Documentaries

[Dave Watterson]

Every year I see scores of amateur documentaries. It must be the most popular
form of movie making.

If we put travelogues and holiday films to one side we seem to be left with
two broad groups of documentary which I will tentatively designate "smooth"
and "rough" - though these are inadequate terms. I am talking now about good
work, the sort which wins competitions and is widely enjoyed.

The smooth ones show every sign of being made by someone (or a team) with
an eye for visual style, with a sense of tempo in the editing and with a
structured soundtrack often blending many elements.

The rough ones sometimes seem almost bumbling. Their images are sharp and
clean but not composed, their editing workmanlike but inspired and often
monotonous, soundtracks clesar but usually limited to a single element at
a time: voice, actuality or music.

Is this only my perception?

Both types tell their story fairly well. Both types can go badly wrong (!)
Very often both types pick up awards ... but often the top prizes seem to
me to go most often to the rough ones.

Is it me?


Dave McPuzzled

[AN]

"Dave Watterson" <forums@theiac.org.uk> wrote:

Every year I see scores of amateur documentaries. It must be the most popular
form of movie making.

There ain't no doubt abaht it! THE MOSTess!

If we put travelogues and holiday films to one side we seem to be left with
two broad groups of documentary which I will tentatively designate "smooth"
and "rough" - >Both types tell their story fairly well. Both types can
go badly wrong (!)
Very often both types pick up awards ... but often the top prizes seem
to
me to go most often to the rough ones.

Is it me?

I suppose you are, as it were, taking the rough with the smooth here!
But if you consider the rough ones win the most, and I'm not too sure that
is true anyway, this is but a reflection on the judges.
Many of the rough one's are holiday films anyway, so you cannot put holiday
films and travelogues aside to consider 'rough' docos alone.
But the smooth ones will always shine through because they have been made
by CREATIVE film makers, not by gadget bag holiday makers.
Albert....packing his bags.

[Michael Slowe]

"Dave Watterson" <forums@theiac.org.uk> wrote:

Every year I see scores of amateur documentaries. It must be the most popular
form of movie making.

If we put travelogues and holiday films to one side we seem to be left with
two broad groups of documentary which I will tentatively designate "smooth"
and "rough" - though these are inadequate terms. I am talking now about
good
work, the sort which wins competitions and is widely enjoyed.

The smooth ones show every sign of being made by someone (or a team) with
an eye for visual style, with a sense of tempo in the editing and with a
structured soundtrack often blending many elements.

The rough ones sometimes seem almost bumbling. Their images are sharp and
clean but not composed, their editing workmanlike but inspired and often
monotonous, soundtracks clesar but usually limited to a single element at
a time: voice, actuality or music.

Is this only my perception?

Both types tell their story fairly well. Both types can go badly wrong
(!)
Very often both types pick up awards ... but often the top prizes seem
to
me to go most often to the rough ones.

Is it me?


Dave McPuzzled

Dave, as a documentary maker I was interested in your posting. Did you see
the wonderful "The Wind in Love" which won the documentary prize at this
year's festival in Norwich?

It is just the sort of film I would love to have made and I was green with
envy! By your definition it might have been "rough" since there was a very
simple sound track, consisting mainly of a spoken, almost poetic, narration.
Try and see it as it is a perfect example of simplicity done to perfection.

[Dave Watterson]

"Michael Slowe" <michael.slowe@btinternet.com> wrote:

Did you see the wonderful "The Wind in Love" which won the documentary prize
at this
year's festival in Norwich?

It is just the sort of film I would love to have made and I was green with
envy! By your definition it might have been "rough" since there was a very
simple sound track, consisting mainly of a spoken, almost poetic, narration.
Try and see it as it is a perfect example of simplicity done to perfection.

I did not see the movie, but do acknowledge that sometimes simplicity can
be a virtue.

I was trying to get at the fact that some documentaries are made by people
with determination rather than talent ... and that the talented ones rarely
win major awards.

By the way hasn't it gone quiet this week ... I guess all the movie makers
are preparing their entries for the Cotswold Festival and the Guernsey Lily
Festival whose deadlines are fast approaching.

Dave

[AN]

"Michael Slowe" <michael.slowe@btinternet.com> wrote:

"Dave Watterson" <forums@theiac.org.uk> wrote:

The rough ones sometimes seem almost bumbling. Their images are sharp
and
clean but not composed, their editing workmanlike but inspired and often
monotonous, soundtracks clesar but usually limited to a single element
at
a time: voice, actuality or music.

Dave, as a documentary maker I was interested in your posting. Did you see
the wonderful "The Wind in Love" which won the documentary prize at this
year's festival in Norwich?

It is just the sort of film I would love to have made and I was green with
envy! By your definition it might have been "rough" since there was a very
simple sound track, consisting mainly of a spoken, almost poetic, narration.

haven't seen this film but...
I don't see how a film that made you green with envy etc could then be classed
as 'rough' If the sound track was simple and almost poetic it seems that
this may have been a work of art??
Even the title doesn't suggest any 'roughness'

If the commentary had been delivered in a mono tonal manner, then yes, that
could be classed as rough, but then I doubt if you would have turned green...many
amateur films make me see red!

Albert...Chameleon.

[Atta Chui]

I thought when Dave used the word "rough" he was probably thinking about some
fly-on-the-wall documentaries of which the focus is not on the presentation
skill but rather on the message itself. Some "news" topics are probably best
done that way, while if i am making a documentary on wild life, i would be
careful about framing, music, voice, because it's the experience that matters
- i.e. the director wants to draw the audience into the wild life world.
A fact based documentary is very different. "The Wind in Love" is not rough,
in my view. And it won.

Similar divide happens in drama. Dogma style says you should not use music
at all. Different tastes...

atta

[Chris Taylor]

When I saw the name of my old 'mate' Michael Slowe on the same page as discussions
on documentaries and technical issues (NLE) I automatically dug up a few
memories of years ago. I first met Michael when I was writing Sound Spectrum
for the old 'Movie Maker' mag and I had the job of transferring all the sound
from the originals to the 16mm release prints of 'The Ten Best'. Micheal's
film 'The Mill' was one of them and I was a boffin type, much more interested
in sprockets and sync systems than the films themselves. That's where the
NLE fans are today. They are fascinated by the technology rather than the
creativity of movie-making. It's their choice but like the endless discussions
about sound-sync 30 years ago it's an awful bore to those who recognise the
value of the end result, rather than the means to the end.

I have said many times that it doesn't matter if the movie is made on IMAX
film or IZAL toilet paper if it excites, informs or entertains the way the
maker wants it to. If it's one of the documentaries that DW refers to, then
his rough ones are effective because they make the movie making process more
transparent. After all we've all been watching film and TV all our lives
and we pretty used to it. Like Dave I like a no frills unpretentious approach
to documentary - let's face it we can do without 'Look at Life' style things
these days. Fly on the wall is what we are used to.

Like Michael Slowe I have seen dozens of documentaries over the years and
so many from our generation of movie-makers still look and sound like films
of the fifties. But just look at what's on the telly or at a rare cinema
documentary - they are really different these days, and I guess if we are
not to be branded as living in the past we need to get in on the act.

Thinking about it it might be worth taking a look at some really quirky old
stuff to get a feel for what not to do. Two that come to mind from the old
days are 'The Mill' and 'Shutterbugs'.

Chris Taylor


"Michael Slowe" <michael.slowe@btinternet.com> wrote:

"Dave Watterson" <forums@theiac.org.uk> wrote:

Every year I see scores of amateur documentaries. It must be the most popular
form of movie making.

If we put travelogues and holiday films to one side we seem to be left
with
two broad groups of documentary which I will tentatively designate "smooth"
and "rough" - though these are inadequate terms. I am talking now about
good
work, the sort which wins competitions and is widely enjoyed.

The smooth ones show every sign of being made by someone (or a team) with
an eye for visual style, with a sense of tempo in the editing and with
a
structured soundtrack often blending many elements.

The rough ones sometimes seem almost bumbling. Their images are sharp
and
clean but not composed, their editing workmanlike but inspired and often
monotonous, soundtracks clesar but usually limited to a single element
at
a time: voice, actuality or music.

Is this only my perception?

Both types tell their story fairly well. Both types can go badly wrong
(!)
Very often both types pick up awards ... but often the top prizes seem
to
me to go most often to the rough ones.

Is it me?


Dave McPuzzled

Dave, as a documentary maker I was interested in your posting. Did you see
the wonderful "The Wind in Love" which won the documentary prize at this
year's festival in Norwich?

It is just the sort of film I would love to have made and I was green with
envy! By your definition it might have been "rough" since there was a very
simple sound track, consisting mainly of a spoken, almost poetic, narration.
Try and see it as it is a perfect example of simplicity done to perfection.