and helped push the form in ways that are often novel and unique. ‘Section Seven’ includes interviews with established documentary filmmakers, with a focus on their process of making a particular film.
I’ve added two final sections to this edition as well. ‘Section Eight’ is a resources section and details the books, Internet sites, organisations and documentary films that you might find useful. ‘Section Nine’ is a quick-reference shooting guide for when you’re out and about filming. Put it all together and you have a comprehensive resource on the core skills you need to go out and make a brilliant, hopefully sellable, documentary film.
An important point to make: if you read through this book sequentially – and, really, it’s a good idea to do so – all the information included may seem a little bit overwhelming. It does get easier over time, I promise you. A good analogy to hold in your head is that of driving a car. At first, before you set foot in a car, you are unconsciously incompetent in that you have no idea how bad you are at driving and how many skills you do not have. As soon as you set foot in that car, and have your first driving lesson, you experience the sensation of consciousincompetence, in that you now realise how bad you actually are. After some time at learning to drive, you become consciously competent; that is you are aware of things that you can now do – change gear, check your mirror, and use the clutch. The only problem is, it’s an awful lot to focus on, and mentally exhausting. But soon you’ll reach a stage of unconscious competence; i.e. the things you are good at are mostly unconscious and you can drive a manual car almost automatically. The same goes for filmmaking, in that the more you practise, the easier things become, and the less mental effort you need to exert. So, please try to use this book in conjunction with lots and lots – and lots – of practice.
SECTION ONE PRE-PRODUCTION
1. WHY WE MAKE DOCUMENTARIES
We can go into a high-street shop these days, buy a small HD camera, and go out and make our documentary. We can then edit the film on our home computers, add a little music, burn it onto a DVD or – more commonly – upload it to the web. The process might not lead to the highest production values, and our intended audience might only be our mum, dad, friend, or a few people on a social network, but the very fact that we can just go out and do it is very new. What we now take for granted was not only once novel, but actually incredible.
In the beginning, making a documentary film could often involve a large team and a painstakingly long process. I’ve tried to give a brief overview below of the history of documentary, simply because it allows us to see today’s filmmaking practice in context, and understand in more detail the tools we have at our disposal. (For those interested in reading more on the topic, I have suggested some useful titles in Section Four.)
The very first ‘documentary films’ were a far cry from what we see on our television screens and in cinemas today. At the turn of the last century, they were simply a visual and audio recording of an event. No story. No plot. No character development. People would flock to cinemas to see these films, which either reflected contemporary life on the big screen, or, for the first time, showed portraits of what life was like in the far corners of the world (such as Robert Flaherty’s classic Nanookof the North). In Britain specifically, the early pioneers of documentary, such as Humphrey Jennings, made films about ordinary people going about their everyday business. Arthur Elton and Edgar Anstey’s Housing Problems was one of the first times people actually witnessed the experiences of the British working class on film. This powerful look at contemporary society, which had never before been seen in such a way, sowed the seeds of the documentary form as a tool for social change.
Any documentarian will hear the name John Grierson mentioned again and again, often cited as the father of documentary filmmaking, and founder of the Documentary Film Movement in Britain in the late 1920s1. He defined documentary as ‘the creative treatment of actuality’, a definition which has stood the test of time, and a theme we’ll come back to later in this book. The Documentary Film Movement produced many classic examples of the emerging documentary genre through several public bodies and corporate sponsors. These included, famously, the GPO Film Unit (which produced Night Mail), Shell, and the Crown Film Unit at the Ministry of Information (Listen to Britain). The Movement gave us filmmakers such as Alberto Cavalcanti, Paul Rotha, Basil Wright, Edgar Anstey and the aforementioned Humphrey Jennings. The important point here, though, was the type of documentaries they made, and how this set the context for documentary making over the subsequent decades. Grierson’s academic training was as a philosopher, but he also studied the psychology of propaganda, which informed the techniques he used to make documentary films. ‘I look on cinema as a pulpit, and use it as a propagandist,’ he said, and in some ways it’s a legacy that has defined many documentaries we see today (such as Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11).
Figure 1. Don’t Look Back (1967). Directed by DA Pennebaker. Shown from left (behind the scenes): Bob Dylan, DA Pennebaker. Credit: Pennebaker Films/Photofest.
Following World War Two and the advent of television, documentary disappeared from the cinema in Britain to re-emerge in our homes, where it developed into the television forms we can still recognise today in current-affairs strands such as BBC’s Panorama and in the work of many documentary filmmakers. There were certain fringe movements of cinematic documentaries such as the Free Cinema Movement (1956–9), which was a series of programmes held at the National Film Theatre in London by a group of filmmakers, including Lindsay Anderson, Karel Reisz, Tony Richardson and Michael Grigsby. They were much more experimental and poetic in form than mainstream fare, and often depicted the working-class experience. Classics here include Momma Don’t Allow, O Dreamland, Every Day Except Christmas and Enginemen. The screenings ended in 1959, but most of the filmmakers went on to successful feature-film careers and formed the British New Wave, while Grigsby became a renowned documentary filmmaker in his own right.
Meanwhile, outside the UK, the cinematic documentary continued to grow. The transition to more portable 16mm cameras, together with the ability to capture synchronous sound, directly influenced the aesthetics and content of a trend known as ‘cinéma vérité’ (Cinema Truth) in France and ‘Direct Cinema’ in North America. From these two similar movements emerged filmmakers such as brothers Albert and David Maysles, DA Pennebaker (Don’t Look Back), Chris Hegedus and Frederick Wiseman (Titicut Follies) in the US, and Jean Rouch in France (Chronique d’un Été or Chronicle of a Summer). Both movements relied on observational techniques with an attempt to capture real events as they unfolded. Direct Cinema was all about having little or no involvement with the action in front of the lens, with the intention that the camera somehow became ‘invisible’; cinéma vérité, on the other hand, sometimes sanctioned direct involvement, or even provocation, when the filmmakers felt it was necessary. Regardless of the subtle differences, this fly-on-the-wall approach had a profound influence on documentaries and, it has been argued, directly influenced the advent of reality television that is so prevalent on the small screen today.
Back in the UK, from the 1960s through to the 1990s, the main documentary output was on television, rather than at the cinema. Granada’s documentary department produced consistently high-quality documentaries, many of which have now unfortunately been lost to audiences. Highlights from the period include: Michael Apted’s 7 Up series (starting in 1964); Peter Watkins’s The War Game (1965); Michael Grigsby’s A Life Apart (1973); Paul Watson’s The Family (1974); Roger Graef’s Police series (1982); and John Akomfrah’s Handsworth Songs (1986). There were many strands and series from the period, including the BBC’s Man Alive, a social and political documentary strand, which ran from 1965–81; Arena and Omnibus, the arts strands; plus Granada’s anthropological Disappearing World, and World in Action, the long-running current-affairs strand.
In the 1990s, on both sides of the Atlantic, television saw the advent of video diaries and the docusoap, with series such as Driving School and Airport creating celebrities of its participants. More recently, of course, we have the formatted derivatives of documentaries (now known as factual entertainment) such as Wife Swap, Big Brother and The Apprentice.
It is this potted history which makes one realise that the term ‘documentary’ now encompasses a whole range of films. Just as the forms of documentaries are exceptionally varied, so, too, are the themes. Despite the various forms of documentary, perhaps the first intended purpose – to comment on social phenomena or even to effect social change – is one that still appeals to many documentary filmmakers today. And it’s this notion of documentary as a tool of social awareness that I would like to briefly discuss here.
Throughout my career as a producer, filmmaker and tutor, the vast majority of aspiring filmmakers I have met have stated that they wanted to use documentary film to influence social or political change, help inform people, and attempt to make a positive difference. In short, many believed that documentary had the power to change the world.
And this isn’t such a far-fetched notion. Many of my earlier films were about mental health. I thought that many stereotypes and prejudices existed about mental illness, and I set out to attempt to dispel some of these. I wouldn’t claim that the films made any massive global change, but they did get wide exposure, and not only on television; they were subsequently used in hospitals, community centres, universities and schools as an educational aid. I’m sure that, somewhere, some hearts and minds were touched, in which case I’ve succeeded.
Some documentaries really have made a profound difference and changed the world, sometimes in small ways, and sometimes on a much bigger scale (the recent flood of ‘campaigning documentaries’ is discussed in Section Five). One of the first films I noticed was Brian Woods and Kate Blewett’s The Dying Rooms. It tells the tale of the one-child policy in China and the impact this has had on female babies. We see images of a new-born girl tied up in urine-soaked blankets, scabs of dried mucus growing across her eyes, her face shrinking to a skull, malnutrition slowly shrivelling her small body, and we are told the plight of these children – that literally thousands will be left to die in places that became known as ‘The Dying Rooms’. When the film was due to be aired on Channel 4, the Chinese government started to make a lot of fuss; they warned Britain that if they aired the documentary it would ‘poison’ relations between the two countries. Channel 4 went on to show the film as planned, and it caused a national outcry about the obvious abuses of human rights. Later it brought international attention to what was happening in China. This resulted in human-rights agencies and charities going to China, which in turn led to various reforms of the one-child policy. In addition, True Vision (the production company behind the film) set up The Dying Rooms Trust, which makes various contributions to these charities to help improve conditions in Chinese orphanages.
This is just one of countless examples of ways in which, over the course of their short history, documentaries have been instrumental in bringing about change, and the trend continues. For example, in Morgan Spurlock’s Super Size Me, the filmmaker ate nothing but McDonald’s food for a whole month. His declining health during that time was seen as a direct result of this unhealthy diet. The film did tremendously well and McDonald’s removed ‘super-size’ portions from their menus in the US. Roger Graef made a series called Police in 1982, with one episode, A Complaint of Rape, that showed police officers interviewing a rape victim. The footage revealed the harsh and bullying manner in which the police dealt with their questioning, and the film significantly influenced the ways in which the police force in the UK continued such work, leading to changes in policy [see box below].
Not all documentaries have an overarching social agenda. Sometimes we make documentaries for other reasons. The BBC’s Walking with Dinosaurs and Planet Earth have used state-of-the-art techniques to give us a view of the world that we have rarely seen in such vivid detail. There are films that inform us of individuals or cultures that we rarely come across, for example the BBC series Tribe, and there are documentaries that capture unique moments in history, such as Michael Wadleigh’s Woodstock. The list is endless and you will find some of the best in Section Four.
Of course, the word documentary has now come to encompass reality television and many of the more formatted television shows such as Wife Swap, Survivor, Brat Camp and others. If we apply Grierson’s definition here, then they, too, are documentaries and, despite some of the bad press they get, it is quite probable that they have contributed to the renaissance of the genre. Rather than dwell here on the various merits (and demerits) of this trend, the important point is that the documentary form allows us to now have a window on virtually every aspect of life on this planet, which can be no bad thing.
ROGER GRAEF ON POLICE: A COMPLAINT OF RAPE AND THE POWER OF DOCUMENTARIES TO BRING ABOUT CHANGE
I think it was a direct result of the film coming at the end of five years of debate and two weeks of very intense media discussion. Whether it would have happened without the other two elements I frankly doubt, but that’s the way it happened…
It changed the way [the police] conducted their interviews; it shifted the benefit of the doubt towards the woman; it meant that they were more courteous and more considerate and more willing to understand that women don’t come in bleeding, screaming and crying when they’ve been raped. They may actually take quite a long time to come in, and be stunned, and have gone about their business normally for a few days or even weeks. Whereas these cops… they’ve read the fiction, they’ve seen the movies, and think rape victims are meant to cry and look like they’ve been beaten up.
Documentaries can’t by themselves change anything. There has to be a recognition and a desire to change. But [as a filmmaker] you can trigger a latent desire to change.
Why I Make Documentaries…
I think [the reason I got into documentary] was just the sense that reality is always a bit more extraordinary than anything you could imagine. I mean, if I had tried to imagine Sisters in Law I never could have imagined those amazing characters. For example, Manka, who is only six and yet she’s so clever, so resourceful and so dignified. And the man that saves her, this very quiet gentle giant, and a carpenter, it’s all kind of so symbolic and extraordinary. And Vera, I never would have imagined a woman like her. I think it’s just this feeling that life itself is much richer than you could ever imagine in your head.
Often when I’m filming I’m always thinking this is extraordinary. There were scenes in Sisters in Law when, if I hadn’t been filming, I’d have had my mouth open in astonishment. Even down to that divorce at the end, when the men start threatening her and taunting her and saying we’ll send you back and he’ll split you open, and you just can’t imagine people would behave like that. So that’s the feeling, that’s the delight of documentary: it’s also the fear of it. There’s always this fear that nothing’s going to happen, it’s all going to be boring and that you’re not going to find a story. It’s double-edged really.
KIM LONGINOTTO, Filmmaker(Sisters in Law, Rough Aunties, Hold Me Tight, Let Me Go)
I began making docs because I’m essentially a nosy parker and was terrified of actors. But mostly because the great thing about real life is that nobody sticks to the script, so the journey you go on once you start filming often has detours that take you to a slightly different destination to the one you thought you’d reach.
MARILYN GAUNT, Filmmaker
I enjoy the process of filming. It’s wonderful when a day’s shoot goes well and you sit back in the evening and think about how amazing a sequence is that you’ve managed to capture. I enjoy the editing hugely as well, and you concentrate the essence of the story more and more to make the flavour stronger and stronger. And, of course, it’s great when you get positive feedback either from the Twitterati, or emails, or ultimately even awards. But the thing that gives me most satisfaction, and means I can really sleep well at night, is knowing the positive impact that our films have had in the real world – that’s really cool.
BRIAN WOODS, Filmmaker
I went into documentary because I loved being nosy and asking people questions and prying into their lives. I was fascinated by real stories, I suppose. So, I guess it’s more of a humanist interest than a political interest. I’m not a hugely political person. I think that a lot of documentary filmmakers have got a real sort of hatred for obvious unfairness and social injustice and can tend to get a little self-righteous, but I’m not actually a really political, political person… I love the fact that you can take little bits of reality and make a story out of them… Life can be overwhelmingly chaotic and overstimulating and I think we all in some way want to sort of give shape to it. And being a documentary filmmaker, it’s exactly what you do as your job, and that’s the great pleasure for me.
KEVIN MACDONALD, Filmmaker
Notes
1 There were other filmmakers from other parts of the world who were also making documentary films around this time, such as the Russians Sergei Eisenstein and Dziga Vertov, who were extending and shaping the possibilities offered by film. Eisenstein’s theory of montage is still studied by film students everywhere, while Vertov’s theory of ‘Kino Pravda’ (Film Truth) made the distinction between reality as lived, and the reality captured by the camera. His film Man with a Movie Camera is a manifestation of this, revealing the process of filmmaking within the film itself. Their work and theories were a direct influence on the members of Britain’s Documentary Film Movement.
2. DOES YOUR DOCUMENTARY HAVE LEGS?
Documentary filmmakers often carry round with them one or more documentary ideas that preoccupy them to the point of obsession. Many times I have found myself lying awake at night with a documentary idea going round and round in my head. Sometimes, I have to get up, write these ideas down, search the Internet for more information, and then embark on a period of research, often convinced I have stumbled across the most unique, fantastic and amazing subject. I’m positive that anyone who doesn’t commission this film will be a fool for not recognising what a masterpiece my idea is. In my early days, my disappointment was counteracted by a huge sense of injustice. I simply couldn’t believe that people weren’t as enthused and awestruck by my ideas as I was. However, as time went on, and my arrogance dwindled substantially, I realised that, objectively, my ideas weren’t as great as I first thought. Put simply, they didn’t have legs. In this chapter, I want to talk about what makes a good documentary idea, and how to make sure that such an idea can be realistically transformed into a visual narrative that works, and also one that today’s market would be interested in.
WHERE DO IDEAS COME FROM?
Documentary ideas come from everywhere. Often, although not always, they come from somewhere deep within us. Perhaps we are outraged at some social injustice in the world and want to right some wrong. Perhaps we’re particularly interested in a specific group of people, or a cultural facet, or maybe we are enthused about something that happened to us, or to our family or friends. I was initially trained as a clinical psychologist, and many of my early ideas focused on areas of mental health, which I felt people knew little about; and, if they did, they often had certain prejudices, which I wanted to redress. Many of the filmmakers I know are driven by equally personal agendas. The important point here is that, whatever your idea, the first step is to find passion for it. It’s often going to be a long, hard slog to make your documentary and, unless you develop a personal relationship with the subject matter, it’s going to be difficult to go through the inevitable peaks and troughs without feeling disillusioned, often defeated, and sometimes depressed. Moreover, only a passion for the subject matter will allow you to make the film the best it can be. Even if we have no choice in the matter (and later on in your career as a filmmaker you may not have as much choice as you want in the films that you make), it’s still important to try and develop passion – or, at the very least, enthusiasm – for your film.
Essentially what inspires me is the nature of the human condition, how people deal with sometimes extraordinary challenges. But sometimes just dealing with the everyday problems that life throws up can be just as fascinating as the more extreme experiences. For me to want to tackle a particular subject there has to be more than just a good story with interesting characters, there always has to be an underlying subtext, one that makes individual people’s experiences reveal wider issues. I have to have a hook to hang it on. What clicks for me? What is the angle/element that most fascinates me?
MARILYN GAUNT, Filmmaker
Ideas can come from a whole host of places. Often they come from a newspaper article or a magazine feature that you may have read, or whilst chatting to your friends you stumble across a character or some anecdote that gets your mind racing. You need to develop your ‘documentary radar’ here and get yourself into the habit of listening out for ideas that could be turned into films. (Though bear in mind that not every friend’s tragedy and every social calamity should become a documentary proposal…) Seminars, conferences, the Internet – all of these have the potential to inspire.
As a documentarian I happily place my fate and faith in reality. It is my caretaker, the provider of subjects, themes, experiences – all endowed with the power of truth and the romance of discovery. And the closer I adhere to reality the more honest and authentic my tales. After all, the knowledge of the real world is exactly what we need to better understand, and therefore possibly to love, one another. It’s my way of making the world a better place. Some of the best ideas have their source in an early childhood experience, a craving, something personal. The filming should be of ongoing scenes, events that are thus cinematic, not the kind of information better suited to a pamphlet or lecture.
AL MAYSLES, Filmmaker
IDEAS THAT WORK
So, let’s imagine that you’ve found a great idea. It resonates with you; perhaps it’s a story that keeps coming back to you again and again and again. Well, the good news is that you’ve now embarked on a journey to develop your idea into a documentary, but the bad news is that there are some serious hurdles to jump over before your documentary really has legs.
1st hurdle – narrative
Are you telling a story? Is there a journey here? Documentaries, fiction films, novels and plays all work when there is some kind of journey that we follow. Although a character may fascinate you, it is not enough just to assume that living with him or her for a couple of months is going to yield an insightful and engaging film. What is going to happen over the course of these two months? Is the character trying to achieve a certain goal? And, if so, what are the obstacles, and will s/he succeed? These are examples of the questions you need to be asking in order to make a film that is going to engage rather than alienate or bore an audience. And perhaps the most important question you need to ask is whether there is an interesting narrative within your film, or is it just a collection of images, which ultimately lead nowhere? If you can’t find the story immediately, it’s worth continuing to look and, if you still can’t find it, then perhaps it’s time to give up and move on to another idea.
As Sheila Curran Bernard states in her book Documentary Storytelling for Video and Filmmakers, ‘A story is a narrative, or telling, of an event or series of events crafted in a way to interest the audience… At its most basic, a story has a beginning, middle and end. It has compelling characters, rising tension, and conflict that reaches some sort of resolution. It engages the audience on an emotional and intellectual level, motivating viewers to want to know what happens next.’2
Does this sound like your film? If not, then you haven’t yet managed to jump the first hurdle.
One way of helping you find a story is to consider the arc. This refers to the way the plot develops and how characters may change over the course of the film. A man searching for his lost family, finding clues that will eventually help him to meet them, is a definite arc. Or a character who experiences a fall from grace, a man who has lost his memory, a businessman who lost everything after going to prison for fraud, or a woman with a fatal illness who wants to die with dignity in her own home – all these are examples of a story with a good arc. Implicit in all these is the idea of a journey and, before we even hear more about the film, we can begin to get a sense of what we might see – the tension, the drama, the loss, the resolution, the personal discovery, or a goal that has either been failed or achieved.
Figure 2. Touching the Void (2003). Directed by Kevin Macdonald. Shown: Brendan Mackey (as climber Joe Simpson). Credit: IFC Films/Photofest.
Kevin Macdonald’s feature documentary Touching The Void is a great example of a compelling and engaging narrative. The film tells the true story of two men, Joe Simpson and Simon Yates, who climbed a mountain in Peru. Yates inadvertently lowered Simpson over the edge of a cliff and, unable to hear him through a storm, uncertain as to his position and gradually sliding down the slope himself, decided to cut the rope that connected them, sending Simpson plummeting to what he thought was certain death. Miraculously, Simpson survived the fall and was faced with the prospect of getting off the mountain alone with no food, no water, and a broken leg.
We know, by virtue of the interviews with them, that both men survived, but it’s the clever use of dramatised sequences, pacing and story development which makes the film a suspense thriller. There’s a definite narrative here, and as it unfolds it becomes more and more compelling. We know that Joe will make it, but how will he make it? What will happen to him? There are so many turning points in this film that, as a viewer, the narrative has you on the edge of your seat.
Not all narratives need to contain this degree of suspense. Eric Chaikin and Julian Petrillo’s Word Wars is a film about the board game Scrabble. At first it doesn’t sound like the most compelling subject matter, but the narrative, following four Scrabble players who are all in training (yes, you can train for Scrabble) for the US Scrabble Championships, builds suspense as we wonder who will make it to the finals. But what’s most compelling here is the characterisation. The characters themselves are interesting, eccentric and extremely watchable, bringing us nicely to the next hurdle.
2nd hurdle – characterisation
Not all documentaries involve characters, but since many of them do, it seems fitting to include this as a hurdle – if your idea doesn’t involve characters, then you can move on to the next hurdle.
Characters, subject, protagonists, contributors – whatever we choose to call them – can be essential to the telling of your story. Documentaries often fall into two camps – either subject driven or character driven. Both can often involve characters, but it is the latter we are really concerned with here – we’ll return to the first type later. With character-driven documentaries, if you don’t have a character that can carry the story and its various themes, then you’ve got a dull film that even a good narrative can’t rescue. It will meander along, sluggish, insipid, wearisome and colourless.
I think it’s a mistake to think that someone who you find interesting in life will be interesting in your film. A documentary audience is at best harsh, and at worst unforgiving, and they expect to be immediately engaged, often entertained, or at the very least find some kind of connection to, or resonance with, the people in your film.
So what, then, makes a good character for a documentary film? This is answered in part in the chapter on ‘Casting Contributors’, but, as a rule, it’s people who give us real windows into human experience or whose particular dilemma makes us think or reflect on our own humanness that make good characters.
You need to also think carefully about the current and future relationship you have with your subjects. A difficult or conflict-laden interaction does not augur well for the future (with a few exceptions) and you need to consider how open they are to your filming them and, more importantly, how much they are going to let you into their lives, whilst knowing that much of what they say and do might end up in a film which hundreds, thousands, or even millions of people may see. There are ethical considerations here, which you need to consider, such as:
Do your subjects know what your film is really about? Are you misleading them in any way? Are you in agreement with your subject as to how long you will be filming them for, and have you agreed what kinds of things you will be filming?Have you clearly defined the parameters of their editorial involvement in the film? Most directors, when asked, tell their subjects that they will not be able to sit in on the edit, and will not have ‘final say’ regarding the film. You would really need a strong reason to say otherwise, as it could land you in all sorts of trouble, for obvious reasons.3rd hurdle – is my idea really a documentary film?
Can you visualise the story? Is it better suited to radio, a fiction film, or a magazine article? This may sound an odd thing to say, but it is an extremely common mistake to make. Many of us get very excited by an idea, which in all honesty might not work best as a film but instead would make a fantastic article or radio documentary. There is a quick test you can do here to make sure: think of your film and ask yourself whether you can visualise it. Are there visual sequences that come to mind, or could your film only be achieved with a ludicrously expensive budget, or dependent on levels of access that are simply impossible to achieve? If you can think of visual sequences, are they actually going to be sufficiently interesting? Again, if it’s not going to work as a film, let it go and move on to a different idea.
4th hurdle – access
In my role as a producer, I am continually approached by filmmakers who have access-driven ideas, without actually having the access in place. It’s all very well wanting to make a film about Evo Morales, the Bolivian president, or a religious cult in Texas, but can you actually get proper access to the subjects, or is it just a pipe dream at this stage?
Even though films can be made about a subject matter without relevant access – by using archive, for example – it’s increasingly rare for the industry to be excited by this, as access-driven documentaries are becoming ever more popular and in demand. So, you need to make sure that you can get access AND that the subjects will be okay with being filmed. There are also ethical concerns here. For example, vulnerable contributors can potentially be exploited by their inclusion in your film. You also need to ask yourself whether you might be putting your subjects in any danger if you were to film them. I have seen numerous documentaries that have identified specific individuals in countries where their safety would be at risk if authorities knew what they looked like or where they lived, so do consider this.
5th hurdle – what the industry wants
Is your idea what the industry wants? Documentaries aren’t made in a vacuum. We make them so that people watch them, and, in order for them to be watched, they have to be seen somewhere – either on television, in cinemas, on DVDs, online or in festivals. And that means that someone, somewhere, has to want your product in order to fund or distribute it. Although a topic may be really interesting to you, it might not have a broader appeal. More importantly, it may simply not be something that is ‘in fashion’ at the moment. Awful as this sounds, it is the reality, and you really need to keep this in mind if you want anyone to see and/or fund your film.
Specific details of what the industry wants can be found in the chapter on pitching and funding your documentary. But, for now, it’s a good idea to consider two important points which will help your chances of making the kind of film that people will actually end up seeing:
Watch television and go and see documentaries in the cinema. You need to see what is actually being made. Not only will this give you a sense of the kinds of documentaries that are being commissioned and distributed, it will also stop you trying to pitch something that has been made recently. Again, I am frequently approached by filmmakers who haven’t bothered to see if the idea they are developing has already been made. If it has, there is little chance that it will be picked up by a broadcaster, unless you can justify bringing a new perspective or something novel to the subject matter. All it takes is some simple research to find out if your idea has been made in recent years – a simple Internet search will often suffice – and help you avoid the ensuing disappointment.Find out specifically what the industry is looking for. Many broadcasters and funding agencies have websites that outline the kind of film they are prepared to invest in. Without wanting to be repetitive here, you can’t simply have an amazing idea for a film and then try to find someone who wants to fund it. You have to target your idea so that it fits the remit of specific funders. You may have to compromise over how your subject matter is handled, but it’s an important skill to develop.IDEAS THAT DON’T WORK
If you do manage to jump over the various hurdles outlined above, it’s a good start. If not, then persevere, let your idea breathe and possibly find a new angle or perspective. It’s also worth pointing out that there are some ideas which may fulfil all the criteria above but which still may not work for other reasons. Michael Rabiger, author of many fantastic books on documentary filmmaking, suggests staying away from:
Worlds you haven’t experienced and cannot closely observe.Any ongoing, inhibiting problem in your own life (see a good therapist; you won’t find any solutions while trying to direct a film).Anything or anyone that is ‘typical’ (nothing real is typical, so nothing typical will ever be interesting or credible).Preaching or moral instruction of any kind.Films about problems for which you already have the answer (so does your audience).3I would add to this ‘complicated issues that you don’t fully understand’. Don’t be over ambitious in trying to make a film about something that is way over your head. For example, investigative documentaries (such as those seen on the British TV series Panorama) involve specific journalistic and investigative skills that you may not possess, at least not yet. Try to pick an idea that you can get your teeth into, but not so big that you can’t chew it.
SIMPLE IDEAS ARE THE BEST
The best ideas are always the simple ones. There is a tendency – especially for documentary filmmakers at the beginning of their careers – to have an over-complicated thesis for a film: to try exploring multifarious themes and complex issues, or else a simple issue with a convoluted
