Documentaries take on so many forms these days it is difficult to categorize them within such a broad, singular genre. There is the provocative, opinionated form of Michael Moore. There is the understated, fly on the wall approach of cinema verite and direct cinema subscribed to by filmmakers like Frederick Wiseman. There is the personal narrative style used so adeptly by Ross McElwee. There is the more traditional historical documentary that comes alive in the work of Ken Burns, who has developed a whole new language for that style that has permeated much of the work that we see today. And then there are the hybrids who seem to defy any category, such as the very original and rich work of Errol Morris.
Documentary is no longer synonymous with the laboring, dry historical pieces that we once associated with the genre. It is as diverse as any area of cinema today. Despite the rise in popularity of so-called reality TV, there seems to be a hunger for true documentary that Big Brother and The Real World can't match. Whether we turn to movie theaters, television, DVD or the web to get this fix, there are an increasing number of avenues to seek out this work. And with the advent of inexpensive digital video formats and non-linear editing systems, just about anyone can take on a subject and explore the world of documentary.
What separates good documentary from bad documentary begins with the idea and the planning that goes into making a film successful. As Alan Rosenthal outlines in the reading "Shaping the Film", structure is as important in non-fiction film as it is in fiction. Without it, we risk losing our audience in a rambling and incoherent project that will leave them checking their watch and searching for the exits. Rosenthal is a veteran of the documentary world, and his prescription for success is rather simple. A good documentary must address four key elements: approach, style, form and structure. While these things seem fairly straightforward, they are also problematic because there is some overlap in each area. How do we differentiate style from approach, and likewise, where does form leave off and structure pick up? I don't think it's necessarily crucial for us to completely separate each of these areas as we consider how to plan our project. As long as we have a basic understanding of the elements to consider and we have a plan in place, we are much more likely to be successful.
Rosenthal begins the discussion with approach, which is a natural place for us to start in our own planning. He breaks approach down into two general categories: the essay and the narrative. Narrative is easy enough for anyone to understand. It suggests that our film has a story to tell with many of the conventions of story in place from character to plot, to setting and some progression of events. From this, certain themes may emerge and it may be as conventional or unconventional as we see fit. The essay is something that Rosenthal suggests is better suited to the short documentary and it centers more on a conceptual approach, which may involve taking a position on a more abstract or broad topic. Of course many films combine these two elements into one, so it is not necessary to think of the two as exclusive of one another.
The issue of style naturally grows out of the approach that one takes. Whichever approach you take to a subject, your style should match it. You may have a style that is provocative, which may fit a film that is political in nature. You may want to use a style that is more comic or humorous, which is obviously a more engaging way to entice your audience to identify with your approach. Whatever style you choose, it should be a natural fit rather than contrived. It's also important to consider the key or handle to your piece as Rosenthal points out. Some of us think of this more in terms of an angle. However it is described, it's important to find a character, event or place that ties the story together. It's something that your audience can identify with. It's also a way to tackle a broad subject with a more specific subset. It makes the story more personal and real to an audience if you give them a focal point they can identify with.
The structure and form of a piece go hand in hand, just as approach and style pair up nicely. As we consider the structure, we must ensure that the way events are ordered make logical sense so that the audience can follow them. Screenwriters of fiction films frequently talk about a three act structure to a film with the plot being established in the first act, the action and conflict building throughout the second act and finally a resolution occurring by the third act. Documentary should follow a similar structure, though we may think of it in slightly different terms. However we think of the structure, there should be a progression of events, and usually some sort of change that takes place from beginning to end. On a small scale, the structure may take on the "day in the life" approach, or we may follow a subject over a longer period of time. We may use the present to reflect the past and vice versa. As the structure comes into focus, we can develop the form of the film by laying out the elements we may have outlined in our treatments into a more detailed script. Frequently, this is done for documentaries using a two column format where the visual elements are described on the left side of the page and the corresponding audio elements are on the right side of the page.
While every project is different and every filmmaker's approach varies in how to plan and execute their ideas, it is important to spend the time to lay the groundwork. Careful planning will alleviate headaches in future stages of production and lead to a more successful outcome.
No comments:
Post a Comment