I have certainly learnt a lot from this documentary making experience. I've always been fascinated by this particular method of story telling as it gives you the opportunity to educate others as well as yourself along the way about certain subject matters. It got me properly reading my The Documentary Filmmakers Handbook properly and to keep it at hand at all times, so there's that as well!
The entire process got me thinking an awful lot about team work. There have been countless times where I had to stop myself and just either post the blog entry, or to just scrap it all together as I found myself approaching a rant; never a focused one either. It lead to stress and frustration which is never good to have to deal with if the solution isn't always immediately obvious.
When a job needs done (sometimes several jobs), you need to do them yourself. One team mate, although not particularly great with cameras, tried his absolute best to help. I felt like a teacher during exam time quite a lot which is definitely not an ideal situation when you have something to film. Everything in this regard did, however, work out, through communication and understanding one another of where we were at level-wise. When asked to have certain pieces of work done, it was done promptly and went through it together to ensure that, for example, shot lists and storyboards were appropriate and easy to follow. It all worked out and we're all dead happy about that.
Unfortunately, I can't say the same about everybody involved. The sole reason that the initial idea had to be tweaked a fair bit was due to the fact that the person who was meant to be in charge had slacked; not notifying us significant aspects within a suitable time frame (often this would be late the night before). After a while, it just became stressful and every aspect of the process is deemed a massive chore when we waited on unreliable people. The director should have a vision of what is going to happen, not give us a vague idea and expect us to do everything for him. This was further enraging when we looked at his blog, which was made out to be otherwise.
That said, communication is key. I know, now especially, that if such a major issue such as this occurs again, to directly bring it up to the person we are having the issue with, as it will never be resolved if not. It's the mature and professional thing to do, and it relieves everybody involved all ridiculous amounts of unneeded stress. This person in question did, however, create a very impressive edit which incorporated not only the performative conventions of documentary, but also the crew interaction with the subject and referring to the documentary process that we were currently going through, found in the participatory documentary mode.
On that note, it has been a fascinating process in general in the making of our documentary and, overall, I am pretty pleased with how everything turned out. Of course, there are definitely aspects that I would change for future projects but, on the whole, it turned out rather well. Next time, I would wish to ensure to have far more pre-production and production meetings. I had oganised a few that were outside of class, but I can't really count for any that had everybody on the team there at the same time, which is highly unfortunate. That said, we did get a great deal done as well as fixing our major issues regarding the major subject change. So a significant issue was overcome and for that, I am damn well proud.
Thursday, 23 January 2014
Our DocDrag
Regarding the Contextual blog post that I made recently, our documentary falls under the last category of Performative as we were dealing with the subject of identity. Specifically gender identity in individuals.
I mentioned in a previous post that our idea significantly changed but sort of stayed the same because of certain issues attempting to find our subject matter. I also mentioned that I much preferred this. The subject matter was discovering something brand new to him, exploring just a smidgen of the world of drag in front of a camera for us. It kept with the staged studio appeal that the performance aspect of drag queens have to offer their audience, including posing in front of the camera; being the centre of attention within a studio set that was decorated and lit in a specific way for the subject. It's all rather fake but also a physical exploration of potentially a new side of this same person.
In another segment of our documentary, we had an interview process, where we received the personal views of our subject matter (Glenn Crawford) in regards to drag and gender identity in general. It's great to get a positive response from someone who is not an active member of this kind of community as it sheds a new, positive and most certainly interesting light on this. For this same reason, it also helps the audience to better engage with the subject, as they are also learning this for the first time and can better keep an open mind. It can prove to be incredibly daunting whenever an expert, so to speak, makes personal statements in the form of facts as this can potentially scare the audience or even confuse them. When the likes of our inexperienced subject comes on, he demonstrates an open mind and is easy going; this can help the audience to feel very comfortable and, of course, more than willing to listen to his opinions and open their minds as well.
I mentioned in a previous post that our idea significantly changed but sort of stayed the same because of certain issues attempting to find our subject matter. I also mentioned that I much preferred this. The subject matter was discovering something brand new to him, exploring just a smidgen of the world of drag in front of a camera for us. It kept with the staged studio appeal that the performance aspect of drag queens have to offer their audience, including posing in front of the camera; being the centre of attention within a studio set that was decorated and lit in a specific way for the subject. It's all rather fake but also a physical exploration of potentially a new side of this same person.
In another segment of our documentary, we had an interview process, where we received the personal views of our subject matter (Glenn Crawford) in regards to drag and gender identity in general. It's great to get a positive response from someone who is not an active member of this kind of community as it sheds a new, positive and most certainly interesting light on this. For this same reason, it also helps the audience to better engage with the subject, as they are also learning this for the first time and can better keep an open mind. It can prove to be incredibly daunting whenever an expert, so to speak, makes personal statements in the form of facts as this can potentially scare the audience or even confuse them. When the likes of our inexperienced subject comes on, he demonstrates an open mind and is easy going; this can help the audience to feel very comfortable and, of course, more than willing to listen to his opinions and open their minds as well.
Contextual
Throughout our documentary classes, we've been having screenings of documentary films that fit in each of, what you'd call, the 'Five Modes of Documentary'. Essentially, these are the (sub-)genres of the documentary film so it helps to differentiate them and to put them in more defined groups. Like every genre, however, sometimes they like to overlap, creating hybrids, making for a more interesting watch.
We have:
In Expository, we want to be persuaded into believing everything that we are being fed. In order to achieve this, the conventions used is a voice of God-like narrator enforcing a direct mode of address to engage the audience. This method of address helps to really involve the audience, allowing them to really delve into the film and think about it. There are a great deal of different research and evidence sources incorporated in the film, such as images, archival video footage, radio clips, etc.
We have:
- Expository;
- Observational;
- Participatory/Interactive;
- Reflexive;
- and Performative
In Expository, we want to be persuaded into believing everything that we are being fed. In order to achieve this, the conventions used is a voice of God-like narrator enforcing a direct mode of address to engage the audience. This method of address helps to really involve the audience, allowing them to really delve into the film and think about it. There are a great deal of different research and evidence sources incorporated in the film, such as images, archival video footage, radio clips, etc.
Essentially what this type of documentary wants to do, is to expose the subject that they're dealing with. I've been forced to sit and watch so many UFO programmes to know exactly that they're trying to 'expose' the truth of alien life and what have you, attempting to convince everyone watching. Don't get me wrong; they're actually all pretty interesting. The series Ancient Aliens uses many of these conventions for expository, interviewing a number of authors, scientists, ufologists, and historians among many others to really put across their point, providing as much evidence as possible to back up their points that they want their demographic to really believe and consider for themselves.
Observational is something you'd get on reality TV all the time. Maybe even more so on YouTube when its users videotape their friends being stupid. It captures reality in its purest form and, where there are generally no interviews in solid observational films, obtaining what the subjects do, completely naturally, is an excellent way of learning something new. It's fascinating. We are quietly observing the goings on of the subjects at hand.
Participatory, also known as interactive, borrows from the previous forms of documentary. To state the obvious, the crew interacts with the subject but ensures that the audience is completely aware of this fact. They are generally light hearted in their interviews, ensuring that their subjects are as comfortable as can be and are free to be as natural as they possibly can. This lightheartedness helps to let the audience wish to delve in further; we're all in our comfort zones here because everyone's friendly and everyone's involved, including the audience. It's almost as though they, too, are a part of the process of what's going on. Everyone is participating and interacting with each other.
Now, Reflexive films borrow an awful lot from your typical fiction film. They create a sense of fantasy to an extent to better evoke an emotional response from their audience. They make you think about reality by momentarily plucking you out of reality. Similarly to fiction, we are escaping reality. We get sucked into this form in that way, but then the emotional response that we hand over to it is amplified because we remember that these are, in fact, interviews being played out in a sort of performance. It reflects reality in a fantastical form. We Are Not Afraid takes strongly from this documentary form, where the interviews are performed in such a way that conveys the idea across that the subjects are sharing secrets with the audience. This is done by the interviewees cupping their mouths and whispering beyond the camera, their eyes cut out of frame so their identities are concealed. We, as the audience, are having secrets shared with us and, as a result, our brains are more inclined to listen; we are being trusted with this and we want to the goings on so listen carefully. It's a nice little trick and most certainly goes hand-in-hand with the style of fiction film.
Last, but by no means least, is the Performative mode. This is essentially the lovechild of Participatory and another where the crew interacts and participates. However, the difference is that it tends to heavily concern the creator of the documentary and normally deals with subjects such as identity, such as gender or who they are as a person, as opposed to factual (or supposedly so) topics that the Observational documentaries deal with.
A fantastic documentary that was screened in class falls right into this category. Stories We Tell is a series of interviews and archival footage of the writer/director, Sarah Polley's, family, about her mother. Really, the film is about her identity. She was very young when her mother passed, as we learned, and in her film, it shows both cast and crew communicating with each other even before the action, so to speak, showing the interviewees getting comfortable with the idea that they're being filmed and interviewed. In fact, Polley even directs them how to respond, 'as if [Polley doesn't] know the answer'. The style of this film made it feel easy for the audience to connect with the subject matters, dead keen to learn more themselves.
Last, but by no means least, is the Performative mode. This is essentially the lovechild of Participatory and another where the crew interacts and participates. However, the difference is that it tends to heavily concern the creator of the documentary and normally deals with subjects such as identity, such as gender or who they are as a person, as opposed to factual (or supposedly so) topics that the Observational documentaries deal with.
A fantastic documentary that was screened in class falls right into this category. Stories We Tell is a series of interviews and archival footage of the writer/director, Sarah Polley's, family, about her mother. Really, the film is about her identity. She was very young when her mother passed, as we learned, and in her film, it shows both cast and crew communicating with each other even before the action, so to speak, showing the interviewees getting comfortable with the idea that they're being filmed and interviewed. In fact, Polley even directs them how to respond, 'as if [Polley doesn't] know the answer'. The style of this film made it feel easy for the audience to connect with the subject matters, dead keen to learn more themselves.
Wednesday, 22 January 2014
I Can Read You Like An Open Blog - 1
As I mentioned previously, I've been rather reluctant towards these. It's hard. It makes me feel like I've done nothing so then I feel guilty but, you know what, I've been damn well busy and productive with the process of this film so there's that going for me.
I would read others' blogs from time to time to get a bit of encouragement but, often, this has had the complete opposite effect. Most notably, my team mates.
One, depending on my current mood, normally gives me a giggle, but then I feel bad. It makes me think I do nothing but yell and get angry or frustrated all the time, so that doesn't particularly paint me in a positive light. That said, I have ensured to take the opportunity to talk about this properly, and we're good, so I'm happy.
In One's blog, I've seen evidence of, er, homework I've set him. For example, watching Ed Wood's (terrible) Glen or Glenda? which we also discussed in person. Upon researching it (this is actually annotated and highlighted in my production folder at the start), I found out that it was originally supposed to be about transexuals, although Wood, being an active transvestite himself during a decade where it was much less accepted compared to now, decided to make it on specifically transvestites instead. He wanted to raise awareness in his time, so I wanted to at least touch up on this.
Glen or Glenda? isn't a documentary at all, but rather a semi-autobiographical film to raise just a spot of awareness with a strange combination of Wood's horror elements, most notably the lighting, and involving Dracula narrating. Bizarre. But I digress.
I would read others' blogs from time to time to get a bit of encouragement but, often, this has had the complete opposite effect. Most notably, my team mates.
One, depending on my current mood, normally gives me a giggle, but then I feel bad. It makes me think I do nothing but yell and get angry or frustrated all the time, so that doesn't particularly paint me in a positive light. That said, I have ensured to take the opportunity to talk about this properly, and we're good, so I'm happy.
In One's blog, I've seen evidence of, er, homework I've set him. For example, watching Ed Wood's (terrible) Glen or Glenda? which we also discussed in person. Upon researching it (this is actually annotated and highlighted in my production folder at the start), I found out that it was originally supposed to be about transexuals, although Wood, being an active transvestite himself during a decade where it was much less accepted compared to now, decided to make it on specifically transvestites instead. He wanted to raise awareness in his time, so I wanted to at least touch up on this.
Glen or Glenda? isn't a documentary at all, but rather a semi-autobiographical film to raise just a spot of awareness with a strange combination of Wood's horror elements, most notably the lighting, and involving Dracula narrating. Bizarre. But I digress.
Drawing Blanks
I've been finding it incredibly difficult to write these blogs. I'll open up a blank page to type something up, but then a million things just run through my head all at once, so I just can't focus at all.
What's more important to think about? What can I just skim over? Can I skim over what I see as uninteresting?
But it's good to at least try to start somewhere. It can be daunting if you let it, but it can also be therapeutic if you just let the thoughts flow. However, on that note, it's definitely no good to write when you're angry, frustrated, or under so much stress that you want to cry as a result out of a chicken and egg situation (I love this metaphor).
I'm here to talk about my documentary process, my progress; the subject itself, as well as documentary making in general. Another aspect that's hard is that I've been keeping a little production folder, adding to it from the start and as we went along so a lot of the time, it just seems redundant and a major waste of energy to just type it all up again when it's right there already, you know?
Every time I look at this, I feel that little bit more stressed. Maybe I should have opted for a different subject choice, or a different partner, or who knows what else. Speaking of such, it makes me think of the phrase 'team effort'.
Do you see an 'I' in there? I most certainly don't. I mean, there is an anagram of the word 'me', but you need to take energy to remove the two other letters that aren't needed, so to speak, then put the letters to make 'me' in order. The unneeded letters, I reckon, are 'willingness' and 'helpfulness'. Willingness to be helpful to your crew.
Yup. Though, I was fortunate to have an additional team mate who actually was trying to be willing and did try to be helpful, so I'm really appreciative of that.
Yikes. I'll stop there before I get annoyed again and don't want to write anymore. Either way, this got me in the mood for writing, so hooray!
What's more important to think about? What can I just skim over? Can I skim over what I see as uninteresting?
But it's good to at least try to start somewhere. It can be daunting if you let it, but it can also be therapeutic if you just let the thoughts flow. However, on that note, it's definitely no good to write when you're angry, frustrated, or under so much stress that you want to cry as a result out of a chicken and egg situation (I love this metaphor).
I'm here to talk about my documentary process, my progress; the subject itself, as well as documentary making in general. Another aspect that's hard is that I've been keeping a little production folder, adding to it from the start and as we went along so a lot of the time, it just seems redundant and a major waste of energy to just type it all up again when it's right there already, you know?
Every time I look at this, I feel that little bit more stressed. Maybe I should have opted for a different subject choice, or a different partner, or who knows what else. Speaking of such, it makes me think of the phrase 'team effort'.
Do you see an 'I' in there? I most certainly don't. I mean, there is an anagram of the word 'me', but you need to take energy to remove the two other letters that aren't needed, so to speak, then put the letters to make 'me' in order. The unneeded letters, I reckon, are 'willingness' and 'helpfulness'. Willingness to be helpful to your crew.
Yup. Though, I was fortunate to have an additional team mate who actually was trying to be willing and did try to be helpful, so I'm really appreciative of that.
Yikes. I'll stop there before I get annoyed again and don't want to write anymore. Either way, this got me in the mood for writing, so hooray!
Wednesday, 8 January 2014
It's Aliiiiiiiive!
Oh my good golly gosh I'm actually posting something.
I have a lot to post. First thing's first, which is where we're at now:
The odd significant change occurred which inevitably turned the direction of the documentary on its heel a bit. But only slightly. I'll let it be known why within the next few posts but either way.
Basically, it's not drag anymore. Instead, we've gone into a reality show-esque documentary where the subject tries out cross dressing. Can't really call him a drag queen because, as has been stated in a previous entry, those bais, err, queens even, dress to perform. The subject is then interviewed with a heavy resonance on gender identity as opposed to drag alone.
Honestly? I much prefer this direction. It's something that crosses my mind a hell of a lot and is heavy in society. It's a fascinating topic to think about and everybody has their own opinions on the matter. Thankfully, the subject of the documentary is a good friend of mine who happens to be incredibly open minded and willing to try anything for the experience, so it was a good call to take him on board the project.
Gender identity, as was explored in our interview, should not be a means of labeling a person to define them like a tin of soup, but should be tailored to the individual. That kind of thing. For example, just because a man adorns himself in feminine attire does not necessarily give reason to say that the man is gay. Examples were given in the interview by the subject such as comedian Eddie Izzard and writer/actor Richard O'Brien (mentioned in a post of blogging past) who are both simply (more?) comfortable or just enjoy wearing clothing typically worn by women. They aren't gay, both are married or were married to women and have a family. The exact same goes for a female who wears clothing typically sought after by men. Basically, whoopdedoo. They're happy, I'm happy, I hope you're happy; everyone's happy, so live and let live. There's nothing more to it than that most of the time, which would come to an absolute shocker to many.
With that said, it really is still a taboo topic, and it's definitely worth educating those who are unfamiliar with the matter. As I said earlier, it's certainly interesting to think about.
Like I said, this was actually a rather major change to the production, as it was originally supposed to be on a drag queen but had to be changed to gender identity in general. And, like I said once again, I'm glad this change happened.
Gotta love happy accidents. But, ideally, they still shouldn't be bloody happening.
I have a lot to post. First thing's first, which is where we're at now:
The odd significant change occurred which inevitably turned the direction of the documentary on its heel a bit. But only slightly. I'll let it be known why within the next few posts but either way.
Basically, it's not drag anymore. Instead, we've gone into a reality show-esque documentary where the subject tries out cross dressing. Can't really call him a drag queen because, as has been stated in a previous entry, those bais, err, queens even, dress to perform. The subject is then interviewed with a heavy resonance on gender identity as opposed to drag alone.
Honestly? I much prefer this direction. It's something that crosses my mind a hell of a lot and is heavy in society. It's a fascinating topic to think about and everybody has their own opinions on the matter. Thankfully, the subject of the documentary is a good friend of mine who happens to be incredibly open minded and willing to try anything for the experience, so it was a good call to take him on board the project.
Gender identity, as was explored in our interview, should not be a means of labeling a person to define them like a tin of soup, but should be tailored to the individual. That kind of thing. For example, just because a man adorns himself in feminine attire does not necessarily give reason to say that the man is gay. Examples were given in the interview by the subject such as comedian Eddie Izzard and writer/actor Richard O'Brien (mentioned in a post of blogging past) who are both simply (more?) comfortable or just enjoy wearing clothing typically worn by women. They aren't gay, both are married or were married to women and have a family. The exact same goes for a female who wears clothing typically sought after by men. Basically, whoopdedoo. They're happy, I'm happy, I hope you're happy; everyone's happy, so live and let live. There's nothing more to it than that most of the time, which would come to an absolute shocker to many.
With that said, it really is still a taboo topic, and it's definitely worth educating those who are unfamiliar with the matter. As I said earlier, it's certainly interesting to think about.
Like I said, this was actually a rather major change to the production, as it was originally supposed to be on a drag queen but had to be changed to gender identity in general. And, like I said once again, I'm glad this change happened.
Gotta love happy accidents. But, ideally, they still shouldn't be bloody happening.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)