Basic Doc Rules

I suppose then that we can agree that there are rules.... and the issue of when and where those rules may apply are up to the individual.

Because you are right, it is inherent in the nature of documentary that they are attempting to present the reality of their subject matter, so sticking to that is definitely a 'rule.'

Wow, how often does this happen?
Usually if these debates begin they just devolve and fizzle out... here we actually found some sort of conclusion, or at least a compromise we can both agree with.
Too bad that's rare.
 
Too bad that's rare.
Click to expand...

Actually, that's one of the things that I like about this board. I think that, all in all, this board functions fairly well.

On some internet boards I've been on (for video as well as other interests) it's obvious that the rule "any 14 year old idiot with a key board and an internet connection can post" applies. This, of course, leads to a coursening of the discourse and a distinct worsening of the signal:noise ratio.

n.b. I've got nothing against 14 year olds per se. One of my favorite posters on another board was a 15 year old who made a bunch of shorts, including my fav- "Mall Cops Suck".
 
Joe Kras said:
One of my favorite posters on another board was a 15 year old who made a bunch of shorts, including my fav- "Mall Cops Suck".
Click to expand...

Glad there's another "Dummy" fan among us.
What ever happened to Alex anyhow?
Last I saw he dropped his camera for a drum set....too bad.
 
No Idea what happened to him.

Alex dropped in to another forum in 2004, then took off again. He's 17 or 18 now, probably into girls or supercomputers.

He certainly had a raw talent.
 
The United states and the supreme court used to accept the idea that black people were worth 3/5th of a vote. So don't accept that MM is a documentary filmaker just because it's a popular notion.
Do the research on MM to see just how far he manipulated the facts and created new facts by mixing unrelated statements together. There's a book written detailing his BS. It's called "MM is a big fat stupid white man"
 
Regardless of what one thinks of his subject matter or the quality of it, Moore has brought documentary filmmaking to the mainstream and brought 'our' films into theatres -that is theatrical release. Look at March of the Penguins, Weeping Camel, Born into Brothels, Shake Hands with the Devil -these films are making money in theatres because they're well told and offer a great alternative to the junk Holllywood is putting out. These films still would have been made, but far less people would have seen them and been affected by them...

What this 'new documentary phenomena' has also done indirectly is created a theatrical release strand at Telefilm Canada -they have recognized the box office potential of big ticket/large concept documentaries. While that may not help others on this thread (that is only canadians can apply to the fund), it does show many people are taking documentaries much more seriously as a storytelling medium.
 
Joe D
From that last post it sounds like you are saying...so what if MM is a liar and a manipulater of the facts. He brought attention to docs and so that's good. Am I misunderstanding you?
I find it harder to get doc subjects to cooperate because they think they're going to get the MM treatment.
 
My biggest rule I go by is, I am a documentarian, not a journalist. I can do what I want so long as it is ok with the subject. It often means having lunch with them and making a relationship.
 
The doc has gone through a ton of changes over time. What is considered "documentary" today, would not be cosidered during the 60's or 30's. It's all relative.

For example: the graphics and animation in "SuperSize Me" by Morgan Spurlock. Animation has for a long time been at the opposite end of the spectrum.

Has anyone here an education in documentary? One would show that bias is lurking around every corner. And that telling the truth is very secondary. In documentary, informing the viewer of your point of view is priority, historically.

it is true, that the audience labels the genre, not the author.

-a
 
Jeez,
Firstly, I agree with most posts that there aren't really rules to follow, just styles and methods. Documentary is just so fluid and there are so many variables in every individual film that you can't have special rules and so many newbies ask about this. Part of documentary film, I've found, is just having good intuition and being flexible (at least in your production phase). You can't really be too much of an introvert and direct a lot of documentary film, I've worked on some failed doc shoots with indecisive introverted directors.
There is a misconception that much of documentary is done just walking up and shooting a bunch of great 'stuff' with a video camera and then all the brilliant work is done in post by some great intilect. The shooting/directing is dicy and difficult and often uncomfortable, and requires a lot of careful, respectful negotiation between people. Being honest and up front about your intentions goes a long way with people.
I'm not sure what the bit in that post is about who's been "educated" about documentary. Documentary "education" itself is pretty subjective. I've made documentaries for years, and eventually took a few classes for a certificate at a small doc school in NC, but that didn't qualify my point of view anymore than when I was doing it before and using the same methods I'd learned through trial and errors. That gets back to the "rules" issue. The best doc education as well as set of rules you'll learn for yourself is obtained by just getting out there and doing it. Trial and error; experience. Especially with doc work. Just be honest and throrough.
It's a shame that someone had to jump into a good thread with all this MM bickering, too. I've found that the mark of an inexperienced Doc filmmaker is one who always complains about MM. That just screams "he's not following the 'all docs should be polygraph proof, poignant, PC, Ken Burns, movies about knitting circles that save children" rule'. If you actually work on/ make doc films I would think that you understand the nature of it; that there aren't any absolutley honest docs and thats what makes it so tough. If you don't like his views or the way he twists facts and figures to get his views across than make another one to contrast it, or just deal. Thats why we all know his name so well; because we know that they are HIS VIEWs, not the ultimate truth. Anyway, I don't like or dislike his films that much, ROger and Me is an undeniable triumph and he has popularized the form a lot more which helps but he's no saint. No ones been hurt over them, so I say, whatever.
 
I used to be a MM fan... huge fan... then, it got old and I come to find out he is not even from Flint... he lived every night of his pre-college life in a rich all white suburb called Davis... he is an EXCELLENT crafter of a STORY... he is not a liar but he IS an editorialist, not a doc maker.

While I dont have a body of work behind me, I have been a huge doc fan my entire life and my first feature doc has been received extremely well, being covered in the likes of Entertainment Weekly (half page last week), RollingStone and the NY Times. It has also been added to the curriculum at several colleges including NYU and USC. I just did a full interview for a bigger story in the NY Times which should run in the next 2 weeks and I was asked to comment on MM.... dunno whether they will run my comments but I pulled no punches....



ash =o)
 
Exploit your subjects. Go into their rerigerators when they aren't looking and eat their food (hey, you probably need it more than them anyway). Lots of nudity is pretty much a standard so I feel silly even bringing that up. If you are ever lost, storywise, then it is well established in the pro arena that one should take their subjects out of context to make them appear racist (or more racist than they actually may be.

I'd say, the basic rule is to always assert your own superiority to your subjects. Let them know that they aren't really people on a regular basis. When you walk into their home, don't try to conceal your laughter at their lugubrious furnishings - let them know what inferior taste they have. Correct their grammer often. If you are not sure if a certain word they use is proper or not, just make up a reason why it isn't, I mean, you'll probably end up being right anyways.

If possible it is also a good strategy to, whenever possible, infer that your subject has some sort of venereal disease... chlamidia is probably the funniest.

Good Luck!
 
ngraha3 said:
Exploit your subjects. Go into their rerigerators when they aren't looking and eat their food (hey, you probably need it more than them anyway). Lots of nudity is pretty much a standard so I feel silly even bringing that up. If you are ever lost, storywise, then it is well established in the pro arena that one should take their subjects out of context to make them appear racist (or more racist than they actually may be.

I'd say, the basic rule is to always assert your own superiority to your subjects. Let them know that they aren't really people on a regular basis. When you walk into their home, don't try to conceal your laughter at their lugubrious furnishings - let them know what inferior taste they have. Correct their grammer often. If you are not sure if a certain word they use is proper or not, just make up a reason why it isn't, I mean, you'll probably end up being right anyways.

If possible it is also a good strategy to, whenever possible, infer that your subject has some sort of venereal disease... chlamidia is probably the funniest.

Good Luck!
Click to expand...

Now that is funny!

Laughing aside, I would say that if you did the complete opposite of what ngraha3 said you'd make a decent documentary.
 
On one end of the film spectrum you have realism on the other end you have formalism and in the middle you have classicism.

Example of realism=c-span

Example of classicism=most fictional movies

Example of formalism=pretentious "art films."

Extreme realism is just putting a camera somewhere and recording events.

In classic films the idea is to bring the viewer in to a fantasy world that is supposed to be "real." There are all kinds of conventions in classic films that are accepted by the audience that have no basis in "reality."

In formal films (I think? correct if wrong) the viewer is made aware of the "fakeness" of the medium. The film is not supposed to feel "real" at all. Its a very kind of self-concious poking fun at the medium itself.

I think that "documentary" sits somewhere between realism (c-span) and classicism (hollywood movies).

Documentary has storytelling conventions like classic films that the audience accepts but the content, the visual "evidence", is also expected to have some basis in the "real" world.

Where the documentarian fits in between realism and classicism is a stylistic and ethical choice. His credibility is always on the line. He expected to bring something like "truth" to the viewers.

In cinematographic terms there are no "rules." There are only conventions. If you get too far away from the conventions of filmmaking you will lose your audience. If you follow them too closely then you are unoriginal. There's always a balance to be struck.

The documentarian is part journalist, part filmmaker.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top