Filed under: tv2 | Tags: cinematography, observational documentary, reading
This reading was great in terms of relating with what has been the focus of my previous blog posts in terms of observational documentary. Haskell Wexler precisely articulates the issues with observational documentary in terms of its authenticity. This comes as somewhat surprising considering that he was part of the direct cinema entourage of Pennebaker, Leacock and the Maysles Brothers.
Even though the interview is short it captures moments that articulates how observational documentary cannot work, where he exclaims “Of course we coach people.” Followed by “we are not like the surveillance cameras in the supermarkets.” This indicates a major point in terms of documentary filmmaking, in the mere fact that we are still making films, and therefore need to stimulate natural drama. It reminds me of the fact that we still need to think like filmmakers, you are still thinking about how you’re going to cut your film together, such as in Wexler’s case asking Keith Richard’s to walk through a door again to ensure that he could edit the segment together.
This to me is not toying with the truth, because we all walk through doors numerous times on a daily basis and is not being untruthful because this truth doesn’t matter it will not change the integral drama of the doco, it simply keeps flow and ensures a finished film product.
The point Wexler makes most poignantly is that:
There is “no reality.” Once images are recorded, by whatever medium, they cease to be reality. It becomes the filmmakers reality. All the images we see are images now presented by the people who are able to present them.
(pg. 89)
I think this point is so completely relevant with documentary filmmaking that it makes the observational filmmakers seem rather silly in claiming that they just captured reality, when the reality is the relationship between the director, subject and camera. There are so many different things in play, that in saying that we just recorded reality is a lie in itself.
The image is always controlled by the filmmaker, whether they want to control it or not. We all have a vision and even if we try to avoid it it will convey endlessly through our work. Last semester in Integrated Media 1 there was a massive argument about what it means to be creative and Adrian Miles argued that you have to have an intention, an initial purpose. This carries through to documentary. Film is art, documentary is film and these all involve creative processes, whether they end up being the epitome of your intention or something completely different, it was your intention that sparked the whole project.
Reference:
Cunningham, Megan. “A Conversation with Haskell Wexler.” The art of the documentary : ten conversations with leading directors, cinematographers, editors, and producers, (p. 88-89, 149-175, 277, 284). Berkeley, CA : New Riders, 2005.
Image Source:
Jump Cut, Haskell Wexler’s Latino: an “ethic” soldier’s story, http://www.ejumpcut.org/archive/jc50.2008/Latino/2.html
Filed under: tv2 | Tags: documentary, observational documentary, shot exercise, watching
A simple observational photograph shows how people are constantly aware of cameras, whilst some are not
Last week was all about observational documentary. Therefore this blog post is going to be on last weeks tute. In terms of that short doco we watched, which I thought was really great and our own shot at being observational, which I learnt a lot from.
We watched this German documentary, but I have no idea what it was called, which basically showed a cheering crowd at a soccer game. What was great about this documentary was the cameras ability to capture these fantastic facial expressions from the leader of the crowd. We analysed this little section in class and realised how attuned the camera operator must have been. We established that the camera must have been positioned at a distance to the man screaming through his microphone, and therefore would have been zoomed in. Therefore, it was amazing how the camera carefully and smoothly moved to mimic the subtle head movements of this screaming spectator to capture every thrilling moment. It reminded me about how difficult it is to maneuver a camera and adjust it to little movements that will ultimately make your documentary better. In this instance if these little movements weren’t made it would miss the intensity because the framing would be off. What I also liked about this documentary was that you could feel what was happening in the game without having to see it and without even wanting to see it. In the end I was just amazed by the complete enthusiasm of these diehard fans that seeing the game would have been completely redundant, because it doesn’t matter. I got the sense that coming to the game was more about being with other diehard fans than watching the game itself.
After we watched this we went and did our own personal observational shoot. What it made me realise was how completely unlikely Pennebaker’s Dont Look Back (1967) was and how impossible it is to capture reality by just looking, without people realising you are there. In True Lies last semester we studied observational documentary as a form and now I can see how much editing must go into these projects. We filmed in a really busy corridor in RMIT because we wanted to capture a sense of frantic-ness. We set up the camera in the corner and set up ourselves in an unobtrusive place. I was boom operator. What I found was that when you’re in filming mode how much you study people, and how everything is fascinating from three girls studying a poster with no realisation of the camera, to the people that shuffle past the camera trying to hide from it to all the people that blatantly wave at the camera, looked confused by the camera, etc. Yet, there is this obvious awareness that it was there. To me it makes me realise that something like Pennebaker’s Dont Look Back where all of the people seem to not notice the camera is even there, must have a lot edited out of it, because to me in our exercise where the camera was placed quite a distance away I would say a majority of people realised the camera was there, which made the people that didn’t even more fascinating.
When I think about editing this piece I would like to capture this sort of juxtaposition between people that are obliviously unaware to people that scream through their movements to the camera. It makes me think of the impossibility of capturing something where nobody looks at the camera, and therefore emphasises how much these observational documentary filmmakers relied on their editing skills. I loved this exercise and can’t wait to see the footage that Sarah and Meenal shot.
References:
D.A Pennebaker, Dont Look Back, 1967
Photo source:
Hunter-Desportes, Silver Meteor Observation Lounge, flickr, CC-Attribution, http://www.flickr.com/photos/hdport/3402550460/in/photostream/
