About documentary filmmaking

Not too long ago I asked some people to watch my 4 minute documentary, about a shop owner being unemployed, in exchange for their feedback on what's good and/or bad about it. The feedbacks were negative and I've been heavily criticised for focusing on a serious topic in a short time and not giving the audience enough information (backstory and motive for wanting to improve the owner's situation) to care or have sympathy for the person. The most critical feedback received was that what I had produced was not a documentary, but a "video of a man in front of a camera stating facts".

I understand the "documentary" being too short for such a serious issue. But what I do not quite understand fully was why my "documentary" does not "tell a story." I have seen examples of other short documentaries which are mainly interviews with a subject talking about a topic. Even though I've followed and learned from those examples, my video did not hit the mark.

What I'm asking is how can you tell a good real life story if the kind of story you're telling can only be told and shown via an interview and shots of the subject doing something relevant to the story?
 
Last edited:
Not too long ago I asked some people to watch my 4 minute documentary, about a shop owner being unemployed, in exchange for their feedback on what's good and/or bad about it. The feedbacks were negative and I've been heavily criticised for focusing on a serious topic in a short time and not giving the audience enough information (backstory and motive for wanting to improve the owner's situation) to care or have sympathy for the person. The most critical feedback received was that what I had produced was not a documentary, but a "video of a man in front of a camera stating facts".

I understand the "documentary" being too short for such a serious issue. But what I do not quite understand fully was why my "documentary" does not "tell a story." I have seen examples of other short documentaries which are mainly interviews with a subject talking about a topic. Even though I've followed and learned from those examples, my video did not hit the mark.

What I'm asking is how can you tell a good real life story if the kind of story you're telling can only be told and shown via an interview and shots of the subject doing something relevant to the story?

Can you repost the link? The most powerful moments come in the small mundane details. Do you have footage of him doing his daily routine? Do you have him interacting with family, friends? Do you show him taking steps to better his situation? Using the least amount of interview footage and a few supporting probes of narration sometimes says so much more and allows the audience to get to know the character on their own.
 
Can you repost the link? The most powerful moments come in the small mundane details. Do you have footage of him doing his daily routine? Do you have him interacting with family, friends? Do you show him taking steps to better his situation? Using the least amount of interview footage and a few supporting probes of narration sometimes says so much more and allows the audience to get to know the character on their own.

To your questions, no.

I'm not comfortable showing it, but I will post it if it means learning. Please allow me time to upload it.
 
Last edited:
Without seeing your film it is hard to judge what the problem might be, but length alone isn't one of them. You can make a compelling doc in four minutes. Don't listen to any arguments about length alone.

A man sitting in front of the camera telling his story isn't using the medium to its fullest potential. What if you used the audio of him telling his story over video images of him going about his current routine? Reading the mail and the want ads when normally he'd be at work? Walking through the park alone at dusk when before he'd be closing his shop at dusk?

You're probably halfway to a compelling doc with this man's words telling his story. Now your job is to visually show us his story.
 
I thought it was good! Visually, you've already done what I suggested you do.

I think you could make it more compelling, though, to alter the story slightly. Make it a story not about a man out of work. Instead, have the part of him recalling his Hong Kong childhood near the beginning, then the part of him losing his work, and end it with saying his ultimate wish is to go home again. THAT'S a much more compelling story, I think.

Documentaries present themselves while shooting. You set out to make a story about an unemployed take-away owner, but he presented a story of a desire to return home. Tell that story. You can do it with what you have.
 
Have you considered using a voice over in english (unless its already in the language you want it in, but... if so why would you have sub titles).

While I personally don't find the story appealing or compelling, there's nothing wrong with this being in the documentary category. Its not the greatest, but its better than a lot of short documentaries out there.

Good job.
 
I think you could make it more compelling, though, to alter the story slightly. Make it a story not about a man out of work. Instead, have the part of him recalling his Hong Kong childhood near the beginning, then the part of him losing his work, and end it with saying his ultimate wish is to go home again. THAT'S a much more compelling story, I think.

Documentaries present themselves while shooting. You set out to make a story about an unemployed take-away owner, but he presented a story of a desire to return home. Tell that story. You can do it with what you have.

This is an interesting point.
 
Last edited:
What I'm asking is how can you tell a good real life story if the kind of story you're telling can only be told and shown via an interview and shots of the subject doing something relevant to the story?

My way of telling a good real life story will be different that your way
of telling a good real life story. The real life story doesn't change - the
way a documentary filmmaker approaches the story is very personal.
For some reason you didn't reach your audience. I watched your
documentary. His real life story is interesting; very typical, meaning
many people can relate to it. It also means there is noting in this real
life story that is not unique and therefor needs a more creative approach
from the filmmaker. And that creative approach should come from
YOUR unique talents and point of view.

It shouldn't be discouraging to hear some negative feedback. All
filmmakers will get a lot of that. It's good that you are exploring the
"why". With limited resources your challenge becomes much more
difficult. Overall I think you did a fine job. I think if this were too much
longer I would have lost interest. The length is right for this subject.

Do you have a subject for your next documentary?
 
I think you could make it more compelling, though, to alter the story slightly. Make it a story not about a man out of work. Instead, have the part of him recalling his Hong Kong childhood near the beginning, then the part of him losing his work, and end it with saying his ultimate wish is to go home again. THAT'S a much more compelling story, I think.

Documentaries present themselves while shooting. You set out to make a story about an unemployed take-away owner, but he presented a story of a desire to return home. Tell that story. You can do it with what you have.

I agree with UraniumCity. Your subject's true internal conflict is how to get back to be with his mother. His external conflict or obstacle in order to reunite with his mom is losing his business. I was confused as a viewer because I thought this was going to watch a story on how to resolve the problem of the business. When it was done, it took a very different turn. Follow Uranium's direction and it will make a stronger story.

I like the shots, the color and even the music. It is melancholy, but it will hit a nerve with many people. Good job, I think you're almost there.
 
My way of telling a good real life story will be different that your way
of telling a good real life story. The real life story doesn't change - the
way a documentary filmmaker approaches the story is very personal.

I couldn't agree more. In fact, this comes pretty close to encapsulating my entire theory on documentary filmmaking.

You're not documenting absolute truth or facts. You're documenting YOUR truth and YOUR interpretation of the facts! You can try and try to keep it impartial, but it will always be YOUR story. You're story is about some other guy, but you're the person telling it.

Don't shy away from that. Tell your story. What is the story about? What is the ONE thing you want your audience to come away with, after watching your movie?

Seriously, ask yourself that question. What is the focus? Your focus should be succinct and clear, and the entire documentary should wrap itself around it.

I think you can be much more aggressive in editing your audio (and then making your video fit your audio). Try working with quicker soundbites. Much quicker. And feel free to editorialize to a much greater extent. The movie you've made looks real nice, and it sufficiently captures the heart of a dude struggling to get by. But it ain't sayin much. Use YOUR voice, and say something.

And welcome to the club. We all get harsh critiques! I think this early work of yours is very nice, and a great stepping-stone to better things. Congrats on completing your work, and here's to all of us continually improving on our previous efforts! :)
 
The new cut changed the focus. If that is what YOU want the focus
to be then it's much better.

Are you going to make another doc? Any ideas for one?
 
Thanks. I'll see what I can do with the sound.

And thanks that you think it's better. I do have another idea for a documentary. But I won't be able to film it alone and need an assistant to help. Filming wise it would look something like this, but obviously about a different topic,

https://vimeo.com/7920691
 
Last edited:
Back
Top