In this show, proposal creation and the review process, developing your pitch and getting started.
I forgot to mention a conversation we had during class about the
documentary - narrative continuum, so let me talk about it now.. We
looked a a variety of documentaries that range from straight talking
head to what appears to be a narrative feature.
Errol Morris has long
used the technique of dramatizing reality in order to advance his
narrative arc. It's very different from something like the History
channel where they dramatize a scene within a documentary. And of
course there are a lot of feature films that try very hard to represent
an event as meticulously and accurately as possible, not only in the
look and feel, but also in staying very close to documented record. Zodiac
is a good example of that. Certainly there are fictional elements, but
the story revolves around the written record of the events as they
happened. As a result it has more of a fictionalized documentary feel
to it
There is a divisive sentiment in filmmaking, as there seems to be in
all things where people get passionate, of choosing sides over
either/or - better/worse. Either you are a narrative sell out feature
filmmaker, or a libertarian socially conscious documentarian.
Of course there is a middle ground, and it isn't a separated from
either extreme . There are documentaries that have strong narrative
arcs and there are narrative films that have a cinema verité character.
The reality is that there is no best, truest form of filmmaking; you
choose to do what you like. Cinematic storytelling is a continuum. How
you tell a story, either through fiction or documentary is a matter of
degree. Each has components of the other and the polar opposites are
just in a different location along the same path.
To me, that means I can at least mentally escape the label of being one
kind of filmmaker and be free to tell a story in the way that best
suits it.
