Documentary + "Regular Movie"?

[FrankLad]

Wasn't really sure how to word the title of this thread, but here's what I mean...

I'm thinking about shooting a short documentary-style fiction piece (ie. shot as if a documentary, but of a contrived nature. Mockumentary or docu-fiction, I suppose.)

BUT I would like it to have a narrative/cinematic type ending.

It would be like a filmmaker following the habits of this particular reclusive-but-intriguing individual.

Such that you have the general documentary-style snippets of day-to-day activity, with the subject talking/narrating through this. This gradually builds to an ending sequence which the filmmaker would not necessarily be privy to. (The audience sees this, but not through the lens of a documentary filmmaker.) It's basically the culmination of events, but shown in a more cinematic manner. From an everyday viewer's standpoint, you could say it shifts from documentary to "movie" by the end.

I can envision this working, but wanted to get some feedback.

Also, if you guys know of instances where this has been used, please share!

As always, THANKS for the help!

 

[Murdock]

I think it could be as easy as setting the thing up from the beginning to be a filming of the filming of a documentary. For example we see the docu. crew filming, we see the snippets of daily life, and then at some point the documentary is over and they leave. Then we are "cinematic" once the crew leaves and only the fly on the wall(us) remains.

 

[Murdock]

And I mean to say that we simply see the docu being filmed. Not That someone gives a goofy look to the camera and says,"And here we are at the filming of..." but it is simply understood through the visua cues. Did I misspell cues??

 

[FrankLad]

I think it could be as easy as setting the thing up from the beginning to be a filming of the filming of a documentary. For example we see the docu. crew filming, we see the snippets of daily life, and then at some point the documentary is over and they leave. Then we are "cinematic" once the crew leaves and only the fly on the wall(us) remains.

Right, right! I think that's pretty much what I'm after. The concern is whether or not it could potentially be off-putting. (ie. "Wait, what... is this a movie now?") or if it would even be noticeable.

I actually envision the character's dialog flowing over into the end sequence. Seems that would not only help smooth it out, but I think (hope) it would lend to the impact.

Thanks, Murdock!

 

[Zensteve]

Maybe something like American Movie, the documentary about the making of a film? You get to watch the actual finished film, once the doc is over. Mmmm, but that's more of a real doc, I 'spose.

everyday viewer's standpoint, you could say it shifts from documentary to "movie" by the end.

Maybe like that part of the Blues Brothers, in the Minnie The Moocher song? The rag-tag stage & band returns to its glory days for a while, as everyone's caught up in the moment. Not really a doc, though.

Hmm

 

[Murdock]

I actually envision the character's dialog flowing over into the end sequence. Seems that would not only help smooth it out, but I think (hope) it would lend to the impact.

I think it would be okay, as long as the third party(us) is never acknowledged.

Sorry to burn up your thread, but the only example I can think of is in Along Came Polly, when P. S. Hoffman's buddies are filming the E!News Special about him. I know it's a corny example, but its funny, it has a beginning and an end in the movie and we accept that they are there, and when they leave we are back to the "movie".

 

[Papertwinproductions]

The term "Mocumentary", would apply for your chosen style.

The definition being a fictional-act, told through the method of Documentary. I, myself, have a script following the same route.

Although the script is loose, to tackle an attempt at realism within this genre, depends entirely upon the delivery, as apposed to in the circumstance of film, a well-organised strategy.

I'd highly advise to approach your writing, in this case, as timidly as you can. That's not to say the story will not have the depth in which you desire, the complete opposite. This is entirely character driven. The surroundings are going to dissolve. It's about your talent.

Choose the right actor.

 

[FrankLad]

Zensteve, Murdock, and Papertwinproductions: Thanks for the examples and extra info! This is really helping.

I was sorta concerned with it being a "NO! You can't do that!" type of scenario... so I'm at least a bit relieved to know the approach is possible.

 

[Alcove Audio]

Check out "This Is Spinal Tap". It keeps wobbling back and forth between mockumentary and fictional narrative.

 

[NickClapper]

This is exactly what happens in 'District 9' and, in my opinion, it very nearly ruins the whole film...

The problem they has was that whilst the premise started off working really well with following Wikus in his rounds and as he starts to become an alien, eventually they reached a point where they couldn't logically have a film crew following him, so it just became a plain ol' movie. And I think, on this occasion, it looked quite odd.

If you haven't seen District 9 then I would recommend watching it, both as one of the most succesful mockumentaries ever and also as an example of the difficulty relating to suddenly switching the way in which the film is shot.

That said, I'm sure that it could work, but it's definitely something that you need to be careful about in order to make sure that it doesn't look like you've merely grown frustrated with the limitations of the mockumentary approach.

 

[Papertwinproductions]

The very best of luck, Frank.

 

[polfilmblog]

"The problem they has was that whilst the premise started off working really well with following Wikus in his rounds and as he starts to become an alien, eventually they reached a point where they couldn't logically have a film crew following him, so it just became a plain ol' movie. And I think, on this occasion, it looked quite odd."

I had no problem with the movie opening as a documentary. I find the term "plain ol' movie" odd since that's what you paid your ticket money to see. Plain ol' movie has worked for a century now, and I'm not sure why it is used in a derogatory fashion.

The documentary was no longer important, so we follow what is. There's nothing wrong with that at all, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[FrankLad]

Alcove: I've not seen that one but I notice it's referenced often under the "mockumentary" category. (In fact, I think the term started with that one? ...though it wasn't technically the first of that style.)

Nick: Was it sorta abrupt? ie. was there a point where you realized right away it was no longer docu-style?

Papertwinproductions: Thank you very much!

The documentary was no longer important, so we follow what is. There's nothing wrong with that at all, as far as I'm concerned.

polfilmblog: Did you catch on during the movie that the style had changed, and decided it was ok, or was it something you realized afterwards?


I've toyed with shooting on different "stock" (or simulating this), in terms of the doc having a more organic or low-fi feel, with perhaps a fade-out with dialog, then the final sequence being crisp and cinematic.
(What he's describing to the folks capturing the film... we actually see at the end. That kind of a deal.)

Hopefully that makes sense. Thanks again, everyone! This is all quite helpful to me!

 

[NickClapper]

I find the term "plain ol' movie" odd since that's what you paid your ticket money to see. Plain ol' movie has worked for a century now, and I'm not sure why it is used in a derogatory fashion.

Thank you for deciding that I was using it in a 'derogatory fashion'. I wasn't.

Nick: Was it sorta abrupt? ie. was there a point where you realized right away it was no longer docu-style?

No, I just felt that these two styles were kind of mismatched. To be honest, I was most interested to see the film because I knew that it was a mockumentary and I thought it was a really cool way of doing a sci-fi film. And the first 30-45 minutes of the film is really original and really, really good. But clearly Neil Blomkamp realised that in order for the whole story to be told the focus would have to turn away from the documentary styling, but it did so with no explanation and in such a way that you just gradually realised that the camera now had an access-all-areas pass. The film was still good, but I think that was the weakest element of the film and I know that it drew a fair amount of criticism, probably more so that any other aspect of the movie.

If you haven't already seen it then I would strongly recommend watching it. It's a good movie and a good education in mockumentaries.

Please don't take this as me saying that it cannot be done, I just think you have to explain (subtly) why you are switching over, rather than just phasing it in. The way they did that in District 9 left me feeling a little cheated.

 

[FrankLad]

Please don't take this as me saying that it cannot be done, I just think you have to explain (subtly) why you are switching over, rather than just phasing it in. The way they did that in District 9 left me feeling a little cheated.

Oh, no worries - I totally understand. As said, I value any and all feedback; it helps me understand how this blending of styles might be viewed.

Re: District 9... I'm not a big fan of excessive violence, profanity, and all that jazz but I may have to check it out for educational purposes.

Thanks, Nick!

 

[Murdock]

I'm not a big fan of excessive violence, profanity, and all that jazz but I may have to check it out for educational purposes.
Thanks, Nick!

Yea, that's what she said.

This is why I advocate beginning the movie with the understanding that we are "watching" everything transpire. First we (the audience) see the filming of a documentary. Then, the documentary ends and we continue to watch.
Perhaps it would be more believable if you begin before the documentary. We see the subject in its natural state. Then its reality is invaded by docu-types. And afterward they leave and we see the culmination.....???

 

[Cracker Funk]

In my opinion, you gotta pick one or the other. Mockumentary (which is a common thing) or narrative. That's just my two cents, and I could be wrong, but the reason I think mockumentaries work is because we're to believe that we're watching a documentary. That dies for me, as soon as it turns to regular narrative.

 

[Cracker Funk]

Thank you for deciding that I was using it in a 'derogatory fashion'. I wasn't.



No, I just felt that these two styles were kind of mismatched. To be honest, I was most interested to see the film because I knew that it was a mockumentary and I thought it was a really cool way of doing a sci-fi film. And the first 30-45 minutes of the film is really original and really, really good. But clearly Neil Blomkamp realised that in order for the whole story to be told the focus would have to turn away from the documentary styling, but it did so with no explanation and in such a way that you just gradually realised that the camera now had an access-all-areas pass. The film was still good, but I think that was the weakest element of the film and I know that it drew a fair amount of criticism, probably more so that any other aspect of the movie.

If you haven't already seen it then I would strongly recommend watching it. It's a good movie and a good education in mockumentaries.

Please don't take this as me saying that it cannot be done, I just think you have to explain (subtly) why you are switching over, rather than just phasing it in. The way they did that in District 9 left me feeling a little cheated.

The same things bugged me about "District 9". There were times when I was thinking, hey, how did they get those cameras inside the squids house? I thought this was supposed to be a documentary.

To be honest though, I think most viewers didn't notice this, because they're not filmmakers, and they don't analyze films the way people like us do, while watching them. I think "District 9" mostly got away with cheating in the mockumentary genre.

 

[Alcove Audio]

"We suspend out disbelief and we are entertained."

 

[FrankLad]

Perhaps it would be more believable if you begin before the documentary. We see the subject in its natural state. Then its reality is invaded by docu-types. And afterward they leave and we see the culmination.....???

There's a thought. Perhaps an early setup is called for so as to not risk throwing the audience off at the end. Hrm......... Thanks for the suggestion!

To be honest though, I think most viewers didn't notice this, because they're not filmmakers, and they don't analyze films the way people like us do, while watching them.

Really good point. I feel like the majority would be ok with it (or not even notice). And if particular care is taken to set things up properly, as Murdock suggests, then maybe even filmmakers would accept it.

"We suspend out disbelief and we are entertained."

Ahh, yes. Always good to keep in mind. There comes a certain point when we have to fall back on that.

Then I think the issue is largely with how filmmakers will perceive it.