The art of Documentary making has been practiced and polished since early film (pre 1900) but were limited by technological constraints and were dubbed "actuality film". This is due to the predominance of these Actuality films were of
actual evens that happened everyday, just caught on film. For example there were short films (under a minute) of trains entering stations, boats docking in harbors or simply the workforce leaving a factory at the end of the day.
Many of these types of films were made for monetary gain, for example the group of men leaving the factory would pay the film maker money to see themselves on the screen. This soon developed in to sporting events and professional aids. The Corbett Fitzsimmons Fight was the first film to use pioneered film looping tech that ran for over 100 minutes, making it the first feature length film in theory.
A French surgeon also used these new found technologies to enhance his skills, he recorded over 60 surgeries claiming that "the films help me overcome professional errors I could otherwise not see"
As time moved on, so did the subject matter. The term
Documentary was first coined in 1926. During and after this time the documentary had gone through a number of focal changes. The travelogue being one of the most popular series of documentaries made. This was almost soleley down to peoples inability to go anywhere on the globe. So to see these majestic places, with different people, different climates, terrain and cultures was arguably one of the most exciting thing for a documentary maker of the time. This period of film, social structure and mankind's curiosity largely, excluding a few blips, set the tone for documentary makers for decades to come. The ability to show people what they could never otherwise see or inform them of things in a simple understandable way securely placed the documentary as one of the most popular styles of film, and remains to be so today.
Like any genre of film there are an, almost, set of guidelines that are almost exclusively adhered to. Some of these include the
Voice over, Real Footage, Archive Footage and Stills, Use of Experts.
Lets discuss some of those things in detail.
The use of a voice over is one of the most recognizable conventions used in a documentary. It is the predominant way of explaining what is happening in the film while its happening. It also eliminates the need for a on screen presenter. Generally speaking the voice over is often done by an individual with a clear voice, someone who is articulate while also having a strong knowledge of the topic at hand.
Voice over artists tend to be someone authoritative that the audience will listen to and believe what they are saying. This is important for the documentary maker you need to have someone that the audience can build up and affiliation to and to a certain extent build a relationship with. They also have the ability to encourage the audience to believe that they are in someway authoritative on the subject and in the case of some documentary makers, eg Michael Moore, they make the audience think that what they are saying is the right way of thinking. That the speaker has the right opinions, that everything else is not so much obsolete but definitely not as believable. These are the aims of the voice over and so must take careful consideration as to who does this and fills these criteria.
When making a documentary it is an absolute must to have accurate real footage on the subject. The entire point of a documentary is to be 100% factual. If you cant even supply the viewer with definitive video evidence backing up what you are trying to sell them you lose all sense of credibility and trust. On a more serious note if you create information or make things up about people or events you can be held legally liable for those claims, you must make sure all your information is well researched and sourced in order to give your film the basic requirement of a documentary.
The footage used in documentaries are often acquired at great length by the documentarian and so go to great lengths to convince us that its real. One of the conventions often used by documentarians to often alter the spin of the footage is the form of editing used. The edit of a piece of footage can severely alter its the clips message, it can turn something from one meaning to a completely different one just in the way that you present the clip. While the editing of clips together and the order in which you show them is important to giving the meaning you want the voice over is equally as important when discussing clips. If you theoretically "annotate" the clip well enough and point out the things you want the audience it, again, can change the meaning of that video. For example in the film "Loose Change" there are a number of clips showing the twin towers falling and small "explosions" proceeding the predominance of the disaster. Within this film we are told that these categorically cannot be anything but pre planted explosions. And you believe it.. Because your being told it with such force and conviction, naturally you see what they want you to see.
In contrast if you watched the same clip with a different perspective on the small explosions you could easily be led to believe that these small explosions were nothing more than the girders, the buildings primary support network, crumbling under the immense weight of the crumbling building. Both as believable as the last if conveyed in the right way.
One thing that can often be overlooked when making a documentary is the technical side of realism. This essentially means that the lighting and sounds tie in with what would be happening if you were there in real life. Its no good shooting a pack of tigers for a documentary if you've done it in a studio with artificial lights and sounds. Its not believable and people will pick up on it. While I think its okay to enhance natural sound and natural light with the aid of technology the basis must be there in the first place. Otherwise your documentary becomes fake, staged and written off as being nonfactual and poorly made. This is a documentary makers worst nightmare.
Tieing into the previous discussion prior regarding footage used, the use of archive footage also gives a sense of authority. Primarily because it shows the film maker has access to footage and stills that regular people simply cant get to. This gives the audience the illusion of importance and respect from peers involved in that topic. It ushers the audience to believe that whoever is making this film, whoever is behind it all has links and ties with people in places to get footage others would be able to. It adds a vast amount of information and aids to the authenticity of the film overall.
In my opinion this is the most important facet of documentary making, the use of a good old fashioned expert. Having a tirade of qualified, recognized experts give the film a authenticity that all these other conventions could never achieve. Talking to someone and showing off their qualifications on the subject means the audience will 90% of the time believe what ever they tell them. Especially if you don't introduce the experts until later on in the film, build them up with facts, stats and film clips. Then seal the deal with a university professor or doctor or animal specialist or whom ever is applicable to your film.
The more experts the better, this shows that there a number of specialist intelligent people on your side. And who could argue with specialists. People don't stop to think that these experts have the same ability to from opinions and ideas on the same facts that you've seen at exactly the same level the audience has. Although they know alot more on the subject and in alot more depth the audience will generally pay a lot more credit to what the film is saying if they can quote "experts".
This is a film makers greatest strength, even if the expert doesn't agree with what the film says it may still be shown. But only if the film maker can prove them wrong. Because if you can prove an "expert" wrong, then you must be better, more knowledgeable and have stronger authority on the subject. Once again leading the audience to side with the film maker.
Even if you are completely against what ever said documentary may be about, its entirely likely you will walk out of the film with at least a few ideas changed or perhaps more lenient and open to that side of what ever issue is being discussed. Or alternatively if you have no opinion already formed you are even more susceptible to what ever your told essentially.
This is obviously disputable but in my opinion comes down to the Active or Passive Audience Hypothesis.
Sound and music can play a pivotal role in the tone and feel of the documentary. It has the innate ability to completely alter the effect the information has on the audience and has been used to that effect since the dawn of man, people telling tales around camp fires with a musical backing from just, what i assume to be, a mate with a guitar (or ye olde time equivalent of). For example in the documentary
The Union, the use of the music drastically changes the way you look at the information being given. They use whimsical light hearted music that turns the information being told from serious facts to laughable idiocy. Unsurprisingly its generally used when presenting opposing ideas to that of the documentary maker. However when they are presenting their own side and views the music, while is the same track, is slowed down by quite a great deal in order to change the tone to that of a more serious nature. This essentially tells the audience "right we've had some fun laughing at that foolishness, but now its time to sit down and be serious. These are the real facts"
Music can be a seriously overlooked tool at the documentary makers disposal. Being able to actually present facts but at the same time trivialize them gives the documentary maker ground to stand on with critics (as he has presented the other sides view) while at the same time mocking the information with nothing other than a bit of music behind the facts.
This ties in with bias and impartiality, something you have to be aware of when making a factual film.
The Union, in my opinion, made a bit of a mockery of impartiality. Largely speaking they didn't at all cover any of the other sides point of view. When they did, as mentioned above, they attached music that stripped the information of any sincerity. A more positive way they could have approached this issue would have been to present the other sides point of view and present a sensible, reasoned retort, they didn't do this. I think the documentary is an excellent example of modern film making but was largely specific to a demographic of people already on the same page as the film makers. It didn't address the opposing sides view in any detail or with any credence.
Generally speaking a documentary is the product of either passion or resentment. Passion to change the majorative view of a certain type of people or school of thought, resentment after putting up with a representation of something or someone for so long that the film maker makes active effort to cause change. Referencing
The Union the collective perception of marijuana smokers is that of a lazy, dumb, ineffective drain on society. This is the effect of decades of renewed claims mounting on top of the already established views. This film actively pursues a change of these thoughts. It shows you people from booming societies and economies that are extremely successful in widely varying walks of life. From celebrity to experts to media editors and owners. It quite actively shows that smoking weed isn't the end of everything for someone and that in fact people can be quite successful while partaking is this perceived "life ending drug".
While it's difficult to keep opinions and how you feel personally out of a documentary, especially as we mentioned above regarding documentaries being a product of passion or resentment, its imperative that you keep the film as objective as possible. Essentially this means that you should do all you can to keep your film based on fact and as equal as possible. The difficulty comes when a director becomes to subjective and lets his/her opinions effect the overall outcome of the film. The audience generally speaking doesn't want to know how you feel about the situation and why you feel that way, they want the facts. As a documentary maker its expected that you obligate yourself to giving people the facts. I don't necessarily agree with this. I think that often a documentary shouldn't be the product of reasoned fair play. I think if you have endevoured to have a film made and seen by a wide demographic you have earned the right to portray what you believe to be right. It's up to the other side to produce a counter argument. It's not your job to argue their point. Unless we're talking irrefutable evidence with absolutely no available retort.
