After the screening I realised a few things about documentary and my own preconceptions of it and I was really pleasantly suprised by how amazing documentaries can be and also what works or doesn’t work as well. In terms of what works and doesn’t I think there are three categories documentaries with really great subjects, yet the film doesn’t take full advantage of them. Documentaries with not that great subjects yet the film makes the most of it and documentaries with great subjects who make the most of the opportunity. And then everything in between. I also realised that you can make talking heads work and what about that issue of subtitles? These are all my points today.
So what works?
To be honest I have no idea because documentary is so subjective and therefore what’s boring to someone is interesting to someone else. Therefore, I think it is always important to be original with style and explore the notions of things away from stereotypical representations. Example:
Australia’s Outback: The Whole Hog
This was one of my class’s documentaries and I thought that it was executed exceptionally. I thought they did really well from the rough cut, especially the ending by showing that the narrator was still unsure about the issue and therefore stopped this full sense of resolution. However, I personally have a few problems with it that reflect nothing bad about the production itself because I thought it was really clever, but proves my subjectivity point. Basically, what I wanted was to be shown that these pigs were more destructive that they were a major threat and I never saw this and therefore I think keeping in the killing of the pig still seemed unjustified in my eyes. This is a subjective point for me because I don’t think you should just kill animals for the sake of it, or for the sake of humans, even though I could appreciate where the farmer’s were coming from, they’re still farmers and they were represented this way through the very stereotypical country music. I felt that I was not seeing anything different and I left a little bit disappointed, because I wanted to be convinced and just wasn’t.
Oliver’s Girl
Another one from my class that I thought dramatically improved since the rough cut because it felt so polished and had Oliver in it more. This is my example where I think the talking head really worked because it was mixed with this really well shot active footage of Oliver. By incorporating this in more I think they really overcame the whole talking heads is boring a repetitive scenario, which happened with some of the other documentaries and shows that going out and sort of voyeuristically shooting is really worth the effort. This is because in other cases such as Making It and 43 Days there was not enough variety because you didn’t see anything else and therefore couldn’t stay engaged with the story, well this is what I found. I also thought the cut from one actress to the other in Making It was really abrupt and would have been more worthwhile and I wanted to see more of them not talking to break it up and show more.
was a key topic in terms of the issues surrounding subtitles, which is always an issue, where a lot of people made the claim that it would have been a lot better if we could understand what he said, but look were these people really listening. I agree it was hard to understand him, however I think it is our obligation as an audience to make the effort, even if it is hard to listen or maybe watch it again. We had a similar problem with our documentary because sometimes Maggie is difficult to understand, but I would never have given her subtitles because it is totally disregarding what she really has to say and stops people from actually listening. Also it makes fun of her and her inability to be completely clear, therefore I really think they made a good decision with this piece.
And now into one last point, you always have to respect the person you are interviewing. I thought that maybe the last documentary about the woman that talked to animals was a little bit a ‘make fun of documentary’ and maybe the group should have made a better effort to know this woman away from this that defines her because I thought it was slightly 2 dimensional. Even though I think it’s great to point out the contradictions of what people say, I think you always have to consider what else makes this person and present them as a whole, which I thought was lacking in this production. You need to make your interviewees 3 dimensional.
Update Update Update!
So after much hardship we are filming tomorrow afternoon with our subject. Yay!
In our tutorial we had a meeting and organised our schedule, which is a rather small time frame. Tomorrow we will get our interview footage and cutaways of her room that will add visual depth to our documentary. To be honest I am completely EXCITED about it. We had a few set backs and have to film in the late afternoon and have decided to take on a slightly different aesthetic approach than we originally invisioned. This is a good thing more than a bad thing as we’ve had time to really suss out the reasoning behind our visual style.
With style.
Originally, we wanted to go with a rough hand held natural lighting approach and we have now changed this to a flowing more artistic approach. We decided on this from a reading by Kirsten Johnson that deals with a lot of difficult subjects that we thought applied specifically to our own documentary. We not only decided this because of her we also decided that a rough approach was a rather silly manouver because our subject in some respect does not want to deal with the roughness of her past but to move beyond it. Therefore we decided that filming in a more stylistically beautiful way with flowing pans and nice lighting would make our documentary visually rewarding for our subject as they will feel that they have been depicted in a way that is beautiful, a way that they haven’t been depicted for the majority of their life. I think this is important because as much as we want a distinct style we also want our subject to be happy with how she is presented. A way that is powerfully invigorating and empowering for her and the other people that watch it. It places her within a more powerful position that makes her appear visually as less of a victim, which is what we really were made to think about in Steve Thomas’s lecture.
With story.
A lot of this I gained from Steve’s lecture in regards to finding moments of colour and contradiction. Moments that stand out on a visual level, without being visual. In thinking about this and from gaining information about our subject today I found somethings highly visual and realised that we are definitely going to get these moments with our subject. Moments of hardship that are covered visually and emotively by our subject. We talked about all sorts of things from her love of John Wayne a Western film star to her entanglement of destructive, good and rekindled relationships, which I think are at the heart of her story. She is also able to laugh about some of things that she has done in the past, which shows her ability to move beyond them and there are also visual things that are symbolic of the things she needs to carry with her everyday such as a past experience with her breaking her shoulder and her inability to get it fixed, where the pain still lives with her 34 years later.
With structure.
I would say this is our major inherent problem, not that we haven’t thought about it but more that it has been difficult to find something solid. I will be shaping my questions about 3 stages of her life being her childhood, her homelessness and her life now. However, will ask her these in reverse order as she tends to think and mull over the difficult moments of her life to a rather painful degree. This could be the structure of our film and we will be looking for overlays that will split our film into these three defining parts. However, this is more an assumption than anything else as her life might be formed around three rather seperate times.
With organisation.
- Our group is very organised and on the same page, Gina, Meenal and Sarah are picking up the equipment and driving it to location. I will meet them there.
- Our subject has been informed as to what tomorrow is going to be like and is prepared according to these ethical outlines.
- The equipment booking sheets have been handed in.
- Editing for the log and capture has been organised.
Image Source:
lucianvenutian, Gear Up, flickr, CC-Attribution-ShareALike, <http://www.flickr.com/photos/lucianvenutian/1367423859/in/photostream/>
So I went away for the weekend so I am slightly behind on the whole idea behind my documentary thing. Yet, I have been thinking about it a lot and I’ve come up with a brilliant idea, that may be slightly difficult, well it has its problems in terms of execution.
My mum works at a place called Bethlehem Community Inc. which is a house that accomodates and cares for ten one homeless or would be homeless women, unless they were supported by this group of women. The reason I am drawn to the idea is that it deals on a real minority in terms of care, my mum informing me that there are only two organisations in Melbourne that care for homeless men/women, which disgusts me. Another reason I’m drawn into it is because of the attitude of the place in terms of equality and empowerment. The website states and is replicated in the overall aura of the place mimicks one that ‘moves beyond the role of the cared and cared for, to mutually empowering friendships.’ This point resonates across in to the art of documentary, where it’s about the ethics of power relationships between filmmaker and subject.
This will therefore be my approach to this documentary as I need to constantly be mindful that this documentary is about them and therefore any changes that go against my intention will need to be taken aboard in a positive light that will always strive to be representing these women in an empowering and equal manner. The way I intend to do this is by being reflexive and allowing the camera to be turned onto me if need be. I want to film everything and I want the women to see the footage and to be part of the project that makes it a more collaborative effort, that will be reflected through the reflexivity of the film to the audience.
In terms of language it covers the theme in the broadest possible way it feeds into numerous minorities and groups of society. The language needed for the carers to communicate appropriately with these women to get the maximum results possible, the language I will need as a filmmaker to communicate with these women in a way that is equal and empowering. The communication between the women, women and carers, filmmaker and women, etc. etc. Documentary and film itself is a language and I don’t want to ignore this fact, whilst I am filmming these women and therefore need to think of filmming techniques that will harness the right mood to reflect these women in a positive and non-patronising manner.
What now?
I need to look back on some of my True Lies readings from last semester, into reflexive documentary, feminist documentary and ethics.
I need to start really thinking about aesthetics, but I am sure this will come from some of last semesters readings.
Start planning my approach.
Website of Bethlehem Community Inc.:
