How do you make a documentary?

NickClapper

NickClapper

So, for my next project, I'm going to try and make a short documentary.

I have the basic framework of the film and understand how to approach the research. I've written the narration, planned segments of the film, sent of FOI requests and mined data on the topic. I'm relatively experienced with journalism, so I'm fairly confident about this part of the process.

I'm also fairly confident about approaching and securing interviewees, and, for me, this seems like the most straight forward part of the process (from a technical/logistical perspective). Yes, it's hard to get good interviewees and arrange suitable timings, but once that's all down, I'm fairly sure how that should go.

The bit I'm unsure about is the rest. Procuring archive footage has always baffled me. What are the best ways to source archive footage? What should I expect to offer people in terms of payment? And outside of archive footage, how should I go about doing my own photography? I feel that question would be simpler if my documentary was called 'London Life', but mine is about an archipelago in the Indian ocean. I watched an old programme on it, and they had a 'Director of Photography'. Is that simply for the interviews? Or should I look at the possibility of procuring my own footage, especially if the archive footage is fairly scarce?

Anyhow, I'd love your thoughts on my questions above, or any thoughts on the documentary making process. I feel like it's an art form that doesn't get as much attention on Indietalk, and this might be a good thread to demonstrate some of the important nuts and bolts to documentary production.
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
with a documentary you can't plan everything out in advance, you have to the the story unfold and then find it in editing. I've never made one myself but that is the process as I understand it.

When I was a character in a documentary I was not paid anything. they had a budget of 100k for traveling around, crew, etc
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
sfoster said:
with a documentary you can't plan everything out in advance, you have to the the story unfold and then find it in editing. I've never made one myself but that is the process as I understand it.
Click to expand...

I think that would be true for a documentary like Catfish or The Act of Killing.

But, for example, look at Alex Gibney's documentaries. They require meticulous research and planning. The structuring of a documentary is as tight as a narrative film; it's not a case of working it out in the edit. The vast majority of documentaries tell a story, rather than creating a story, and any storytelling needs to be thought out in advance.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
NickClapper said:
I'm also fairly confident about approaching and securing interviewees, and, for me, this seems like the most straight forward part of the process (from a technical/logistical perspective). Yes, it's hard to get good interviewees and arrange suitable timings, but once that's all down, I'm fairly sure how that should go.
Click to expand...

Getting good interviewees is not trivial! An expert who can speak clearly, with good pace and passion while being filmed is very rare! On the technical side, really, really take great care to get the very finest sound you can! ADR is never an option with docos in my experience. Even just doing a 2nd take during the original shooting often provides little usable material, so get it right 1st time!

NickClapper said:
The structuring of a documentary is as tight as a narrative film; it's not a case of working it out in the edit. The vast majority of documentaries tell a story, rather than creating a story, and any storytelling needs to be thought out in advance.
Click to expand...

Docos (good ones) do take a great deal of structuring/planning but in my experience they are generally designed in a more flexible way than narrative films. There is a great deal more unpredictability in most doco making and this needs to be accounted for when planning/structuring and particularly when editing. BTW, a back-up plan is a particularly good thing with doco making! For example, a featured interviewee might end up not "performing" well on the day on camera and their segment may need to be significantly reduced or cut altogether. While another less featured interviewee may turn out to be inspirational. Archive footage may turn out to be unavailable, too expensive or not of the expected usable quality or duration. In other words, creating a meticulous plan/structure and trying to stick to it religiously will probably be more detrimental to a doco than to a narrative film.

As you say though, how you tell the story is everything in docos (as it is with all narrative film); the pacing, passion, etc., what makes docos difficult is generating/maintaining interest while not veering outside of "the truth". And of course "the truth" itself is problematic because "facts" are extremely rarely indisputable. You might be illogical or unconvincing in a narrative film but you can't really be "wrong" as you can with a doco, and in being "wrong", you are often also offensive to certain people or groups of people!

G
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Excellent post APE.

I don't by any means think that interviews are trivial, and will take pains to make sure that aesthetically and aurally they work for the film. But I've been in touch with many of the prominent campaigners on the issue and know which political figures to contact, so I feel like I have a direction to head in with that.

I agree that documentaries require a more reactive stance to their structure. Especially as you are working in an evolving timeline, and nothing can happen in a vacuum. As soon as I finish a narrative screenplay, that film is locked and static, whereas a documentary's subject matter can alter even as the documentary is being finished. So it's obviously not a good idea to close yourself off when filming to what is interesting and what's not.

At the same time, the heart of my movie is the story, which needs to be communicated as lucidly as possible, especially as it's not one that many people know. My first task is to organise that narrative, and then develop my more reactive narrative around it. If that makes sense.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I think this is a great subject for discussion, and I agree that documentaries do not get enough attention on IT.

I do think that, generally speaking, a documentary should be planned, planned, researched, planned, and then planned some more. Yes, it's true that there are going to be surprises, and plans will change, but is the same not true of narrative filmmaking?

The terms "journalist" and "documentarian" are not synonymous. A documentarian can and should be biased as shit. You're telling a story, and ultimately, you decide what that story is.

Depending on the subject matter, it's possible to pretty much know the answers to the questions, before you even meet with your subjects (or, at least you can roughly anticipate what they'll be). Furthermore, depending on the subject matter, it is often possible for you to frame questions in a way to get the answers you're looking for. I once got a dude to COMPLETELY change his opinion on an idea central to the film, simply by asking pointed questions.

It wasn't an argument; I just had done my research, presented it to him in a way that was palatable to him, and asked for his reaction. The old, "some people say ______ and ________; how do you react to that?" is a great way to insert your opinion into a conversation without being confrontational.

Some of your best sound-bites will come after your interviewee thinks they've answered the question. You ask the question, they answer, and then your instincts will tell you to keep the conversation moving and ask the next question. Don't. Linger in the moment. Let it be awkward for just a little bit. Make a face and act like you're simply ingesting their answer; pretend like you're trying to decide what to ask next. Often times, they'll break the awkward silence by answering a follow-up question that you never even asked, and these moments can be golden, usually more off-the-cuff than the initial answer.

Speaking of sound-bites, that's what you work with. I'm of the opinion that, for the most part, you should try to keep all of your sound-bites to one single sentece, maybe two or three. Only on rare occasion should you go significantly longer than that. Sound familiar? That's the same advice most people prescribe to for screenwriting? Keep dialog tight.

I'm not saying you shouldn't, but are you sure you want scripted narration? There's nothing wrong with that, per se, but I personally think it's more engaging to create a narrative from interviews. (That being said, I do have a project I've been meaning to complete that I plan to mostly use scripted narration).

Can you share more details? I'm excited for this project of yours. I'd try to answer your question about footage, but that really depends on the subject matter.

These are all the thoughts off the top of my head, I'll be sure to keep a close eye out and add anything else that comes to mind.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
sfoster said:
with a documentary you can't plan everything out in advance, you have to the the story unfold and then find it in editing. I've never made one myself but that is the process as I understand it.
Click to expand...

I did the audio post on a doc a number of years ago. The director was doing some work for a European TV network about soccer. He came across a soccer league for amputees; the network didn't want more than a fluff piece, so he decided to pursue it more deeply on his own. He interviewed a member of the Chechen amputee soccer team; he lost his leg to a Russian land mine during the Russo/Chechen conflict, as did a number of his team mates whom he subsequently also interviewed. While the director was following the team during the soccer finals in Chechnya (they won) a few of the members of the team were asked to join a national amputee team for the "World Cup" of amputee teams. As the story unfolded further some Russian amputees became members of the team - two of whom had lost their legs to attacks by Chechen rebels. The change-over from animosity to team mates and then to fast friends became the story.

I write this only to point out that, unless you have a specific story in mind, your research may lead you in a very unexpected direction.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Alcove Audio said:
I did the audio post on a doc a number of years ago. The director was doing some work for a European TV network about soccer. He came across a soccer league for amputees; the network didn't want more than a fluff piece, so he decided to pursue it more deeply on his own. He interviewed a member of the Chechen amputee soccer team; he lost his leg to a Russian land mine during the Russo/Chechen conflict, as did a number of his team mates whom he subsequently also interviewed. While the director was following the team during the soccer finals in Chechnya (they won) a few of the members of the team were asked to join a national amputee team for the "World Cup" of amputee teams. As the story unfolded further some Russian amputees became members of the team - two of whom had lost their legs to attacks by Chechen rebels. The change-over from animosity to team mates and then to fast friends became the story.

I write this only to point out that, unless you have a specific story in mind, your research may lead you in a very unexpected direction.
Click to expand...

thanks for backing me up on this point
unforunately i wasn't into film making when i starred in the doc, so i didn't' get to ask them questions about the business. but i saw how they filmed and how they operated.. and these guys won an academy award for best doc so they seem to know what they're doing
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Cracker Funk said:
Can you share more details? I'm excited for this project of yours. I'd try to answer your question about footage, but that really depends on the subject matter.
Click to expand...

I think the distinction you make between journalist and documentarian is somewhat unfair- 80% of journalists are biased as shit! I plan on approaching my documentary the same why I'm current approaching my dissertation on modern South African literature: do the research - come up with a hypothesis - develop an argument to support that hypothesis based from examples. My approach to these sort of things will always be fairly rigorous, just because I'm always inclined to try and take things seriously.

Which isn't to say, sfoster, that there's anything wrong with taking a looser approach. But my documentary is an activism work, rather than being especially investigative. So my primary concern is presenting the argument in a lucid and compelling manner.

To give a little more background to the project: in 1966 the UK purchased an archipelago in the Indian ocean, which they proceeded to develop into an American military base. Over the course of the late 60s, the population of these islands were forcibly expelled. Most ended up in the slums of Mauritius, but about 450 ended up in the UK whilst appealing to the European Court of Human Rights. And the town where they settled is the town where I grew up. So that's the basic background.

sfoster said:
thanks for backing me up on this point
unforunately i wasn't into film making when i starred in the doc, so i didn't' get to ask them questions about the business. but i saw how they filmed and how they operated.. and these guys won an academy award for best doc so they seem to know what they're doing
Click to expand...

Ooh, which documentary was that?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I shot and edited this (directed by one of the participants). it's got the full interviews with it so you can see how it was put together. It's more of a conversationally edited piece, but shows a style that can be used. Each clip chosen moved the dialog into the next piece of footage. Hard edits were chosen as it was an academic Anthropological endeavor… no hidden edits for ethical rigor. I used the hard cuts and jump cuts like a paper would use an Elipsis or a [sic] to allow the reader to know that there were edits made between clips.

When editing, we typed up all of the dialog in the interviews, then edited them in a word processor with time code and clip names. We then pulled those clip segments onto the timeline and worked the edits until we liked the dialog timings as a nice conversation between the interviewees.

http://yafiunderground.com/Anth/Doc-Clips/index.html
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
NickClapper said:
I thought Undefeated was exceptional. I cried like a child and I couldn't give less of a shit about american football.
Click to expand...

yeah they made a hell of a find with that coach. i'm not a sports fan either and was immediately gripped by the opening scenes

that got them another deal, now they're making their first narrative feature. a biopic on some football player
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
QUESTION!

When I am acquiring archive footage, what license period do I need? What does the license period cover me for- presumably my documentary wouldn't become invalid in a few years if I didn't license for perpetuity?

Also, licensing depends on the distribution format. Now, this is likely to be something that would play at a few festivals and then go online. What media license should I go for?

And, finally, territories: it's a British documentary, but if I put it online, do I need it cover all territories. Or does the territory only mean that the footage can't be licensed by someone else in your territory?

Answers would be massively appreciated :)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Ok, still haven't got an answer to that (^) but I'll ask another question:

If I can't afford to license the footage, do you think a sequence of animated photographs would work? Like a Ken Burns effect, but more dynamic. My worry is that it'll give it a real 80s science video feel, but this may be the only way of working around paying £thousands in license fees.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Wanted to try and canvas opinions here.

Am in pre-production (or a very mild form of production) on my documentary project, but have some concerns about *horror of horrors* gear.

In an ideal world, I'd like to shoot on the Canon C300 which has the flexibility to go handheld/on-sticks in pretty much any environment, and is also a great camera for interviews. The trouble is, I'm not sure when, or for how long, I will need the camera, which makes renting difficult and expensive. Spending £15,000 on buying the gear (even with the intention of selling it again later) is also problematic. Likewise with audio gear (although I am hoping that the soundies that I'm working with will be able to bring their own gear), renting over an extended but sporadic period is not very efficient.

So I have a couple of questions:

A) What's your ideal documentary shooting kit?
B) Is there an affordable solution to my dilemma?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I helped an aspiring filmmaker shoot some documentary shorts, so I can go by that experience. He shot with expensive cameras, one on a tripod, one on a dolly. But you could probably use DSLRs if they are more affordable for you, or if someone has one you can rent or borrow.

He wanted me to record the audio on set with my equipment. I didn't have a lav mic, like most documentaries, use on interviews, so I boomed with a shotgun mic. I know a lot of people are saying lavs for interviews are a must, but everyone who saw his shorts we did, never complained the sound was bad, and one of them got picked up as a TV pilot and was aired. So the shotgun was good enough for that apparently. I guess for audio my ideal kit would be what I have; the FR2-LE and the NTG-3.

For lighting you can use halogen lights, 1000 watts. That's all I can tell you and sorry if I was not much help :).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
There are two 'movements' within documentary:
- the gear is not as important as the subject, as long as it is watchable and has proper sound, a good story will keep the viewers attention.
- documentary is a cinematic artform, so why can't it look like a feature? Documentary doesn't mean it has to be underlit shaky cam; it can be framed and lit beautifully like a good feature film.

My question is: what is the look and style you want your story to have?
A lav mic is obviously desirable.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top