Blurring the line- Part I

I am going to repost a couple of posts that I made awhile back about something in which I am very interested: filmmakers walking the line between narrative and documentary filmmaking (and I'm not talking "reality" TV).   This is an issue that keeps coming up and since I have a lot more readers than I did when I originally made these posts, I thought it would be good to put the discussion out there again.  There are interesting ideas being tried out there by people like Soderbergh, Herzog and others.

This post is originally from December 2008 and was titled, "WWD?"



I attended the International Documentary Association's annual awards recently. Werner Herzog received a lifetime achievement award. His acceptance was brief, but to the point. Documentary filmmakers need to break out of "outdated" modes developed during the 1950's-60's (that would be direct cinema) in order to reach current audiences. The reception to that advice, to me anyway, seemed, um, subdued. It's been a hard year.

I've been somewhat disappointed to discover that there are still a significant number of documentary filmmakers who consider other modes of storytelling as not being "real" documentary. Or, that many are still wedded to the idea of the documentary filmmaker as the noble underdog reporter of facts that represent the "Truth." Personally, I find it offensive that we live in a society where basic reporting of current events and issues (essential to maintaining a functioning democracy) has been abdicated to essentially poorly funded volunteers. Worse, those poorly funded volunteers have been made to feel like they have to limit their creativity to "objective" journalistic standards that many of the established for-profit media sources even no longer feel compelled to follow.

What is true is that while the number of documentary films being made are multiplying, the audience does not seem to be there for this explosion of films. The host Morgan Spurlock, who has a better handle on popular storytelling than most, mocked himself by pointing out that "Where in the World is Osama Bin Laden?" grossed $384K domestically, while "Beverly Hills Chihuahua" grossed $92M. I should point out that I know several intelligent people who would, without question, rather watch a talking animal movie rather than any documentary.

Happily, both of the feature award winners offered less than "traditional" storytelling. "Man on a Wire" uses extensive re-enactments, which seems to be controversial with a surprising number of people 20 years after the "Thin Blue Line" and 80 years after "Nanook."

More interestingly, the co-winner "Waltz with Bashir," is an animated documentary. I highly recommend seeking it out. The opening put me off a little but by the end of the film I was completely engaged. The animation creates a distance from the actual people involved in the events while at the same time, it also draws the viewer in. I still cannot explain exactly why. Maybe our defenses are lower with animation than with actual video of conflict and atrocities. Maybe we don't judge animated "characters" as hard as actual participants and are more receptive to their story. Perhaps the participants themselves were able to be more uncertain and real, less defensive, knowing that their actual image wouldn't be used. As a result, the filmmaker is able to subtly communicate many traumatic truths and the nature of memory when trying to recall these types of events.


My point is that filmmakers must become more creative in their stories and their storytelling. Audiences have become more sophisticated and jaded, whether we like it or not. If we want to reach them, and quite possibly even make a living doing it (remember that the people who created direct cinema all made a living doing their work--if we want to survive, we need to make money to film another day), we need to talk to them and not at them. I don't think that it's an accident that some of the most consistently successful documentary filmmakers of the last 25 years, Moore, Morris, Herzog are among the most non-traditional and innovative. If an intelligent effort is made, people will watch (although Iraq burnout seemed to sink "Standard Operating Procedure"--it grossed $229K domestically). There will always be a place for the direct cinema type of documentary; see my post about "La Vida Loca." It would just be a lot more interesting for it not to be nearly the only storytelling model used by filmmakers.

Other notable films that innovate with their storytelling?? "Bus 174" (in my opinion, one of the most important films of the past 20 years) and "Stevie" are two outstanding examples. I would even propose looking at some of Chris Marker's work, even his fiction work ("Sans Soleil"), for potentially innovative documentary storytelling models.

Buy this film.

These are hard times for filmmakers, just like the rest of the world. Funding and distribution seem to be more distant than ever. I know many people who have barely worked since August, and before that there was the writer's strike. The economy is in complete turmoil, class divisions are greater than at any point in recent history and we seem to have burned our bridges to many possible solutions in the past 8 years. As creative people, it seems like we have nothing to lose. We are funding ourselves, donating equipment and time....why aren't we telling our stories in our own way? It seems like this is the perfect time to innovate and be free to actually have a vision.

Here is one definition of documentary film: A non-fiction film that uses a minimal amount of re-enactments or fictionalization in order to present some kind of truth about its subject.
Non-fiction is defined as: the events portrayed in the film are/were in some sense "real." Truth: not necessarily based on facts; reveals some detail or experience that can be understood as "true" to someone. I like a lot about this definition. The one area that I still think about, and question, is how much fictionalization (and of what type) and recreation is acceptable for a film to still be considered a documentary. I come down more on the side of more as opposed to less, as long as it effectively communicates truths, personal, perceived, impressionistic or otherwise. I think that I'd rather have less facts and more truth, as opposed to the shovels of facts, with little truth, that we are fed every day by the mainstream media.

So, What Would Werner Do? This is an extract from an August 19, 2005 interview with the Austin Chronicle:
AC: In your nonfiction work, we see a blending of fictionalized moments and what we think of as conventional documentary technique. You spoke at Sundance about staging a scene with a droplet of water, glycerin, actually –
WH: The water drop scene and the dialogue that I purely invented is in The White Diamond.
But your question is somehow poking into what is documentary for me. I'm after some deeper truth [rather] than just facts. To find some sort of ecstasy of truth, I stylize, I fabricate, I stage, I invent dialogue all over the place. So when you speak about documentaries, do it with a necessary caution....

Cinematography Light

OMG.  Thank you, Ben, for pointing out this great feed.   I've been doing a lot of color grading lately and reading it is making me (kind of) miss carrying around 70 pounds of camera equipment in the mud and rain.   And all the random things that happen while doing so, like being attacked by birds of prey.

Anyway, back to what inspired this post, this one is for all the devotees of camera test porn.  It's not what you're probably expecting.

There is a moment in Cleo de 5 a 7, where Corinne Marchand is in a cab and the camera is handheld on her.  At one point the cab turns and the camera, seeing an interesting passer-by, pauses for just an split second on that passer-by before panning back to Marchand.  Totally by instinct and total genius.

Trust

When's my movie deal?

The name of this article says it all, Thanks to All Those Shills on Twitter and Facebook, People Don't Trust Their Friends Anymore.  Now, hurry up and sell your camcorder that you use to mostly make web video or DVD's and buy a RED.  Or is it, sell your RED and buy a DSLR to shoot a documentary?  Sell your DSLR and buy an entire 3D work-flow?  Then, spend every waking moment learning twisted work-flows for each new product out there that has been social-media marketed directly to producers and directors by a blog/twitter feed/Facebook friend, etc. that they follow.

I almost choked the first time I saw an ad on Craigslist looking for a DP to include a RED with lenses in their day rate.  Are there that many of those cameras out there already?  Don't get me wrong, I love all the technological advancements of the past few years.  It's truly an amazing time to be a creative person, but I always have to stop and ask myself "what's in it for me?"  Will it help me pay my rent?  Will it make me creative in a way that the technology that I am currently using can't?  Would I be happier spending a little of that time, money and energy on life, my family and friends?  And, what's in it for the people pimping the dream?  Sometimes it feels as though we have so thoroughly internalized all the hype that we are doing the manufacturers marketing for them.  That wouldn't be of the plan, would it?  Hopefully, there is more for us to aspire to be, as individuals, than unique brand identities cross marketing with other brands.

3D Converges on Us

Technology marches on at an amazing pace.  I will be focusing this year on how to integrate storytelling into interactivity and multi-platform delivery rather than worrying about more new technology to buy.  3D, literally, gives me headaches.  I think engaging the audience is more important than employing another technology to enhance the passive viewing experience.

I can't wait for the first 3D wedding videography.

Indie Apocalypse

For a particularly bleak outlook for independent film, check out this article, extracts from the diary kept by director John Hillcoat during the making of The Road.   The diary ends with this epilogue:

My own new project – with a much-loved script by Nick Cave and a dream all-star cast – has fallen apart. The finance company that we began The Road with has also fallen apart, having to radically downsize to one remaining staff member. The great divide has begun, with only very low-budget films being made or huge 3-D franchise films – the birth of brand films such as Barbie, Monopoly: The Movie – who knows what’s next, Coca-Cola: The Movie?

I end the year appropriately – gazing into the apocalypse of my own industry.

Nice analysis here of the backstory on Cinemablend.  Further signs that the only indie films will be no-budget this year?  While I do think we shouldn't extrapolate too much from the emotional state of one obviously very tired director, I do believe that it is time for the non-mainstream cinema to embrace change and to embrace its changing audience and new economic circumstances.  The cinematic experience, as it is currently exists, is over a century old and stuck in the past.  Funding/distribution?  Maybe not as old of a model, but rooted in an outdated command and control mentality (I am being extremely polite here) that seems destined for a shake-up, analogous to what the record industry went through during the past decade.

Old and New

My New Year's resolution is to spend less time running to keep up with technology and finding more time to creatively explore the technologies to which I already have access.  Speaking of old technology, I finally got to operate a carbon arc lamp recently (thank you, Corwin Nunes at Mole Richardson).  The light that they generate is incredible.  It wraps around faces beautifully and creates incredible eye highlights, little teeny diamonds.   No creepy HMI spectral discontinuities, just pure lighting goodness.  Sigh. 

I also got to go to screen dailies for a project that I worked on that was shot in 35mm on the new Fuji Vivid Eterna 500.  It is a quite nice stock. It's color reproduction struck me as a little more subdued than with the Vision 3, with very subtle flesh tone gradations, especially to black.  Word that I heard is that Fuji is committed to film (it is a very small part of their overall business) for the long-term.  It's nice to remind yourself of the subtle joys of "analog" now and then.

Next week I will be color grading my first 5D Mark II project (the same camera that took this still).  I'm very curious as to how well it will hold up.

Dogs on a skateboard

God I just love that dog on a skateboard. Hang on baby, Friday's coming.

My current favorite blog, The Business Insider, has been providing an ongoing analysis of the current state of (the lack of) monetizing online content. It looks at Google/YouTube, Hulu, et al. using real numbers to give the state of the art. The bad news? No one, including the big boys, are making money off of content. And the heralded democratization of content creation brought about by online distribution? It says, "content creation is expensive, it takes talent, and lowering barriers for the creation of crap only provides you with more crap." So, professional content isn't making money and we are sinking in a sea of crap made by amateur (or amateurish) content creators, what hope is there? According to the article, "whatever golden tomorrow video may acheive, it won't be driven by the major media companies, at least not in the foreseeable future." Hmmmm, wait a minute. Where's the money going to come from to create the new paradigm, if not from deep pockets or inspired individuals?

The article is deja vu, all over again. It could have been written a few years ago, verbatim. So, why does it seem like we're going nowhere, fast? No one, including a lot of really smart (and well-paid) people, seem to be able to answer that question. The article, while flawed, does raise some good points and is definitely worth a read. For me, another question is, are we starting to approach the end of "free?" Today, Rupert Murdoch announced that all of his publications worldwide will begin charging for certain content. I expect other major online content providers will follow in kind.

Will they succeed? A couple of things seem apparent. First, people don't seem willing to pay for online content alone. They expect some kind of added value. Content creators who can come to terms with that in a big way (and figure out what is the "added value" that people are willing to pay for) will at least survive until this is all sorted out. The other thing, which I repeat over and over again, is that somebody has to pay something somewhere for the content we create. I know it sounds obvious but there are armies of people out there working for free, or close to it, to create content that is not innovative or particularly interesting. Emulating what exists already may be gratifying, "Look, I can do that too," but ultimately is slow death. Unless, you are willing to have another job to subsidize your creativity. But, if you're footing your own bill, why make watered down garbage that emulates TV?

Pure pleasure

Soul Bruise 2009

I used to be an exhibiting painter, when I lived up in San Francisco. I stopped some years ago. Today I painted for the first time in quite some time. I forgot how good it felt to be able to just create. No script, director, crews, actors, sets and equipment to be arranged. Just me, my brushes, paper and paint.

Wannabe

In the last three issues of HD Video Pro magazine, they've tracked the progress of Adam Cultraro, as he directed his first low-budget feature (Corrado). It's an interesting enough article that follows him from pre-pro through post. However, at the end of the last article he gives some pointed opinions about wannabe filmmakers that struck a chord with me (mostly because film people are almost universally unwilling to give frank opinions in writing): "On a broad scale, don't give too much credence to people's opinions, because in this business, very few people want to see you succeed. If you read filmmaking blogs and threads, you will see that most people trying to make indie films are self-defeaters....The kinds of people who succeed in filmmaking are people who don't stand in their own way."


Online, I definitely see a lot of that self-defeating behavior happening, especially with equipment obsession. The "perfect" camera does not exist and, even if it did, it won't make your film more engaging, intelligent or beautiful any more than the most expensive hammer is going to make a more beautiful or functional building. Or, buying another piece of software. Or.... I also run into people who have really good projects, and have completely thought them through, but when it comes to putting the rubber to the road find a million little reasons to keep slowing it down or be diverted from actually starting to film. As far as other people not wanting you to succeed, I guess in one way it's not really that different from any other competitive field. However, narrative filmmaking does seem to be a special combination of collaboration and vicious competitiveness.

I guess this post is really reflecting my own state of mind right now. It's been a little while since I've completed any personal projects. I have a couple of substantial projects right now in which I have a lot of time invested that, for various reasons (some good and some not), may or may not happen. I am itching to just make something. Ultimately, managing and maintaining your focus seems to be the greatest skill that a filmmaker can have.

More ridiculousness

That's a crystal sync, super 16, Bolex EBM with a built-for-danger sound barney.

Sorry, you'll have to go here or here if you want to follow the latest from Red's PR trail. This is good reading if you want a Red non-believer's perspective. And if you're in the mood for a contrarian opinion about DSLR video, click here. These are some pretty good arguments for shooting in film (add the words "data extinction" to your vocabulary). I am in techno-burnout and am feeling more focused on images and story than data rates, data management or resolution right now.

Sublimely Ridiculous

Yes, that is an 8 year old PD100. And, yes, we had a blast. The camera was quite helpful in reviewing the moves we made with the camera head and dolly.

Crazy times

Crazy times can foster amazing art. Not always, but just maybe your time is coming. It's up to you, not an international media conglomerate.

Do the Madison

I need to post these to clear my head from all the techno-babble that has been polluting my brain.

Godard.



Kopple.



Passion and intellect. Now I feel better.

The Kopple photo hangs in my office for inspiration. It always makes me flash to that moment in Harlan County when the strikebreaker points his gun at the camera, pauses, decides not to shoot, and then keeps on driving. Which side are you on?