Basic Doc Rules

[KingVidiot]

Based on your favorite doc's and some of the standard "rules," what would you say are some real "don'ts" for a successful (although possibly unorthodox) documentary.

 

[robmyers]

don't explain too much.

 

[Duct Tape Films]

There are no rules. There are only styles. My style is "fly-on-the-wall", influencing the events as little as humanly possible (which is difficult in and of itself, as people ALWAYS change based on the presense of a camera). I try to not inject my views, even going so far as to NOT have a voiceover. My subject matter takes precendce over the subjects, meanig I follow themes as opposed to characters. This is my style. Does that it make it any better or worse than someone else's? Nope. My suggestion would be to watch as many of the documentary masters as you can, and figure out what kind of documentary elements you like, or don't like. I'm sure after viewing about twenty docs or so, you probably develop a dogma, or perhaps more fluid preferences, all your own. Best places to start: DA Pennebaker, and his diametric opposite, Michael Moore, and somewhere in the middle would be Errol Morris. Start there, and then expand at will...

 

[Josh_Boelter]

I read an interview with Werner Herzog and he says he sometimes includes scripted material in his docs. For him, and I tend to agree, you can use whatever means necessary to tell a story. Include a set of rules for yourself if you want. If not, screw the rules.

Cheers,

Josh

 

[vidled]

Possible things to avoid: Talking Heads....BORING!

Everyone does it, as it's relatively easy. And it has it's place....but not for 90+% of a doc! Yikes! But like others suggested, no rules, just personal preferences.

 

[galt]

#1 don't:

Don't be like Mike.

 

[Adam Crabbe]

Structure is the main thing.
-Beginning, Middle, and End.-
The end being an outcome or a kind of "alter call." (Asking for a change).

Good luck man!

 

[adkimery]

I think my only hard and fast rule (or at least my biggest rule) is:
Don't abuse your subjects and don't abuse your audience. Treat them w/respect and honesty.

Yes, sometimes a bit of dramatic or creative license is needed (for example, reenacting something) but you should strive to keep it accurate and honest. A good doc serves to educate as well as entertain. It shouldn't be a soapbox or propaganda tool, IMO.


-A

 

[jcsoc]

for a real documentary, try not to have a viewpoint, the point of making the documentary is to establish one, not push one on others. Michael Moore doesn't make documentaries.

 

[Moonwind]

Don't stretch the truth, don't bend the truth, don't edge around the truth.

 

[dustino]

Tell a story using images and footage. Footage, footage, footage should be the story or "evidence" - as opposed to voiceovers and talking head interviews. Those are fine to use, but only when visual "evidence" is unavailable or only in support of that evidence. In other words - SHOW the audience the story, don't TELL them the story; it's usually much more compelling that way. Also, respect your audience's intelligence - it's a lot more satisfying to absorb a film's ideas rather than have them handed to you.

But, most of all - tell your story your way. Imitating others is a great way to learn, but your film will only be good if it's true to who you are as a filmmaker.

Also, for all the Michael Moore bashing - at least most americans know his films. While I'm not a huge fan of his self-martyrdom at times, there are elements of each of his films I enjoy. And long before Michael Moore was the cultural lightning rod that he's become today, there was "Roger and Me," accepted and praised by a MUCH larger portion of viewers than his last couple of films. If nothing else, notice how he infused snippets of found-footage and pop music to lighten the tone of the often "serious issue" documentary, something not done too often before him in the genre.

A great exercise I learned in art school was to spend time imitating those artists (or filmmakers in this case) that you hate. This can just be an exercise, but you often learn a lot more from this than from imitating those you love. It forces you to explore your biases and really consider why you have them. Not only that, it opens you up to approaches you might have never considered but that actually work well for you or for a particular scene or particular project.

 

[xander76]

I think my only hard and fast rule (or at least my biggest rule) is:
Don't abuse your subjects and don't abuse your audience. Treat them w/respect and honesty.

I'll second that.

I usually express it by saying that I do my very best to be fair to what I observed. That doesn't mean that the film is objective or doesn't have a viewpoint or doesn't sometimes mislead slightly about small details such as chronology. It does mean that in every important way (factual and emotional) the film is a fair representation of what I observed when I shot it.

 

[Luis Caffesse]

There are no rules. There are only styles.

Couldn't agree more. Absolutely right.

I'm putting that on a tshirt damnit!

Best places to start: DA Pennebaker, and his diametric opposite, Michael Moore, and somewhere in the middle would be Errol Morris. Start there, and then expand at will...

I would also throw The Maysles Brothers in there along with Ross McElwee and Alan Berliner.

Again, no rules...only styles.

 

[Joe_Kras]

I'm not sure if you guys really mean there are no rules or not.

If you purposely twist the truth, tell outright lies, and present things that aren't so, can you still call it a documentary? And is this fair either to the subject or the audience?

I think not. The rules may be interpreted differently somewhat over time, but I think there are some rules that are absolute.

 

[Luis Caffesse]

I'm not sure if you guys really mean there are no rules or not.

If you purposely twist the truth, tell outright lies, and present things that aren't so, can you still call it a documentary? And is this fair either to the subject or the audience?

I think not. The rules may be interpreted differently somewhat over time, but I think there are some rules that are absolute.

I don't know if they are absolute.
We're talking about 'rules' not what is ethical or right.

If we can all agree that Michael Moore makes documentaries, or even someone like Alan Berliner or Errol Morris... then I think the definition is definitely flexible.

I don't think it's a good idea for anyone to tell outright lies, or to present things that aren't so.... but then again I don't think anyone does that intentionally anyhow. People tend to create things with good intentions, no one thinks they are lying.

Besides, someone who is going to lie through their work isn't going to be stopped if you tell them that it's against the 'rules.'

I stick with the belief that there are no 'rules.'
There are definitely different approaches and different styles.
But, by seeing the vast differences in many of the documentaries out there it is difficult to see any rules that are accepted by all.

Now, each filmmaker creates his/her own guidelines for sure.
Albert Maysles refuses to do interviews (Errol Morris on the other hand relies almost solely on interviews).

Ross McElwee and Alan Berliner rely on their voiceover, whereas Errol Morris won't put in voice in his own work unless he absolutely has to for the clip to make sense.

Now many of these people 'twist' the truth... and it's that 'twist' that has given them their success. Alan Berliner's work is all about his perspective, the same could be said about Ross McElwee. Without their twist, there wouldn't be much to their work.

So, yeah, I would say there are no rules.
But that doesn't mean there are no ethics... a documentary full of lies would still be a documentary...it would just be a bad documentary.

but now I'm delving into semantics.

 

[Joe_Kras]

but now I'm delving into semantics.

Perhaps I am, too.

I realize that there are tons of different styles to docs, and that it is probably impossible to not have your personal perspective color what is left of the editing process.

I just think of ethics as internal rules that need to be followed to be true to the genre.

And if new filmmakers come in being told that there are no rules, then they may let their point of view color their work to the point of justifying anything for the sake of telling their side of a story.

 

[Luis Caffesse]

And if new filmmakers come in being told that there are no rules, then they may let their point of view color their work to the point of justifying anything for the sake of telling their side of a story.

And what would you say someone like Michael Moore does?
I think it's pretty clear that he lets his point of view color his work to the point that he justifies just about anything for the sake of telling his story. He goes so far as to insinuate he knows what people may have been thinking at certain times, adding voice over to that effect. And it's pretty clear he's seen as a documentary filmmaker.

And seeing as he's won so many awards I can only assume that putting your point of view into your work is fully accepted in documentary filmmaking.

*****I don't want to turn this into a political thread, and I've purposely said nothing about my personal feelings about Michael Moore, so let's try to keep this focused on the process and not the subject matter*****
(just a little preemptive strike, seeing as I know that the mere mention of Moore can incite riots on forum threads)


I guess my point is I still feel there are no rules. It's up to the individual filmmaker to decide what sort of film he wants to make. Are you out to convey an idea that you believe in? To present a story and a series of events? Or are you presenting an argument that you are trying to win people over with?

When presenting an argument (as in many modern documentaries) it is virtually impossible not to "twist" the truth, if not directly then at least by omission of information which may not fit your point of view.

 

[Joe_Kras]

I purposely have omitted references to specific people, as I too have seen the political storms related to certain filmmakers with the initials "MM". The fact that such a storm erupts, however, is testament that not "everybody" accepts that particular style as documentary.

To get back to the abstract, I think we agree on the following:

1) It's virtually impossible to not inject some subjectivity into any movie.

2) There are a myriad of different ways to tell a story.

3) A good documentarian will be governed by ethics that forbid them from injecting out and out falsehoods into their work.

That being said, there are a variety of different truths and viewpoints that may be presented (either in the same movie or in different treatments of the same subject). I was downloading an old doc off of the Prelinger archives a few months ago for one of my wife's cousins who is in to trains. It was one of these typical early 50's docs produced by the railroad showing the expansion of the West by the railroads. It focused on the technical aspects of this expansion, and the facilitation of cheap transportation by the railroads. While I don't think they lied about anything in the doc, there were undoubtedly a lot of other "truths" that didn't get presented. Things such as the effects on the environment, local economies, or even on the other methods of transportation that were being displaced.

I think you can get your point across without becoming dishonest (and have a much stronger film because you weren't). But just as newsgathering folk have become somewhat rushed and "lazy" in getting all the facts straight, I don't want to see documentarians going down a similar (or worse) path.

 

[Luis Caffesse]

The fact that such a storm erupts, however, is testament that not "everybody" accepts that particular style as documentary.

That's a great point.
Though I would say that I'm not sure if the storms erupt due to people's disagreement about whether or not it's a documentary, or due to the fact that they disagree with the point of view being presented.

But, that's definitely something to consider.

To get back to the abstract, I think we agree on the following:
1) It's virtually impossible to not inject some subjectivity into any movie.
2) There are a myriad of different ways to tell a story.
3) A good documentarian will be governed by ethics that forbid them from injecting out and out falsehoods into their work.

1) Absolutely
2) I'm with you.
3) Right on.

I think you can get your point across without becoming dishonest (and have a much stronger film because you weren't). But just as newsgathering folk have become somewhat rushed and "lazy" in getting all the facts straight, I don't want to see documentarians going down a similar (or worse) path.

We're on the same page.

I suppose that the one way to think about it would be, what separates documentaries from other work? I suppose the answer would be something along the lines of: They aim to present reality to the audience.

Given that, you may be right.
One rule of documentary filmmaking could be "Do not interject or omit content to purposely distort the reality of the subject"

Of course, even with something like that I can see gray areas.
Many people criticize Errol Morris for staging shots (i.e. Mr. Death shows many 'mood establishing' shots of Fred Leuchter - drinking coffee, driving, sitting in his home, etc).
Techincally I suppose that staging a shot with lighting, direction, etc can be considered "distoring reality." Personally I don't find a problem with it.... but that gets to my point. Some people do have a problem with it.

When it comes down to it, what does and does not 'distort reality' is really a subjective call. Where do you draw the line? That's a question that each documentarian needs to answer for him/herself.

That's why I said it's a question of ethics, not rules.
Everyone draws the line in a different place.

 

[Joe_Kras]

One rule of documentary filmmaking could be "Do not interject or omit content to purposely distort the reality of the subject"

Of course, even with something like that I can see gray areas.

Agreed. I personally would be against "staging" shots, but agree that that's more a stylistic choice.