One of my favourite websites ‘Aint it cool news’ recently listed Tyson as the best documentary of 2009. I watched this in the summer when it was released. There was an extra incentive for me to watch it, as I’m a fan of boxing.

It’s a great documentary, and I would urge you all to watch it. I have a copy of it so let me know.

A huge portion of the documentary is Tyson talking quite honestly and candidly, reflecting on his life. It’s because he’s so controversial that getting his opinion on certain events, gives you an insight into his personality.

There’s excellent use of archival footage & voice over. It’s brilliantly edited, especially the opening sequence with the use of different cuts & images. There’s a montage of different voice-overs, and it perfectly depicts the fragmented personality of Tyson.

I felt certain moments were brilliant especially where Tyson talked about his trainer, Custamato. It depicted how the trainer was more of a father figure to him, but there relationship was a lot deeper. At times he was Tyson’s mentor and even best friend.

I remember how he struggles to talk about him in the interview, and the emotion is evident in his voice. A brilliant piece of film-making!

Although I do follow boxing, it was only after watching this documentary that I was able to see how Tyson dominated the heavyweight division. In boxing today most of the exciting fights are at Welterweight, around ten stones. The heavyweight division is a bore. Tyson was ferocious, and his knock outs made his fights interesting.

The documentary mainly gives you a story of Tyson’s life, with insight on a character you thought you knew. It gave me a story not just about this amazing boxer, who plunged into the pitfalls of celebrity culture. But a young man, who never had anyone around him he could trust. He was manipulated, and suffered a rough childhood that he still struggles to overcome today.

Some of the other documentaries that were listed were:

2. ANVIL! THE STORY OF ANVIL

3. BEST WORST MOVIE

4. THE COVE

5. AN UNLIKELY WEAPON

6. THE SEPTEMBER ISSUE

7. FOOD INC.

8. WINNEBEGO MAN

9. HARVARD BEATS YALE 29-29

10. THE YES MEN SAVE THE WORLD

11. HERB & DOROTHY

12. WALT & EL GRUPO

13. WE LIVE IN PUBLIC

14. EVERY LITTLE STEP
15. THE BEACHES OF AGNES


I recently watched James Cameron’s AVATAR, which was very impressive. It’s the first time I’ve seen a film in 3D, and so the experience was very captivating. AVATAR is an experience, and the visuals are mesmerizing.

Most people were a bit apprehensive about the story of the film. They felt the story would be neglected in favour of the special effects. At the time I rejected this notion given James Cameron’s track record, with the likes of Terminator 1 & Terminator 2 and Aliens.

However, I felt the story development throughout the film was lets just say, intact. There wasn’t much character development, and Sam Worthington is a dull actor. Certain elements of the story were trying to reflect current issues regarding oil and the war in Iraq.

I suppose that with a film of this magnitude, it’s going to be a bit difficult for James Cameron to convince the studios financing the film. A film created in this type of technology, with the attention to the visual detail something was going to have to be compromised.

It just makes me wonder how difficult THE MATRIX would have been to make a few years ago. Not only was the film a revolutionary film in terms of technology, but it also seemed to explore mostly everything about philosophy.

It’s quite evident that films are now being revolutionized by technological developments like IMAX and now 3D.

Within a couple of years this new technology will prompt filmmakers to take this technology into consideration when producing films. In rare cases this technology will be used to good effect. Some filmmakers won’t need to restrict their artistic vision as they’ll have the technology to accommodate it.

However, there’s a fat chance of that happening. The most likely thing to happen is the likes of Transformers 3 being shot in 3D and IMAX, and style over substance.

This is my one minute experimental movie, with all the footage from Helmdon. I had originally had this idea when making the three minute documentary. You can see some of my rough footage in an earlier post. However, I realised that it didn’t comply with the theme of the documentary.

Tarkosky stated that cinema was in an unhappy state because it relies on money to survive. Although these comments were perhaps a very long time ago, they’re still relevant today.

Many filmmakers find themselves having to restrict their creativity, and artistic expression in order to be commercially viable.

Films that struggled to ever see the light of day include, the likes of ‘The Fountain’, ‘Being John Malkovich’ and ‘American Beauty. They were only made because of the reputable filmmakers that took charge of them.

Most films and/ or filmmakers find themselves in a difficult state, as major studios won’t fund them. I used to blame studios for all the poor films that I was tortured with over the years. But now I’m not so sure it’s black and white.

Are the producers responsible for these crap films? Or are they just catering to the public?

It comes back to the nature vs nurture. We can argue a possibility that due to the mindless films that have been produced over the years, has now resulted in audiences being accustomed to watching poor films.

In my opinion films like Bad Boys, Transformers, Triple X may be poor films, but we can’t deny that they gross a lot of money.

Producers would argue that the public wouldn’t watch certain films that have experimental elements such as the ones mentioned above, and would argue that these kind of films don’t sell as much.

However, if mindless films continue to populate cinemas then how can we expect people to appreciate different films.

It’s not just feature filmmakers that find themselves in this position, but also documentary filmmakers are also found having to censor most of their material to suit the needs of the producer.

The marketing of a film is also something Tarkosky mentions and today films are sold like a product. Today you see a film advertised in fastfood restaurants like McDonalds, breakfast boxes like cornflakes, toys, consumerism and capitalism have infiltrated the cinematic arts.

Another point worth mentioning is how he mentions a film’s success is dependant on how much money it makes. A film like The Shawshank Redemption, or There Will Be Blood didn’t gross much money at all, but there’s no denying that they are classic films. ‘Good films are not seen by the masses’

To reflect on the whole process, I want to split the report into three sections. This will be completed by briefly discussing all three elements of production.

Firstly, the pre-production was perhaps most least difficult of all three stages. Most of my experience and background stems from this area. Research and generating ideas are some of my strong points. An area where I felt challenged was during the recce in Helmdon, which was mostly due to the time constraints on that particular day.

Originally I was set on the vicar being the main subject for my documentary. However, the main problem I recognised was that his story did not have a structure. My writing background allowed me to recognise that each story needs a beginning, middle and end. This is when Caroline King’s story appealed to me. I could see an arch in her story, and also I found it resonated with me. When visiting the village I instantly started comparing it with the city.

As Caroline has experienced both lifestyles, she made the ideal person to give an interesting perspective on village life.

Preparing questions for the interview required me to work out how I could bring an interesting answer. Trying to get the interviewee to expand on questions was my main objective that worked quite well.

The day of production and the filming process was very strenuous. The main difficulty was the unexpected funeral on that was on the day of filming. This restricted me filming certain areas of the village, which would have been useful in cutaways.

Lastly the post-production stage arrived when I came to digitize the footage.

The main problem that I encountered was that the full interview lasted for thirty-five minutes. In this whole duration, I became quite biased in what I wanted to show. This was overcome because; I referred back to my original notes, along with my treatment for the documentary.

This method allowed me to truncate certain segments that may not have contributed to the story. And also did not correlate with what I wanted to say.

In conclusion the whole production was very insightful. The experience allowed me to take a closer look at myself, and highlighted certain areas in my production skills that can be improved.

The final edit was completed yesterday, and earlier today I screened it to the class. I received some very positive feedback from my colleagues, and from both Nick & Karen.

Some considerations that went into this edit:

*) After the first edit, something which stuck out like a sore thumb was the transitions. Most of my cuts were faded to black, and although they may have worked for the experimental introduction they didn’t work for the entire piece. I recognised that in all television and film, you’ll almost never see a fade to black apart from in the beginning and the end.

*) There were also minimal cutaways used in the interview. I thank Jenny for allowing me to use the cutaway of the sheep

*) In the first edit, I tried to be a little experimental and immerse the viewer with the introduction I created. However, from most of the reactions led me to believe that people didn’t understand it. So I discarded it the whole piece, and instead used the images for cutaways in the interview. This worked really well, as the cutaways worked in a narrative image system. The empty streets, green fields, empty benches complimented the mass observation theme. For a final scene, I chose to place a close up of Caroline pouring in a cup of tea. Main focus was on the cup being full, which I tried to use as her & the residents being content with their lives in the village. You could say that there was a double narrative, one which was Caroline’s story, and the second was my perception of the village.

I was amazed at the depth and clarity of this footage. It surprised me that it was shot on a still camera. It’s only a matter of time to see these being used in film or documentary production. It might be able to add to certain elements, and enhance the viewing experience.

A good example of how technology can be used to enhance the story is the film Collateral. The director Michael Mann used a digital camera to capture the city lights, and gave it a more authentic look.

I wanted to do things a little differently, and bring a different approach to showing the village. Most people would try and just shoot the village, and that’s it.

My theme was to compare the city life and village, and therefore I chose to experiment with the sound. When I visited the village, the silence was very palpable. I chose to show the scenes of village, and then to use the sound of busy streets and people talking. I needed this to be very loud, as I wanted to immerse the viewer, and make them slightly uncomfortable with the sound.

People often neglect experimentation, but it’s important to try and use everything at your disposal to try and create a feeling. Remember the interview with the three Mexican directors, how Alejandro Gonzalez Inarittu taught the other two filmmakers that form can enhance the story telling.

He also then talks about how in Babel, he used different elements to enhance the storytelling. He used an anamorphic lens to shoot the footage of the Japanese girl, so that everything else would be out of focus. This was in attempt to show the character’s isolation. If you haven’t seen the interview, check it out

Here it is:

Editing is quite frustrating at times, and I find myself going crazy. Trying to cut 30 minutes to 3 minutes and retain credible and insightful material is challenging.

My tips would be that you’ve got to ask yourself questions about why you’re including certain segments. You have divorce yourself from the material, and switch to being a member of the audience. This process is constant. I’d often joke with friends how you have to be a schizophrenic and switch between both artist and audience.

Ask yourself:

*) Is the material your showing in any way relevant? Could it be shorter to fit the duration? Television is quite strict about duration being exact

*) Find a structure.. by that I mean a beginning, middle and end.

*) Look back at your treatment, and ask yourself why did you originally choose this subject for your documentary? What appealed to you then, and what are you trying to show?

*) If you have a long segment try and cut from the beginning or the end, you sometimes find the main crux of what you’re trying to show maybe in the middle

*) For cutaways you don’t always have to show the person. You can use imagery that presents a contrast to the subject or talking point. For example you can if someone is talking about the village, if you show busy streets I think this works too.

*) IMPORTANT – Ken mentioned how when you have finished your edit, burn a copy onto DVD, and watch your documentary on the TV. This will allow you to identify any problems with sound or picture.

Published by Routledge London

I recently read the above book, which was in the library. I had mentioned Stella Bruzzi in an earlier post, as she’s most notorious for her open criticism of the modes of documentary.

Reading her book I found some interesting quotes that she has used, and they make interesting talking points.

Nichols on documentary:

‘ None of these modes expel previous modes; instead they overlap and interact. The terms are partly heuristic and actual films usually mix different modes although one mode will normally be dominant’ (Nichols 1994:95)

Stella states that:

‘if this is the case what is the point for constructing genealogical tables?’

I however disagree with her criticism of Nichols, because it’s always important to define structures that have been in place. Even if those structures overlap with each other. When making documentaries the film-maker must have an idea of the mode of documentary in which, he or she wants to operate within. If there were no modes available, this could lead to the individual filming raw footage, that gives no insight or depth.

As creative artists, if we set no boundaries for ourselves, we can spiral out of control. It’s similar to when writing a screenplay, if I don’t define a genre I will lose control of what can happen. This is not to say that creativity can’t be applied, and also other genres can inter-link. But it’s important to define a structure at first.

ERIK BARNOUW (1993:287)

‘To be sure, some documentaries claim to be objective – a term that seems to renounce an interpretive role. The claim maybe strategic, but it is surely meaningless. The documentarist like any communicator in any medium makes endless choices. He (sic) selects topics, people, vistas, angles lens, juxtapositions, sounds, words. Each selection is an expression of his point of view, whether he acknowledges it or not’

This quote that was used was quite insightful. The author used this to highlight how individuals are involved too much or become lost in representing a type of reality, ultimately the integrity of that reality is lost.

Most documentary lovers that I have met often neglect to give any type of acknowledgement. They argue that the filmmakers fabricate stories; in an attempt to create emotion and that documentaries are able to capture ‘real emotion’. However, we are able to articulate from the above quote that even documentaries to some extent tamper with reality.

This further brings the argument to BAZIN vs BAUDRILLARD.

BAZIN felt that reality could be recorded, whereas BAUDRILLARD felt that even reality itself is just another image.

The pact between documentary, reality and spectator is far more straightforward than these theorists make out

That a documentary will never be reality nor will it erase or invalidate that reality by being representational. Furthermore, the spectator is not in need of signposts and inverted commas to understand that a documentary is a negotiation between reality on one hand and image, interpretation and bias on the other – page 4

The book also gave an interesting answer to help me with a problem I had in trying to define a genre. In a previous post I had mentioned how I’d watched the family. I felt it was a stereotypical representation of Asians, and I disliked the label of documentary beside it.

Stella states how this genre is called ‘docusoap’, and it originally derives from the Observational mode. It’s sole purpose is to entertain, rather than focus on social issues.

I also enjoyed how she dissected the subgenre, by the following

*) Personalities who enjoy performing for the camera

We see this all the time on television. You often see contestants on The Apprentice, none of which possess actual business acumen. They just enjoy the limelight of being on television. The Family also has the same feel about people who are consciously aware they are being filmed, and therefore purposefully perform.

*) Soap like fast editing

When you watch a documentary, you notice how the editing lets you absorb what’s going on. There’s a constant focus letting your eyes breathe. The kino-eye as Vertov would explain needs to be able to register what’s happening. However, if you have footage of no substance, and none of which doesn’t really interest viewers then it’s fast editing that creates a diversion.

*) A prominent guiding voice-over

‘any idiot can write voice over narration to explain the thoughts of a protagonists’

This above quote is taken from the film Adaptation starring Nicholas Cage.

Voice-overs are a great tool at times, when they add to what’s being seen. You can use them to add insight or wit to the footage. However, there’s an overuse of it in the docusoap. For example, if there’s a character and she’s sad, they’ll show her upset, and then they’ll tell us that ‘Christine is upset at….’

Whatever happened to SHOW DON’T TELL….

*) A focus on everyday lives rather than underlying social issues

‘The Family’ was originally made in 1974 by Paul Watson, and was shown on the BBC. I never watched it then so I’m basing my comments more on what I’ve seen.

As filmmakers ourselves, we need to consciously avoid this trap. It’s important to have a character but our material can be a lot better if there’s an underlying social issue in the character’s story.

Lastly, I just want to finish with bringing your attention to some quotes from the book:

“The word ‘documentary’ used to carry connotations of authority, gravity and probity. Today, the word has shed it’s original meaning. Much of the material being paraded as ‘documentary’ has only the most tenuous link with the factual events it claims to examine or reappraise” – (Sweeting 1998) pg79

“Documentaries were once cherished by broadcasters because they fascinated us and contributed to our understanding of the world….Today, documentaries are cherished because they entertain”

“It would be ironic if, at this time of greatest popularity, the documentary genre was dying for want of genuine curiosity and passion (dale 1998:17)

‘Documentary becomes what you do when you have failed’ – stella bruzzi