New Year New Research

Hello, I am back for another year of research, filming, and post-production. It's been a long time since I've written on my blog and I'd like to admit that I have grown a lot from what I once knew (media-wise) I'd like to tell you guys how I prepared and researched how to follow the correct conventions of a documentary. 

When Ms.Stoklosa first introduced documentaries, she discussed the different types of interviews, direct and indirect. Direct interviews are when the audience can hear the interviewer ask questions to the subject, this is mainly used when the subject doesn't or can't provide a lot of information on their own (like children). Indirect interviews are when the audience can't hear the interviewer asking questions and the subject tells their story, this method is usually preferred with adults because it makes the documentary seem more natural and raw. She also mentioned the need for a B-roll (footage that plays over the interview to cover jump cuts and keep viewers engaged), However, I already knew this from other classes. 

Once the lesson part was over we went on to view (what I didn't know would be the best documentary i have ever seen), American Promise. This documentary helped me truly understand how complicated and time-consuming making a documentary can be. This doc followed two kids, Idris Brewster and his best friend, Seun. The filmmakers of this doc are Idris's parents. The documentary spans over 13 years, as the audience watches firsthand how the kids grow up. The documentary uses direct interviews with the subjects because they are about 5 years old and don't have many complex thoughts that can carry the story without audiences knowing what the interviewers are asking about. However, as time passes and the subjects grow older, the use of direct interviews is replaced with indirect interviews, due to the advancement in their maturity levels. 

This documentary taught me a lot personally and as a filmmaker. It can show you how a film can take such a toll on your heart, and how it forces you (without you even realizing) to connect with the people in the doc. When Seun's little brother died, it broke my heart, seeing Seun go through such a vulnerable state got to me. However, looking at it from the filmmaker's eyes I also noticed the use of music to set the tone and also lack of sound to highlight the loneliness of the household. 

Another documentary that honestly took me by surprise was Exit Through the Gift Shop. I'm not going to lie, when I first watched it, I thought it was going to be boring. The beginning was slow and it didn't hook me like others have until the documentary started showing us more about Thierry. Thierry's unique personality dragged me in, he is hilarious and a surprisingly smart businessman. The documentary is told by Banksy, a very popular street artist who was originally the subject but then took over, making Thierry the subject. This turn in the documentary was what made it so interesting, How the filmmakers were able to pull such a change off and still have a concise and interesting doc is very impressive. 

This doc uses a lot of b-roll and what made me like it so much was that it wasn't just composed of interview shots, that it was on the street walking with Thierry as he talks to the camera and watching him graffiti walls and spills pink paint on his car. This creative decision made the piece feel so much more authentic and thats what I strive for in my own pieces, to make viewers feel that they're there with the subject. 

Next is an Op-Doc that we were assigned to view at home. We could pick whatever op-doc we wanted to from the New York Times  Op-docs. The op-doc begins with the narrator talking about the daily tradition her grandmother would make her do. She would walk with her grandmother and sibling and watch the river that was down on the plaza. Her most memorable moment with her grandmother was when she told her that water will never stay still it is constantly moving. The narrator then compares this to the flooding in her city, how the water doesn't move, it is still until it can be drained. She talks about the changes in her city where the houses used to be are now not there. This reminds her of where her family used to be,

 Alabama. She describes her mournful feelings about the culture of Detroit and how it is slowly going away and getting "eaten up by the water". She asks the question of will our memories, culture, and city be forgotten in 1,000 years. This op-doc was different from what I have seen before. One thing that I did consider was the reenactments it had. As I was considering it for my B-roll in my own documentary.  The documentary relied heavily on vague symbolism that connected to her family and her experiences. However, when she began to talk about the stillness of water when there is a flood, the overall video connected together. This piece was very artistic. Their use of calm music and ocean sounds, along with the narrator symbolizing water as something that washes away everything with it and leading it back to climate change has a very significant role in achieving the purpose. I couldn't connect to this doc as much as I had with past documentaries. So I knew I wanted to apply a different approach. 

Links to an external site.