Mark T Doc Manifesto

May 14, 2008 at 7:39 pm · Filed under dm8106 and tagged: dm8106

Documentary Manifesto

 

Mark Tollefson

DM 8103: Documentary Studies II

Instructor: Blake Fitzpatrick

February 18, 2008

 

 

 

1.  Don’t be a bore. 

There’s nothing wrong with being entertaining.  I believe the current renaissance of documentary’s popularity owes much to the fact that there are many recent works which are populist and fun.  As John Corner notes “… a performative, playful element has developed strongly in documentary production.  This is evident not only in documentary styling (including the much wider scope given to musical accompaniment) but also in such features as the degree of self-consciousness now often displayed by the participants in observational sequences.  This naturalism, often highly implausible when subject to close analysis, was nevertheless considered as one founding marker of documentary integrity” (Corner, 2007:  5).  With so many alternatives to “talking heads” there is no excuse for documentary makers to make their audiences yawn.

 

2. Don’t shoot prematurely.  

You have to know what you’re shooting.  The number one cause of an unfocussed documentary project is a lack of research.  In many cases you may not get a second chance to interview somebody if you blow it the first time.  You may miss important visuals because you weren’t in the right place at the right time with the right equipment.  It is particularly difficult to shape a story in the editing room when the most basic narrative elements weren’t considered when the footage was being shot.

 

3. Don’t be a dinosaur. 

Embrace new technology.  As Bill Nichols observed, “To some extent, each mode of documentary representation arises in part through a growing sense of dissatisfaction among filmmakers with a previous mode.  In this sense the modes do convey some sense of documentary history.  The observational mode of representation arose, in part, from the availability of mobile 16mm cameras and magnetic tape recorders in the 1960s”  (Nichols, 2001:  100).  Just as those portable film cameras revolutionized the documentary project, so does HD digital media.  Documentary makers should make the most of the new opportunities for capturing, manipulating, exhibiting and distributing images in the digital domain.

4. Don’t waste drive space. 

With great new technology comes great new responsibility.  In the past, film stock was expensive and only available in 10 minute rolls.  This enforced a certain degree of discipline when planning documentary shoots.  Analog tape relaxed that discipline with a cheaper, 30 minute capability.  However, editors were forced to scan through hours of often unusable footage; consequently the process got harder instead of easier.  Now that there is practically unlimited and randomly accessible media, it is crucial to remember the discipline of the 10 minute film roll.  You want to spend your time editing, not sifting through hours of chaff for the hidden gems.

 

5. Don’t dumb it down. 

Sometimes there can be complexity in simplicity; the Maysles’ SALESMEN, according to Stella Bruzzi “…possessed grandiloquence beyond its superficial mundanity” (Bruzzi, 2000:  129). Although it is important that your audience can understand the concepts in your documentary, give them some credit.  Most people who watch documentaries are used to a reasonably rigorous level of discourse.  You are more likely to alienate them with a lack of sophistication rather than a surplus.  In this digital age, if people don’t understand something it’s easy to pause, back up and watch it again. 

 

6. Don’t tell lies. 

Even little white lies are dangerous.  Without documentary’s claim to some degree of authenticity, it shrivels and dies.  Be especially careful with the use of “dramatic reenactments.”  When Errol Morris made use of typical and stereotypical imagery in THE THIN BLUE LINE he made a decision to cross a line, according to Bill Nichols:  “By moving from the register of ‘authentic’ to that of ‘generally typical,’ Morris creates a minor dissonance that upsets our usual assumptions about the historical authenticity of what we see.  It is but a small step to realize that the conventions of documentary themselves guarantee the authenticity of that to which they refer” (Nichols, 1993: 179).  It is important to be extremely clear about the status of reenactments; are they based on witness testimony, informed conjecture or hearsay?  The audience has a right to know.

 

7. Don’t be greedy. 

Be willing to sign smaller exhibition deals but more of them.  Showing your documentary on ten specialty channels will reach a wider range of people than holding out in the hopes of signing one conventional broadcaster.  Show it for free at as many forums as you can.  Once it is a few years old, make it available as a streaming video on the web.  Documentaries are meant to be seen, and all your hard work is for naught if it sits on a shelf.

 

 

 

 

 

 

8. Don’t steal. 

Credit everything and everyone in your documentary, right down to the smallest detail.  This is not only because it is the right thing to do, but also to give future researchers the tools to track the movement of ideas and images.  As visual information becomes increasingly immortal, this will become increasingly important.  Post an exhaustive credit list on the Internet Movie Database (IMDB).

 

9. Don’t confuse engagement with immersion. 

The relationship between documentary makers and their subjects is fraught with peril.  The “other”, that which is being observed as different, cannot be validly documented if the observer gets too close.  This fine line is described by Hal Foster:  “… a reductive over-identification with the other is not desirable either.  Far worse, however, is a murderous disidentification from the other.  Today the cultural politics of left and right seem stuck at this impasse.  To a great extent the left over-identifies with the other as victim …. To a much greater extent the right disidentifies from the other, which it blames as victim, and exploits this disidentification to build political solidarity through fantasmatic fear and loathing.  Faced with this impasse, critical distance might not be such a bad idea after all”  (Foster, 1996: 203).  It is unlikely that anyone will ever be accused of having too much critical distance from their subject; quite the reverse is true of having a lack of critical distance.

 

10. Don’t be shy. 

Talk about your work.  Walker Evans describes how his relationship with Lincoln Kirstein helped clarify and focus his work:  “Kirstein was an aggressive, quite unrestrained young man …. He invaded you; you either had to throw him out or listen to him.  Oddly enough, what happened was that (Kirstein) was teaching me something about what I was doing – it was a typical Kirstein switcheroo, all permeated with spirit, flash, dash and a kind of seeming high jinks that covered a really penetrating intelligence about and articulation of all esthetic matters and their contemporary applications.  It’s hard to believe, but as I say the man was essentially explaining to me just what I was doing in my work” (Evans in Katz, 1971: 359-340).   It’s important to not only do good work, but also to analyze that work.  Being able to discuss it with a second party is crucial to that analysis.

 

 

Endnotes.

 

 

Bruzzi, Stella (2000).  “New Documentary.”  New York, Routledge.

Corner, John (2007).  “Documentary in a Post-Documentary Culture? A Note on Forms and their Functions.”  Available December, 2007. (http:/www.1boro.ac.uk/research/changing.media/John%20Corner%20paper.htm)

Katz, Leslie (1971).  “An Interview with Walker Evans,” in Vickie Goldberg (Ed.) Photography in Print:  Writings from 1816 to the Present. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Foster, Hal (1996).  “The Artist as Ethnographer.”  In The Return of the Real:  The Avant-Garde at the End of the Century – An October Book.  Cambridge:  The MIT Press.

Nichols, Bill (1993).  “ ‘Getting to Know You …’:  Knowledge, Power and the Body.” In Renov, M. (Ed.), Theorizing Documentary.  New York and London: Routledge.

Nichols, Bill (2001).  “What Types of Documentary Are There?”  In Introduction to Documentary.  Bloomington & Indianapolis:  Indiana University Press.

Comments (1)