Filming in City Streets

Anybody here ever seen "Kids"? A docu all about capturing the reality of people on the street. mdlis is right - respect is key. People all want to be represented in a way that they approve of, regardless of where they live and how much money they have. So your attitude in making the documentary will have an impact. If you want something 'real', don't hide, just make friends and stick around until they forget you're there, like real documentaries do. Get invited places, do favors, help out. You'll get plenty of 'reality'.
 
penfever said:
If you want something 'real', don't hide, just make friends and stick around until they forget you're there, like real documentaries do.quote]
Click to expand...
penfever said:
This hide/don't hide thing is not a black and white issue.

Many times there are some unavoidable issues where, if you want true reality, making friends and being seen in the open is going to mean you never get anything "real".

Drug deals, prostitution, all manners of criminal acts will never be captured without being unseen.

You have to judge each situation. Time frame...the amount of time you are given to produce your product...is always a variable which can also affect your hide/don't hide decision.

We all want the same thing. Reality.

How you get "honest" reality is the key.

A perfect example is a story which ran on Dateline last night about computer predators. They set up a sting with lots of hidden cameras capturing these guys (51 in all) who were looking to have sex with kids they met on the internet. You saw the guys come to the house looking for the kids they'd thought they'd encountered online. Then surprised coming face to face with an adult, the reporter Chris Hanson. Later, full out-in-the-open cameramen. Do you think "making friends" and not shooting from hidden locations was going to get them "reality"? No way! You'd never have seen or heard these guys come in the door, from the look on their faces, each obviously expecting sex from a kid. The key material for the story would have been impossible to get if a camera crew was sitting out in the open!

No video, no story. What was shown was a reality that proved the validity of the story. Something, again, which would not have been achieved by "making friends" or paying off people in the neighborhood to be a part of your production and end up on camera.

We shot a doc on the street gang MS-13 in El Salvador. They've spread into the US so many of you in the states may have heard of them...or you will be soon.

My point is we did a bit of both. Make friends to get some vid and interviews in some locations. Shoot from a hidden position for other stuff. With some subjects, no matter how small the camera, no matter how long you have to "make friends", you aren't going to get "reality". These were basically kids. Dangerous kids, yes, but still, once the camera was on, they were acting. Being cool. Showing off. Not true "reality".

I appreciate the sentiments of those who feel there is only one way but, in my experience, one way thinking never encompasses all the real life variables involved when it comes to capturing true reality.

Oh yes...we didn't have a gun with us either. Just our smiling faces, basic camera gear and a ready escape plan in our heads if things took a turn for the worse.:thumbsup:
Click to expand...
 
I wouldn't worry about it too much, just use common sense. Realize younger people account for the majority of the street crime and that it coincides with school hours, so perhaps shoot in the morning when most kids are in school. Also random violent street crime is usually pretty rare, you’re more likely to be a victimized by an acquaintance of yours or fall victim of white collar crime.
 
Wow!

Wow!

Sorry I joined this discussion so late. All this talk about packing heat has me laughing (nervously) People seem to think that popping a cap in someone is justified in order to protect ones "gear" No attention is paid to the real price which is the sanctity of your conscience! Did I do the right thing? This will haunt you for the rest of your life and for what? If your documentary is about shedding some light on the problems of the harsh reality of urban life and you think you can make a difference by informing the public of those realities, then I wish you all the luck in the world. I think respect goes a long way. If you can't talk thier talk and walk thier walk, then I would leave that film up to someone who can, but if you go in there without some common ground, packing heat, expect trouble!
 
Sure bring a gun. It'll be a nice present for whoever mugs you.

In the time it takes for a crazy to travel 10 feet and stab you, you'll have sucessfully shot yourself in the leg.

Use the time tested technique. Run like hell and drop your gear.
 
Geno said:
Sorry I joined this discussion so late. All this talk about packing heat has me laughing (nervously) People seem to think that popping a cap in someone is justified in order to protect ones "gear" No attention is paid to the real price which is the sanctity of your conscience! Did I do the right thing? This will haunt you for the rest of your life and for what? If your documentary is about shedding some light on the problems of the harsh reality of urban life and you think you can make a difference by informing the public of those realities, then I wish you all the luck in the world. I think respect goes a long way. If you can't talk thier talk and walk thier walk, then I would leave that film up to someone who can, but if you go in there without some common ground, packing heat, expect trouble!
Click to expand...

I don't think anybody said anything about popping a cap in someone to protect their gear. I was referring to protecting yourself and your crew the gear is material and can be replaced. If someone get "heat" to keep their gear safe then they should stop and think about what they are doing. It would be smarter and safer to just get insurance on your equipment.

im.thatoneguy said:
Sure bring a gun. It'll be a nice present for whoever mugs you.

In the time it takes for a crazy to travel 10 feet and stab you, you'll have sucessfully shot yourself in the leg.

Use the time tested technique. Run like hell and drop your gear.
Click to expand...

That statement doesn't really make sense to me and the reason being. If you are going to carry a gun to protect yourself knowing how to use it might be a smart idea. Now when I say know how to use it I don't mean know how to pull a trigger. I mean know how to recognize violence, how to avoid it, how to determine whether lethal force is required or even justified, what the legal aspect of using said force is and then lastly how to shoot and shoot accurately.There are many things that go on before the first shot is fired and carrying a gun is a big responsibility.

Also, I'm waiting on my background check to come through so I can pick my gun up this weeked and rest assured that I've heeded all my advice as well
 
So you're going to decide the legal and moral ramifications of your actions in less than 3 seconds? Because that's about how long you'll have.

Unless you're planning on getting into some sort of prolonged gun-fight your handgun is going to do you little to no good.
 
Those things are decided before you purchase a handgun. I know what consititues self defense in the eyes of the law for my state and I know how to recognize what is self defense. Guns are valid means of self defense. If they weren't then off duty or undercover police officers wouldn't carry them. Are you going to walk up to and undercover officer or off duty cops and tell them that there is no reason for them to carry a gun because they won't be able to determine in enough time whether or not it's justified to pull out? In almost all violent encounters the situtation never started violent. It was always escalated or had warnings signs that it was going to and reaching that stage. You should read the book Gift of Fear and it explains a lot about recognizing Voilence and Hostile encounters before it happens.
Now obviously retreat is your first and best option. If you can run away then that is what you need to do and not try to shoot it out john wayne style, but in a situation when you are unable to retreat and couldn't diffuse the situtation with reasoning. Then you need to use whatever means of defense you have available.
 
Hey, I would suggest like yall have said earlier on maybe hiring a cop, they aren't that expensive, at least where i come from ($20/hour). I have filmed in the worst parts of Chicago, New Orleans, Mexico, and Las Vegas all of which besides Mexico I was in a large group, so i would say bring as many people out as you can.

Good Luck.
 
good Idea MediaLuke. Hiring a cop definitely sounds like a good idea. Unless of course he busts you for not having a filming permit lol
 
it's telling, and somewhat ironic, that the first 2 people to recommend guns are in places where (respectively):

a) guns are completely illegal, and
b) where the toughest person you're likely to see would make richie cunningham look like a young mike tyson.

insurance is easy to get, and will pay for itself. if you rent your dwelling, check out rental insurance, which is quite cheap. to cover the deductible, tell the agent that the camera-mounted mic was a neumann, which you got on ebay and don't have a receipt for it. or your bogen tripod was a vinten. hell, get a little more creative and you might get yourself an hvx. i'd much rather be responsible for ripping off an insurance company (and theoretically causing a tiny increase in rates,) than for getting myself or someone else wounded or killed over something worth a few weeks' salary.

the advice about being respectful and using common sense is the only valuable advice that's been offered here so far.

and if you're really looking to capture those rusting vulnerable parts of the city, maybe you should consider scoring a bolex. your footage will look better, with higher resolution and progressive scan at multiple frame rates. your footage will outlive every videotape known to man by a factor of 10, and nobody (except maybe homeless film students) would think that it was worth anything. pull out the dvx in a controlled situation where you're comfortable and you've established some trust and respect with your subjects, and where you definitely need synch sound. if 16mm is too much of an ordeal for you, consider shooting super-8. nothing says "urban blight" like kodachrome, and even a really high end s8 cam would look like an obsolete relic to the uninitiated.

and part of doing this is assessing why you're doing this in the first place. i'm not calling out the original poster, but if you're shooting stuff that you can only shoot from inside a car while strapping a 9, then really, why are you shooting it?

are you hoping to improve the lives of your (implicitly homicidal) subjects? are you trying to prove yourself a tough, macho but sensitive "journalist" type like james woods in "salvador?" are you trying to tell a story that "must be told," or one that's been told 8,000 times? if, like the original post suggested, you're trying to visually study the fading beauty of a fallen neighborhood, the worst thing you're likely to encounter is people wondering why the hell you'd bother filming some crumbling-ass building. act like you know what you're doing and folks will typically assume that you do. don't step out of a benz in a burberry suit.

lensmith's earlier posts were sensible, but the description of the dateline show has nothing to do with "reality." setting up a "sting" operation has nothing to do with documenting reality. when you induce someone to commit a crime so that you can arrest them, it's entrapment. furthermore, it' exploitative, designed to appeal to lowest-common demoninator moral outrage and self-righteousness, and has nothing whatsoever to do with addressing the problems of pedophilia. any psych 101 freshman could tell you that shame won't change these guys' pathologies for the better- most of them are likely consumed with shame already.

i would've liked to see chris hanson get buggered by one of those guys, on camera. that would've been some gutsy journalism.

and speaking of pedophilia, "kids" is not a doc in any way. it's a narrative movie with a script, actors (at least one of whom has become quite well-known,) a dp, and a director. the director likes to hang around filming androgynous kids in states of undress. he does so in his other films, and he launched his original career as a photographer by doing so. he also likes to make images of self-destructive young people, using drugs and brandishing weapons.

he's been able to make a career of doing so because there is a market for titillating footage of pretty, young people in dangerous situations. the same market supports pieces like the aforementioned 60 minutes piece and probably most docs about street gangs or the other "realities" and "criminal activies" that lensmith thinks it's essential that we document (again.)

i like a titilating hbo "hookers undercover" type doc as much as the next guy, but perhaps it would make sense to start thinking about the "realities" that our cameras help to construct.
 
discs of tron said:
it's telling, and somewhat ironic, that the first 2 people to recommend guns are in places where (respectively):

a) guns are completely illegal, and
b) where the toughest person you're likely to see would make richie cunningham look like a young mike tyson.

insurance is easy to get, and will pay for itself. if you rent your dwelling, check out rental insurance, which is quite cheap. to cover the deductible, tell the agent that the camera-mounted mic was a neumann, which you got on ebay and don't have a receipt for it. or your bogen tripod was a vinten. hell, get a little more creative and you might get yourself an hvx. i'd much rather be responsible for ripping off an insurance company (and theoretically causing a tiny increase in rates,) than for getting myself or someone else wounded or killed over something worth a few weeks' salary.
Click to expand...
This is ok information


discs of tron said:
and if you're really looking to capture those rusting vulnerable parts of the city, maybe you should consider scoring a bolex. your footage will look better, with higher resolution and progressive scan at multiple frame rates. your footage will outlive every videotape known to man by a factor of 10, and nobody (except maybe homeless film students) would think that it was worth anything. pull out the dvx in a controlled situation where you're comfortable and you've established some trust and respect with your subjects, and where you definitely need synch sound. if 16mm is too much of an ordeal for you, consider shooting super-8. nothing says "urban blight" like kodachrome, and even a really high end s8 cam would look like an obsolete relic to the uninitiated.

and part of doing this is assessing why you're doing this in the first place. i'm not calling out the original poster, but if you're shooting stuff that you can only shoot from inside a car while strapping a 9, then really, why are you shooting it?

are you hoping to improve the lives of your (implicitly homicidal) subjects? are you trying to prove yourself a tough, macho but sensitive "journalist" type like james woods in "salvador?" are you trying to tell a story that "must be told," or one that's been told 8,000 times? if, like the original post suggested, you're trying to visually study the fading beauty of a fallen neighborhood, the worst thing you're likely to encounter is people wondering why the hell you'd bother filming some crumbling-ass building. act like you know what you're doing and folks will typically assume that you do. don't step out of a benz in a burberry suit.

lensmith's earlier posts were sensible, but the description of the dateline show has nothing to do with "reality." setting up a "sting" operation has nothing to do with documenting reality. when you induce someone to commit a crime so that you can arrest them, it's entrapment. furthermore, it' exploitative, designed to appeal to lowest-common demoninator moral outrage and self-righteousness, and has nothing whatsoever to do with addressing the problems of pedophilia. any psych 101 freshman could tell you that shame won't change these guys' pathologies for the better- most of them are likely consumed with shame already.

i would've liked to see chris hanson get buggered by one of those guys, on camera. that would've been some gutsy journalism.

and speaking of pedophilia, "kids" is not a doc in any way. it's a narrative movie with a script, actors (at least one of whom has become quite well-known,) a dp, and a director. the director likes to hang around filming androgynous kids in states of undress. he does so in his other films, and he launched his original career as a photographer by doing so. he also likes to make images of self-destructive young people, using drugs and brandishing weapons.

he's been able to make a career of doing so because there is a market for titillating footage of pretty, young people in dangerous situations. the same market supports pieces like the aforementioned 60 minutes piece and probably most docs about street gangs or the other "realities" and "criminal activies" that lensmith thinks it's essential that we document (again.)

i like a titilating hbo "hookers undercover" type doc as much as the next guy, but perhaps it would make sense to start thinking about the "realities" that our cameras help to construct.
Click to expand...

Do you feel proud of yourself? Somewhere in there you went totally off topic and stopped adding to the thread and started taking away from it.
 
stidle said:
Most of these seem like reasonable suggestions, but I have to take issue with the suggestion of carrying a gun.

I don't want this to devolve (evolve?) into a political discussion, but don't you think that the likelihood of a confrontation turning deadly increases about 100-fold when you introduce a gun into it -- regardless of whether or not the offending party also has one?

If you get stuck up at gunpoint for your equipment, so be it. You fork it over and get left alone. I will have it insured just in case that happens anyway.

If you get stuck up at gunpoint for your equipment and you whip out a gun...you run the very possible risk of being injured or even killed.

Mace seems like a decent middle-ground.
Click to expand...


I have to disagree with your first sentence. If the opposing party has a gun and know you don't have one, your risk of getting blown away is overwhelming. If someone pulls a gun on you and you pull one on him or her, then it becomes a level playing field. That person will think before pulling the trigger. Of course you have to size up the situation everytime. Because in some cases, you will have to pull the trigger first (kill or be killed) or else you will be toast. Generally speaking, you can learn to size up thugs with guns and know if they are serious or not.

If they make small talk and want money then you are pretty much safe. If they pull a gun and demand money in a threatening way, you are always better off shooting them first because 9 times out of ten if you don't get the first shot in they will kill you before you know what hit you.

Just some words of advice. Better you be alive than some thug with a gun. And these days people really don't care about human life, they will blow you away for fifty cents.
 
Forgive me if what I'm about to say has already been said in this thread, but I didn't have the time (or the stomach) to wade through all of the posts about guns and pedophilia.

It's interesting that you cite "Dark Days" as an example of a dangerous environment (because of the people who live there). The beauty of that film is that the filmmaker didn't just come in with a noble idea of capturing and capitalizing on the beautiful decay of desperate lives. He made that film with the very people that it was about. The project of documenting that story belonged to everyone you see in the film, and so there was a real investment from all of them, and stealing or damaging the equipment would have harmed the community, not just the attractive and young white guy who brought it in.

I think there is a really important lesson there for any of us who want to make a difference, or serve our own artistic ambitions, by documenting the poverty or desperation of "other" communities. I don't think we're doing anybody any favors if we choose to tell their stories without involving them in the telling. And if we make the effort to connect with people in the community and involve them in the project (to whatever extent is mutually acceptable), so that the community has an emotional and intellectual investment in the project, then we suddenly have a huge security network protecting both ourselves and our equipment.

I would say that if you're shooting anywhere in the US (as opposed to, say, Irag) and you feel that you have to bring a gun in with you, then you probably don't yet have any business filming in that community.

Robert
 
Bus No. 8 said:
Forgive me if what I'm about to say has already been said in this thread, but I didn't have the time (or the stomach) to wade through all of the posts about guns and pedophilia.

It's interesting that you cite "Dark Days" as an example of a dangerous environment (because of the people who live there). The beauty of that film is that the filmmaker didn't just come in with a noble idea of capturing and capitalizing on the beautiful decay of desperate lives. He made that film with the very people that it was about. The project of documenting that story belonged to everyone you see in the film, and so there was a real investment from all of them, and stealing or damaging the equipment would have harmed the community, not just the attractive and young white guy who brought it in.

I think there is a really important lesson there for any of us who want to make a difference, or serve our own artistic ambitions, by documenting the poverty or desperation of "other" communities. I don't think we're doing anybody any favors if we choose to tell their stories without involving them in the telling. And if we make the effort to connect with people in the community and involve them in the project (to whatever extent is mutually acceptable), so that the community has an emotional and intellectual investment in the project, then we suddenly have a huge security network protecting both ourselves and our equipment.

I would say that if you're shooting anywhere in the US (as opposed to, say, Irag) and you feel that you have to bring a gun in with you, then you probably don't yet have any business filming in that community.

Robert
Click to expand...
I don't have any problem with your post but it might have been a good idea to at least read the whole thread especially since you are resurrecting this one. What I think we tend to miss in situations like this is that some people feel safer with a gun , knife , brass knuckles or something that they can control in a not so familiar enviroment that "may" be dangerous.
Thartley on the forum successfully thwarted 2 attackesr with nothing but a pen and her witts so it's clear that there is no substitue for common sense. There is nothing wrong with carrying a gun on a film shoot or regular life for that matter. if you are in a "dangerous" neighborhood the "dangerous" people in the neighborhood probably have some type of weapon anyway and they shouldn't be offended if you have one.

However I do totally agree with your point about networking with the people in the neighborhood because that will definitely keep you safe. So the moral of the story is carrying a gun is cool but having common sense is cooler
 
"So the moral of the story is carrying a gun is cool but having common sense is cooler" - Hmm, not the moral of my story. Except the common sense part.

But you're right about reading the whole thread. I did eventually and saw that several people made very good points, some of which were similar to mine. As sometimes happens to us all, I started by responding to a specific piece (the use of "Dark Days" as an example) and felt compelled to keep going beyond that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top