Lately I've been thinking about starting another documentary project. I have been considering what I would do differently, what I would do the same, what I would do at all. And although it's a messier way to work, I do think it's important to allow the material to shape the work. The opposite of this occurs in news (or Michael Moore documentaries, for good or bad)--they start with a script and the whole point of the filming is to grab sound bites and clips that support the original story. Kind of like narrative work, but with "real" imagery.
Sure, it's a stronger, tighter, more efficient, more structurally sound way of working, but it hardly leaves room for surprises. Look at Capturing the Friedmans, which started out as a doc on NY birthday party clowns, then became something much different.
No, I think the more honest way to work is to not have a definite plan at all. Gradually it'll become clearer what the angles are, who the stories belong to, etc, but initially one should be open to pretty much anything.
Secondly, I've been thinking that the "angle" and "subject matter" of the film are utterly secondary to the characters. Documentary is not so different than narrative cinema; it needs a beginning, a middle, and an end. It needs an inciting incident, continuing conflict, character development, rising action, etc. All the usual stuff. Sure. But the subjects are more important than all of this stuff, in my opinion. Your film could be about shuffleboard, or plate techtonics, or paper manufacture, and if your characters are interesting, then they'll carry the film. It's harder, I think, to make an IDEA carry the movie (though I am looking forward to this Helvetica documentary in limited release now).
So the other most important thing becomes: Find the Interesting Human.
To Recap:
Find the Interesting Human.
-and-
Don't Have a Plan.
So these are the life lessons that my 3-Year Self-Created Documentary Film School have taught me.
Hardly a curriculum to start an academy around, no.
Hardly a good way to go about getting outside funding too, hmmm, how about that? Then again, I suppose this is what everyone goes through when writing a grant, or any proposal, really. There will be a certain amount of bullshitting, and deviating, and later, explaining, lots of explaining to do.
For now, though, we must bullshit.
3 comments:
Yes, I think it's all about having an idea that you can sell to the people who want to give you money. Then once you get the money, you do what you do. The thing is, people that have the money don't always get art. They need a concept capsule. The reality of art is much messier. So give them what they want and part them from their money.
And there's always an interesting human. (to wit: The Way of the Puck)
Listen, out of those two lessons, you _could_ open your own school and then you could have disciples. Then you could leave film-making behind altogether and cultivat a whole Messiah thing. If you're into that. It could be the subject of a documentary.
Isn't that whole, "uh, I changed my mind" thing, like, written into money-making/money-seeking situations? I agree with Dr. W. (so often! it's scary!): make them give you the money and do something interesting.
This reminds me of how they used to make films in Poland under the Communists: they would submit a script that played up all the standard socialist propaganda, get that script approved, and then make the movie they really wanted to make. It backfired occasionally, but more often than not they would get to make the film they wanted to make without much end-tweaking by the government. (Of course they couldn't go overboard and overt in their criticism of the system, but they got away with a surprising lot.)
Post a Comment