Who directs a documentary?

[x24val]

Who is directing a documentary in the end?

While I do shoot, I have created whatever I've created through the process of editing.

Here's the set-up to my topic question...

2 years ago, I responded to a request for the position of editor on a documentary film. The "director" of this film had roughly 20 hours of interview footage. Oh? 30 minutes of B-Roll, an hour of archival footage and a couple dozen photos that spoke to the subject at hand. Some good stuff, some weak, but in the end a fair amount of material to build a close to feature length doc.

I watched as much of the material as I could on short order, then went back to the director to ask... "ok, how do you see this coming together as an interesting and effective doc?" He couldn't give me anything but generalities...nothing specific about how to marshall the 20+ hours of material into something worth watching and something that made sense. I saw potential within the material, but also saw huge gaps to flesh out the vague film I saw in my mind, so I told the director ..."ok, let me work with the material for a week. I'll come up with a strategy to pull it together and show you a super rough cut on how it might possibly play out." He agreed, and I did my thing. A week later he agreed on my strategies and said "proceed with the plan". I was pleased, but said in essence that yes, I'm editing, but I felt I was directing the film at least to some major percentage points. After a day or two I went back to the director and said, I was willing to take on the assignment of constructing the film, giving it a style and tone, but only if he would give up the title of director...not give it to me, but rather we'd not have a director in the credits. It would be produced by both of us, but no named director. He agreed.

I ended up not only cutting the film, but shooting additional B-Roll, scavaging up more needed archival, working music into the film effectively. And it came out ok. Co-produced by him and me. No director.

I've just completed "editing" on another documentary that was a much larger project then the one described above. Not only were the number of captured interview hours tripled, the number of subjects talk of were all over the place. Again, the director did not have a detailed coherent plan as to how all this material could come together for a workable film. Desparate for a paying gig (the pay was miniscule), I said "I'll try play straight editor for you...and leave my creativity out of the equation best I can" ...I said leave out my creativity because putting in my creativity would exponentially add to the workload. Well, after a month of this strategy I wasn't getting anywhere towards the creation of a film. Shutting down my opinions and the lack of direction from the "director" was getting the film nowhere. Finally, I said I couldn't continue playing straight editor...it was pointless. And if this effort was going to be a worthy one, I'd have to turn on my opinions that are quickly followed by creative thought, much, much more work, but in the end (hopefully) a decent film. I proceeded under the ackward title "director of post production" he retained the title of "director".

I spent the next two months shaping the film, working film FX, finding legal archive material, digitally manipulating photos, reworking the film's song catalogue into more of a music soundtrack. Graphics, artwork...everything from soup to nuts in effort to make a good documenatry film. It has come together as good as could have been expected and then some. But he is still the director of the film ...you tell me, is he really? http://www.chrisvalentines.com/projects/montana_documentary.html

These two examples are only two. On a much smaller scale I have had many jobs where someone has shot plenty of footage and they feel they have a film, but it always feels like it's me at the position of editor who is actually making The Film. I love it. I live to keep doing it, but when I finish something that I feel is so much more me in the end, then the person(s) who shot the raw material. It's a kick in the (you know where) when they get the press, the interviews, that it's their film and I was just part of the supporting cast. Trust me, it's a strange feeling. What to do?

Of course, the simple retort can be..."just start shooting AND! editing your own films" ...and that may happen, but it's simply not part of my current make-up to do this. I deeply appreciate those that make the calls, set-up the interviews and get it recorded. Nothing happens whatsoever if you don't gather the material first. Deep deep bows to those directors.

I will face this situation again. I will try to lend my skills and creativity to a project that has already been shot...one that is already in the can. Perhaps they will have a complete coherent plan for how the material is marshalled and all they need is someone to cut it to plan. If so, I'm not the editor they're looking for, because I'd hate it...being voiceless. I want to direct docs in post. But for those who consider themselves documentary filmmakers, and have no desire, talent or even the want to edit (I don't get that) ...and I'm absolutely geeked to take all their hours of stuff and create a film...what should I call myself...sell myself as? Should I ask to be the named director for those that don't have a specific plan of execution?

It is my joyfully accepted job to take all the cement foundation, the lumber, the nails, the pipes, electrical whatnot, etc accumulated by those who gathered it hoping to build a house, but simply can't actually construct it.

Bottom line question. Is it possible, that the named director of documentary film can have nothing to do with the actual filming. That the direction came mostly or even extremely in post, and so the person that made it happen in post is truly the director of the doc?

 

[Buddy Greenfield]

I think it calls for very clear negotiation up front.

If the "Director" comes to you with a detailed outline, then as Editor I find it perfectly reasonable for him/her to pay and credit you as Editor for your skill to assemble footage AND your talent to add some creative flare to that assembly, but if someone just drops 60 hours of footage in your lap and expects a story, art, music, title and their oil changed without any input (Direction), then they are asking you to provide your vision of the outcome AND to professionally assemble footage with your creative flare.

Without SOME fair percentage of detailed direction for the outcome, there is nothing to define your role as editor. To me that isn’t a Director, that is someone with a bunch of footage about a subject. How they obtained the footage and came about the idea for the subject might make them traditionally the Director, but that should only be up to the point that your role as Editor is extended beyond unless agreed otherwise. In those situations (With zero idea for the outcome) I would want an AND credit, as in “Directed by so and so AND your name”. With very very little idea for the outcome maybe a “Directed by so and so WITH Your name” credit can be negotiated.

On the other side of that coin, based on the amount of side by side contribution they make towards the editing, then I think it would be fair that they should get a Edited by your name AND so and so, or Edited by your name WITH so and so. I’m sure many would balk at this or say it isn’t realistic, but neither is making your editing (and all the other contributions) worth $1 an hour by the time all is said and done.

I would place all the cards on the table up front and forgo that situation and/or place them on the table so both parties know what they are in for weighed against fee and credit. A 60 to 1 or 60 to 2 editing ratio AND your creative vision in return for peanuts and no resume building glory just seems like a bad choice to make. If the “Director” wants to find someone else for a buck an hour, I would let him.

-Thanks-

 

[indietalk]

Speaking of accolades, if it wins "Best Documentary" the Producer will get it anyway. So stop worrying

 

[Gonzo_Entertainment]

The editor position can be so many things. From no creative control at all, to a ton of creative control. I tend to prefer an editor that will cut a film exactly as I say, only interjecting if I want him to do something that doesn't make sense. Other directors work differently.

 

[milkandcookie]

I think this is very case-specific - it varies with each director and each film, really.

Some directors will have a very clear vision, but I feel that the nature of documentaries is such that, with many docs, one can't know for certain where exactly the story will take them. It sounds like with your specific case that the director may not have known exactly where to go, or what they had on their hands. Likely, the director may have let the film get away from his or herself, and was looking to you to refocus it, which, yes, would give you a much more integral role, but the role of an editor, nonetheless. Of course, you would be an "editor" in the credits, but of course you should make certain that credit is given where it is due.

 

[Uranium City]

Because his team of editors do as much story-crafting in post as he does during production, documentary filmmaker Albert Maysles typically gives them co-director credit.

But we can't all work for Maysles...

I suggest you read "The Conversations: Walter Murch and the Art of Editing Film" for a look at one of the greatest in his field. One of my favorite films, Coppola's "The Conversation," has a plot that turns completely on its head because of a vocalized gimmick

Spoiler

("He'd kill us if he had the chance!")

. You'll learn in the book that this gimmick was never written that way by Coppola or shot the way it ended up on screen. An alternate ADR take was discovered by Murch in the editing phase and he crafted the story in a completely new way, all in post. But that doesn't make him the director. Instead, it makes him one of the best film artists in the history of the medium. That's nothing to be ashamed of.

He's the kind of editor that it sounds like you want to be...an editor with freedom to create, who isn't just manning the controls. There are directors who prefer to work this way...seek them out and establish a relationship.

 

[Buddy Greenfield]

Do you guys suppose (Outside of big industry) we are in an ever increasing phase of slightly redefining of, perception of, or expectations placed upon on some specialized creative roles (due to the advent of common technology allowing more hats to be worn by a single filmmaker)?


-Thanks-

 

[indietalk]

If it is a collaborative effort you could always do:

Documentarians
John Doe
Jane Doe

Director
John Doe

Editor
Jane Doe

 

[Gonzo_Entertainment]

Do you guys suppose (Outside of big industry) we are in an ever increasing phase of slightly redefining of, perception of, or expectations placed upon on some specialized creative roles (due to the advent of common technology allowing more hats to be worn by a single filmmaker)?


-Thanks-

Well, in the low budget world roles are always fuzzy anyway. I have a producer for my next film (just hired) yet I've already assembled a good bit of the crew and have a rough budget (because I'm executive producer). Some of what this producer is going to do would traditionally fall under the role production manager. Your grip may also be your gaffer, the craft services person might have a small role in the film. The editor might do the titles, just comes with the territory.

 

[Alcove Audio]

A film is the directors vision; everyone else is supposed to do everything they can to make the directors vision a successful reality. And every director will have a different style, from micro-managing dictatorial tyrants to inclusive creative partners. I've worked with both kinds. The dictator may well be a creative genius from whom I can learn. It is my responsibility to give him exactly what he wants to hear; it is his/her responsibility to communicate that clearly and concisely. The success of the project rests solely on the directors shoulders. The inclusive partnership director gives you his/her vision and then, in essence, says "blow me away." Now the responsibility for success - or failure - is partially mine as well the other team members.

Either way you are hired to do a specific job in accordance with the directors wishes. One thing to remember is that many of the most successful directors consistently work with the same creative partners; it's a comfort and trust thing. Look at the long time relationship between Martin Scorsese and Thelma Schoonmaker; she is often editing while the film is still in production. Go through the credits of Spielberg or Zemeckis or any of the others of current crop of successful directors and you will see the same names popping up in the credits of their films on a regular basis. Even a dictator like Alfred Hitchcock - who hated the filmmaking process - worked with many people on a consistent basis.

Back when I was a performing musician I was the musical director for a prominent oldies act. The five guys on the front of the stage were the "stars", but they relied on me for the arrangements, to rehearse them, direct the musicians, communicate with the concert manager, stage manager and the FOH and monitor mixers. The whole show rested on my shoulders; all they had to do was sing and dance. No one in the audience knew who I was, but all of my peers and the other acts knew; and that was more that enough.

So don't bemoan the fact that you're just credited as the editor. Your peers (and the director) will know what your contributions were, and the respect of your peers is worth more than all of the public crap. And what is even more important, you will know.

 

[Buddy Greenfield]

Good point. I can see in Indie crews how that would be fuzzy.

Maybe I mean, under the generic heading of “Filmmaker”, do you think technology is allowing for a broader range of tasks to be undertaken by a single person to the extent that it might be slightly evolving notions of what should be encompassed under the title of other roles, such as Director or Editor?

-Thanks-

 

[Gonzo_Entertainment]

Good point. I can see in Indie crews how that would be fuzzy.

Maybe I mean, under the generic heading of “Filmmaker”, do you think technology is allowing for a broader range of tasks to be undertaken by a single person to the extent that it might be slightly evolving notions of what should be encompassed under the title of other roles, such as Director or Editor?

-Thanks-

In the indie low budget (read non-union) world, yes. In hollywood the classic:

"Hey grip, can you change that light bulb in the practical over there"

"Sounds like an electrivcal problem to me, well it is a practical, want me to have somebody get the art director?"

Still applies I think.

 

[Cracker Funk]

Sounds to me like you were working with a shitty director, that's all. He's still the director, but a shitty one, because he lacks direction. A documentary should have a focus, and that focus needs to be in place in pre-production. If you're still trying to figure out what that focus is in post, you've horribly screwed up. So, as editor, you salvaged a shitty production, but you're still editor.

 

[meow1984]

I hate to say it, but you're the editor, which you should be proud to be. My editor is great, and I appreciate him dearly.
It seems as though you have worked with directors that either do not have a clear vision or are flexible enough to allow the better idea to come through. Be happy to be an editor, because if you insist on getting director credit simply because your director was open minded, you will find yourself at a loss for future employment as an editor. The job of the director is not necessarily to do every little thing on a film but to make sure that it gets done properly. It has been done on the films on which you've worked so they have done their job.
That having been said, perhaps you should consider becoming a director so you do not have this problem in the future.