skinheaddave
Member
I am still just kicking ideas around in my head (well, in my notebook) but I feel that now might be a worthwhile interval at which to gain some input from those with documentary experience. I would first like to cut some people off at the pass by saying I realize that a documentary film is a major undertaking but my timeline from now (just getting back into video after 15-or-so years) to the goal (lots of short and learning projects under my belt, first documentary film done) is measured in years and has many intermediate checkpoints to aim for first. Still, no harm at working on the planning process at this early stage.
The issue I am having stems from the topic I would like to explore for my first large documentary project. I have been keeping and breeding arachnids for the past decade or so. Due to my contemplative nature I have been curious as to what motivates people like myself to keep such pets and thought that I would turn my investigation of said topic into a documentary film. I feel that the film could be well received within the arachnid hobbyist community as certainly others I have spoken to have wrestled with the questions I would like to tackle. The "why" of it all as well as the various ethical issues raised by the hobby and how we chose to pursue it. I would also, however, like the film to hold appeal to those outside of the hobby. I think that the general public has a distorted view of the hobby and those involved and likely wonder "why" just as much as those involved. There is certainly some "meat" to this topic and I have found some interesting ideas in the psychology, sociology and philosophy literature though it is going to take me some time to properly pick through those areas given that my academic background is in biology with a focus on arachnology and ecology. Anyhow, the "meat" of the subject is what interested me in the first place so I have no problem with the idea of spending the next year or so picking through the literature, talking to the experts etc. to attempt to answer my questions from different perspectives. I also don't anticipate problems when it comes to securing interviews within the hobby community or beyond (I've got good connections not only in the hobby but also with professional arachnolgists, regulating agencies, legislators etc.)
My problem is deciding in what fashion I would like to present this film. I realize things will change throughout the process and I can't realy write the script -- but my intuition is that good prep now will increase my chances of a good product. Certainly the half-dozen or so books I've now read on the topic would seem to suggest that this is the case. I have not come up with a good approach, but I have identified several approaches I want to avoid:
- The vanity flick. I could just go around to my friends and colleagues and interview them and then cut it all together as talking heads with some breath-taking macro videos of the bugs. I'm sure this would play well within the community if only because we could gather on our respective couches around the world with our peers and popcorn and laugh and point and say "hey, that's Bob. He makes some good points" and "Wow. That's a nice shot of a A.miniatrix eating a cricket." This approach, however, certainly wouldn't play that well to the rest of the world who doesn't know Bob. It also wouldn't be a film worth re-playing and would quickly be forgotten.
- The "journey of exploration" flick. This is certainly what it is. It is my own questions I seek to answer first and foremost with the doc being a good byproduct. I don't, however, particularly fancy the idea of narrating it and I most definitely don't want to appear on camera. I'm sure my hand will be perfectly evident in the film but I don't want my name overtely on it at all save for the credits at the end. I have noticed, however, that this is one of the techniques that is used in the documentaries I've picked out recently as being outstanding. I've been watching a LOT of documentaries and the ones that have held my attention from start to finish have tended to be those in which the film makers have played something of a narration and on-screen role (Born into Brothels, Dear Zachary, Gasland .. though the last didn't measure up to the first two in my opinion). For my project I don't mind the odd bit of text to push it forward but I don't want to narrate and I don't want to be on screen. I would like the audio gathered in interviews to tie it all together. Basically, I want this to be a film about the questions and their answers .. not about my going about answering them.
- The TV doc "drama" flick. Unlike some of the more obvious documentary topics, there isn't a great deal of external conflict to be found here. About the only thing I could do is use the story of a friend of mine whose collection was seized by municipal animal control after he was reported by his ex-wife. It was personally tragic for him, to be sure, but is nothing like the scale of wrongful imprisonment, the wide-spread use of landmines or any of the other topics that have so much legitimate gravitas. Such an approach would do two things. Firstly, it would come off a bit like the cheap TV documentaries you see that take a half hour to tell the five minute story of a guy who was kicked by a cow. Starting with a re-creation with shakey camera work and uncertain outcome. Going through a series of talking heads who have some tangential connection to the case. Terminating with the revelation that he actually wasn't that badly hurt and had to stay off his feet for a couple days and that the cow was fine. The other thing it would do would smack of insincerity. If there is one thing that should quickly become evident to the general public in watching an honest representation of the hobby community it is that, in the end, we are just like you. This is one of my concerns -- in not relying on artificial sensationalism is the whole story going to end up being bland?
I liken it to the few documentaries I've seen on the traditional skinhead culture. In and amongst the huge number of documentaries on the boneheads (racist skins) there actually are a couple that deal with the original skinheads. I have found them boring as anything because they ultimately cover just normal blokes. There is nothing there to discover. A bit of history, maybe. Some archival footage of people having a laugh. They either fall into mediocrity or try to cover the racist vs. non-racist thing over and over and over and over again which just gets tedious. I find myself liking the soundtracks but usually just listening with my eyes closed or skipping through the interviews. I worry that my film with reveal very quickly that there is nothing really sensational about keeping spiders or scorpions .. but in doing so will lose the interest of those not involved in the hobby. In some ways, it is a bad community from which to try to extract some drama.
- The PR flick. Also parallel to the skinhead thing. When you are part of a misunderstood subculture it is so tempting to make a sort of "PR" film to educate the public and paint a pretty picture of the subculture. That is nice except that it is boring as anything to those within the subculture because we already know the basics. They also tend not to explore the deeper nature of the subculture for fear of mudding the water. I would love for people to come away with the understanding that tarantulas are far less dangerous than dogs or even cats. I still want to touch on the issue of smuggling within the hobby, though, and don't want to gloss over the fact that there are scorpions in the trade that are technically capable of killing a small child (as well as hundreds of species that are harmless).
- The "City Symphony" documentary. As I understand it, this means pretty pictures but no tension. I did watch a doc on the Toronto Symphony Orchestra (quite literally a city symphony doc .. as well as a metaphorical one as well, I would say), though, and while it did have a bit of PR/vanity flickness to it, was ultimately enjoyable and I sat through the whole thing. Likely helped out by the stunning soundtrack inherit to the subject matter. I could likely get a great soundtrack for my piece (I have enough friends in bands + my sister is a professioanl cellist touring the world doing chamber music) and I am sure I'll figure out stunning macro video soon enough (zoning in on it ... not there yet). Those two together still fall short of satisfying, though.
So any thoughts? I would be tempted to say there is no interest there -- but everyone I have pitched the general topic to has been really enthusiastic. Certainly the hobby tends to pique the interest of the general public and the issues I have questioned myself are also of interest to others in the hobby. Is this the problem? That I am trying to make a film to cover two disparate audiences? Or is it possible to do so successfully (I think so .. I don't care about fine art but found "My Kid Could Paint That" interesting even before the 60 minutes "twist.") I know this isn't the sort of project with deep social significance that is going to mobilize the world (and win Sundance in the process) but I don't know that that makes it a worthless project. Does anyone know of good documentaries that have successfully pulled off this sort of feat? Any that you have watched where you have absolutely 0 interest in the subject matter but still find yourself drawn in for the entire duration? Any suggestions for what one does to dig out a storyline to act as the spine of such a film? I have a few such ideas jotted in my notebook as well as some ideas for how this might fit into a three act structure. I'd love for suggestions -- either in terms of story or in terms of process -- that the film community can come up with. That is if anybody has the time to provide input after reading through this little novella of a post.
Cheers,
Dave
The issue I am having stems from the topic I would like to explore for my first large documentary project. I have been keeping and breeding arachnids for the past decade or so. Due to my contemplative nature I have been curious as to what motivates people like myself to keep such pets and thought that I would turn my investigation of said topic into a documentary film. I feel that the film could be well received within the arachnid hobbyist community as certainly others I have spoken to have wrestled with the questions I would like to tackle. The "why" of it all as well as the various ethical issues raised by the hobby and how we chose to pursue it. I would also, however, like the film to hold appeal to those outside of the hobby. I think that the general public has a distorted view of the hobby and those involved and likely wonder "why" just as much as those involved. There is certainly some "meat" to this topic and I have found some interesting ideas in the psychology, sociology and philosophy literature though it is going to take me some time to properly pick through those areas given that my academic background is in biology with a focus on arachnology and ecology. Anyhow, the "meat" of the subject is what interested me in the first place so I have no problem with the idea of spending the next year or so picking through the literature, talking to the experts etc. to attempt to answer my questions from different perspectives. I also don't anticipate problems when it comes to securing interviews within the hobby community or beyond (I've got good connections not only in the hobby but also with professional arachnolgists, regulating agencies, legislators etc.)
My problem is deciding in what fashion I would like to present this film. I realize things will change throughout the process and I can't realy write the script -- but my intuition is that good prep now will increase my chances of a good product. Certainly the half-dozen or so books I've now read on the topic would seem to suggest that this is the case. I have not come up with a good approach, but I have identified several approaches I want to avoid:
- The vanity flick. I could just go around to my friends and colleagues and interview them and then cut it all together as talking heads with some breath-taking macro videos of the bugs. I'm sure this would play well within the community if only because we could gather on our respective couches around the world with our peers and popcorn and laugh and point and say "hey, that's Bob. He makes some good points" and "Wow. That's a nice shot of a A.miniatrix eating a cricket." This approach, however, certainly wouldn't play that well to the rest of the world who doesn't know Bob. It also wouldn't be a film worth re-playing and would quickly be forgotten.
- The "journey of exploration" flick. This is certainly what it is. It is my own questions I seek to answer first and foremost with the doc being a good byproduct. I don't, however, particularly fancy the idea of narrating it and I most definitely don't want to appear on camera. I'm sure my hand will be perfectly evident in the film but I don't want my name overtely on it at all save for the credits at the end. I have noticed, however, that this is one of the techniques that is used in the documentaries I've picked out recently as being outstanding. I've been watching a LOT of documentaries and the ones that have held my attention from start to finish have tended to be those in which the film makers have played something of a narration and on-screen role (Born into Brothels, Dear Zachary, Gasland .. though the last didn't measure up to the first two in my opinion). For my project I don't mind the odd bit of text to push it forward but I don't want to narrate and I don't want to be on screen. I would like the audio gathered in interviews to tie it all together. Basically, I want this to be a film about the questions and their answers .. not about my going about answering them.
- The TV doc "drama" flick. Unlike some of the more obvious documentary topics, there isn't a great deal of external conflict to be found here. About the only thing I could do is use the story of a friend of mine whose collection was seized by municipal animal control after he was reported by his ex-wife. It was personally tragic for him, to be sure, but is nothing like the scale of wrongful imprisonment, the wide-spread use of landmines or any of the other topics that have so much legitimate gravitas. Such an approach would do two things. Firstly, it would come off a bit like the cheap TV documentaries you see that take a half hour to tell the five minute story of a guy who was kicked by a cow. Starting with a re-creation with shakey camera work and uncertain outcome. Going through a series of talking heads who have some tangential connection to the case. Terminating with the revelation that he actually wasn't that badly hurt and had to stay off his feet for a couple days and that the cow was fine. The other thing it would do would smack of insincerity. If there is one thing that should quickly become evident to the general public in watching an honest representation of the hobby community it is that, in the end, we are just like you. This is one of my concerns -- in not relying on artificial sensationalism is the whole story going to end up being bland?
I liken it to the few documentaries I've seen on the traditional skinhead culture. In and amongst the huge number of documentaries on the boneheads (racist skins) there actually are a couple that deal with the original skinheads. I have found them boring as anything because they ultimately cover just normal blokes. There is nothing there to discover. A bit of history, maybe. Some archival footage of people having a laugh. They either fall into mediocrity or try to cover the racist vs. non-racist thing over and over and over and over again which just gets tedious. I find myself liking the soundtracks but usually just listening with my eyes closed or skipping through the interviews. I worry that my film with reveal very quickly that there is nothing really sensational about keeping spiders or scorpions .. but in doing so will lose the interest of those not involved in the hobby. In some ways, it is a bad community from which to try to extract some drama.
- The PR flick. Also parallel to the skinhead thing. When you are part of a misunderstood subculture it is so tempting to make a sort of "PR" film to educate the public and paint a pretty picture of the subculture. That is nice except that it is boring as anything to those within the subculture because we already know the basics. They also tend not to explore the deeper nature of the subculture for fear of mudding the water. I would love for people to come away with the understanding that tarantulas are far less dangerous than dogs or even cats. I still want to touch on the issue of smuggling within the hobby, though, and don't want to gloss over the fact that there are scorpions in the trade that are technically capable of killing a small child (as well as hundreds of species that are harmless).
- The "City Symphony" documentary. As I understand it, this means pretty pictures but no tension. I did watch a doc on the Toronto Symphony Orchestra (quite literally a city symphony doc .. as well as a metaphorical one as well, I would say), though, and while it did have a bit of PR/vanity flickness to it, was ultimately enjoyable and I sat through the whole thing. Likely helped out by the stunning soundtrack inherit to the subject matter. I could likely get a great soundtrack for my piece (I have enough friends in bands + my sister is a professioanl cellist touring the world doing chamber music) and I am sure I'll figure out stunning macro video soon enough (zoning in on it ... not there yet). Those two together still fall short of satisfying, though.
So any thoughts? I would be tempted to say there is no interest there -- but everyone I have pitched the general topic to has been really enthusiastic. Certainly the hobby tends to pique the interest of the general public and the issues I have questioned myself are also of interest to others in the hobby. Is this the problem? That I am trying to make a film to cover two disparate audiences? Or is it possible to do so successfully (I think so .. I don't care about fine art but found "My Kid Could Paint That" interesting even before the 60 minutes "twist.") I know this isn't the sort of project with deep social significance that is going to mobilize the world (and win Sundance in the process) but I don't know that that makes it a worthless project. Does anyone know of good documentaries that have successfully pulled off this sort of feat? Any that you have watched where you have absolutely 0 interest in the subject matter but still find yourself drawn in for the entire duration? Any suggestions for what one does to dig out a storyline to act as the spine of such a film? I have a few such ideas jotted in my notebook as well as some ideas for how this might fit into a three act structure. I'd love for suggestions -- either in terms of story or in terms of process -- that the film community can come up with. That is if anybody has the time to provide input after reading through this little novella of a post.
Cheers,
Dave
