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?
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: