Hello reader! Long time, no see! Lots of things have changed— I'm a junior now, doesn't that just make your heart want to stop from the stress?
Welcome to A level, today I'm gunna talk to you about my lovely little research leading up to a documentary my buddy and I made: Emi— you remember her, right?
I really want a mango shake right now.
Learning Techniques
The best teacher to ever grace the earth, Mrs. Stoklosa, had us watch and assess documentaries in class for research. I have so much to say that I'm splitting my research in two, learning techniques used and then learning deeper meanings and intentions.
Abstract
Abstract is a documentary episodic series, where each episode follows a diffrent specialist showing the process behind an art form: everything from costume deign to painting shoes.
This one was one of my least favorites. I mean, yes, art is cool. But, I wrote my questions for Mrs. Stocklosa late at night and I still retain that anger. Even though the moment has passed and it isn't Mrs. Stocklosa's fault that I didn't finish studying for biology until 8 pm that night. If I had to think of one thing that I got from this one, it's probably the graphics. Mrs. Stocklosa pointed out how the branding stays consistent throughout the episodes, despite the context of the graphics changing. I tried to develop a brand throughout my documentary, but I ran out of time. You can see the remnants of a possible brand (the paper-style graphics, the music) but I didn't have the hands to make it prominent enough in my documentary.
Should I ever plan a documentary of this style, I would start by planning the order in which I'd present the information. Personally, I would do a little dive into this individual (what he does, how he works, his process, his background). From then, I'd form a list of questions, ask him to call, and plan my script around that. Then, I'd brainstorm ideas for graphics, animated sequences, and abstract storytelling. I'd keep a story board on hand while filming to get any footage needed for those things. For example, this sequence in the second episode I watched had an animated version of Niemann to reflect his inner dialogue while working on a piece. Ideally, I would have planned to shoot something like this in advance. But if I didn't, I would enough b-roll to make it anyway. There was also another sequence in this episode where Niemann was in a subway, here there were plenty close up shots, few medium shots, but little to no wide shots. I would record all kinds of shots, and then pick in post which work best to the tone, so in that way, a lot of footage with one kind of shot won't be included.
There was also another sequence in this episode where Niemann was in a subway, here there were plenty close up shots, few medium shots, but little to no wide shots. I would record all kinds of shots, and then pick in post which work best to the tone, so in that way, a lot of footage with one kind of shot won't be included.
Crying Glacier
This opinion documentary focused on Ludwig Berger and his recording of sounds from melting glaciers. The documentary follows him as he captures these noises, and explains why he does it.
While Berger is a subject in the documentary, the focus is mainly on the glaciers. The documentary is very sound dependent, with long close ups. This draws the viewer in and encourages them to tune into the noises of the glacier. This disinterest in the human subject allows audiences to connect with the glacier more than they’d connect with Berger.
Berger personifies the glacier in his voice over, “almost like the last cry of the glacier.” This combined with the drone shots of the glacier develop the idea that glaciers are large, ancient bodies who can feel pain like we do. This is further enforced with a sequence where Berger is explaining how the heat removes bubbles that were hidden in the glaciers for thousands of years. The noises of these bubbles combined with the long shot brings a feeling of sympathy in the viewer. Thus, these techniques create a documentary focused on developing a sympathetic view from the audience.
This documentary really drew me in. The noises sounded alien, kind of artificial, and I was fascinated by a natural resource that could make these kinds of noises. The idea of glaciers melting because of climate change feels so foreign, especially for someone who lives in such a hot environment. This documentary took a different approach to climate change, one that contextualized the issue for me. It’s one thing to know a glacier is melting, it’s another thing to hear it melt and imagine it cry.
I really admire how this documentary took a human aproach to the situation, it shows the feelings behind the story. I hope this inspiration shows in my documentary.
Chrismas, Every Day
This opinion documentary was of two girls and their relationship with social media as influencers.
For most of the film, the viewer is treated like a guest, only watching the situation from a far— this feeling is achieved with long and medium shots. It’s harder for the viewer to understand what’s happening, leaving them in the dark. This distance imitates how unaware the girls are of the harm that their parents are exposing them to. The documentary ends with one of the girls doing her makeup in the dark. This lowkey lighting is a literal representation of the young girl being in the dark about her situation.
The approach taken to this documentary is not one I would have taken, so I was confused at first. I didn’t understand why the topic was recorded from so far. Usually documentaries have an interview as soon as the piece starts. This distance from the story made me uncomfortable. But, with time, I began to understand that the distance mimicked the distance someone might have when looking at this issue from a social media platform. It doesn’t take much for people to see a child is being exploited, and that intentional distance and omission of information just raises more concern.
I really liked these opinionated documentaries, they made me feel comfortable with creating such a bias piece.
This opinion documentary focused on Ludwig Berger and his recording of sounds from melting glaciers. The documentary follows him as he captures these noises, and explains why he does it.
While Berger is a subject in the documentary, the focus is mainly on the glaciers. The documentary is very sound dependent, with long close ups. This draws the viewer in and encourages them to tune into the noises of the glacier. This disinterest in the human subject allows audiences to connect with the glacier more than they’d connect with Berger.
Berger personifies the glacier in his voice over, “almost like the last cry of the glacier.” This combined with the drone shots of the glacier develop the idea that glaciers are large, ancient bodies who can feel pain like we do. This is further enforced with a sequence where Berger is explaining how the heat removes bubbles that were hidden in the glaciers for thousands of years. The noises of these bubbles combined with the long shot brings a feeling of sympathy in the viewer. Thus, these techniques create a documentary focused on developing a sympathetic view from the audience.
This documentary really drew me in. The noises sounded alien, kind of artificial, and I was fascinated by a natural resource that could make these kinds of noises. The idea of glaciers melting because of climate change feels so foreign, especially for someone who lives in such a hot environment. This documentary took a different approach to climate change, one that contextualized the issue for me. It’s one thing to know a glacier is melting, it’s another thing to hear it melt and imagine it cry.
I really admire how this documentary took a human aproach to the situation, it shows the feelings behind the story. I hope this inspiration shows in my documentary.
Chrismas, Every Day
This opinion documentary was of two girls and their relationship with social media as influencers.
For most of the film, the viewer is treated like a guest, only watching the situation from a far— this feeling is achieved with long and medium shots. It’s harder for the viewer to understand what’s happening, leaving them in the dark. This distance imitates how unaware the girls are of the harm that their parents are exposing them to. The documentary ends with one of the girls doing her makeup in the dark. This lowkey lighting is a literal representation of the young girl being in the dark about her situation.
The approach taken to this documentary is not one I would have taken, so I was confused at first. I didn’t understand why the topic was recorded from so far. Usually documentaries have an interview as soon as the piece starts. This distance from the story made me uncomfortable. But, with time, I began to understand that the distance mimicked the distance someone might have when looking at this issue from a social media platform. It doesn’t take much for people to see a child is being exploited, and that intentional distance and omission of information just raises more concern.
I really liked these opinionated documentaries, they made me feel comfortable with creating such a bias piece.
Learning Meanings
American Promise
American Promise is a documentary filmed by the parents of a student. It follows the student (Idris) and his friend (Seun) as they navigate their adolescence. The documentary was shot over 10+ years.
I thought it was interesting how they had so much footage to pick from. Every clip was absolutely intentional. It also had no voice over, which also was a unique, engaging way to approach a documentary. Because of these reasons, American Promise inspired me to get as many interviews as possible— 13 to be precise. If I remember correctly, I had 4 hours of footage to edit, excluding b-roll. This allowed my documentary to have a very rich context, since I had such a large pool of interviews and phrases to dig through. Everyone added a new perspective to the piece.
I like how authentic this piece feels. Despite being produced by Idirs' parents, they didn't cut out the harmful words Idris' father said when they where in the car after his basketball game (timestamp 40:00). This makes the documentary feel truthful because the producers have chosen to show the ugly and pretty sides of Idris' relationship with his father. The set Seun is on during his interview on 1:12:15 was clearly set up and planned. However, the documentary still looks verite because the scene doesn't have a single jump cut. Seun is simply saying how he feels in a clip that would have the same amount of silence if someone where saying it in person. This allows the moment to feel truthful because it replicates what it might be like to converse about this topic with Seun in person.
I think the realism also has to do with the type of interviews used throughout the piece. The documentary mostly depends on indirect interviews when they are young, but as they grow up the interviewee's voice is also heard. The indirect interviews while Idris and Seun are young, makes the documentary feel realistic because it creates the illusion that the subject is talking directly to the viewer. This pulls the viewer closer to the story, since the illusion that someone's talking to you is more engaging than the illusion of a conversation between two people. But, as they grow up, the interviewer's voice is also heard. This illustrates how, as the boys reach their final, stressful high school years, they become less open to talking about their emotions. So, the documentary relies on the interviewer's voice to provide the necessary context as well. Also, as I'm growing up, I'm realizing that my social world has far expanded beyond my home life. Maybe that conversation feeling given by the direct interviews further elaborate on how adolescences start to shift their support system away form their parents and toward friends and found family.
Exit Through the Giftshop
This one... this one was really something... I didn't truly understand that it was commentary until I was in the shower one day, spaced out, looking out the small opened window where my shampoo sits. My sister heard me shout "OHH IT'S MOCKING PEOPLE WHO PROFIT FROM MEANINGLESS ART!" from our backyard. I also really liked this one. I think it's part of the reason I wanted to do commentary too, and absolutely the reason why I wanted to be bias in my piece.
Side note: I just realized that the rat in sunglasses might be Mr. Brainwash, because he wore sunglasses a lot and often. Low blow, Banksy, low blow.
A sequence that stuck with me was when Thierry said something along the lines of "life is a game of chess, and I don't know how to play chess." He said it with absolute confidence, which I think perfectly represents his entire perspective on life. Thierry doesn't understand why or how Banksy does what he does, he only sees the Banksy art galleries and profit. He replicates Banksy's steps because he want's the product, but never once thinks about Banksy's intentions.
I've always thought of street art as an interesting type of art. On one hand, there's the illegal aspect, where people would spend hours perfecting a craft with a social stigma of crime and trouble. Eventually, graffiti will be taken down under the idea that it's property damage. On this side of the coin, graffiti is seen as a petty crime that makes streets look dirty. But then there's graffiti artists who make money off painting murals and doing art shows. This is a weird double standard to have. It's like, socially, art lacks value if there isn't people profiting off it. It exposes an ugly side of society, where things are only seen as good if they have a purpose, if they are profitable. It upsets people when they see someone who'd rather hide their talents behind a weird name and under the shadow of night. (Or, for that matter, the moment someone is unable work— like those who are raising children, pregnant, elderly, or disabled— they are treated as if they are worthless). The end of the documentary made this message most impactful. Mr. Brainwash is painted in a negative light for making soulless "art", but ultimately, he and Banksy got similar amounts of public attention. To the masses, it's all the same.
This documentary left me with one question: Should we encourage everyone to make art, regardless of perspective, intention, or talent? I mean, as I stated before, creating art for the sake of expression and not sharing it is seen as odd. We have no need to create things if they aren't seen by others. This, combined with our constantly connected world, adds pressure onto people to keep creating. It removes the diverse, rich expression of the soul, and moves people to create regurgitated ideas. Personally, I don't think that's art. Call me a snob, but art should be created from a desire to express emotion, it should communicate the emotions of the artist onto the viewer. This is seen in political cartoons, renaissance paintings, or cubism. The intention of the artist is clear due to the artist's ability to translate abstract emotion into art, and that skill gives the artwork it's value.
Wowza, That's a lot of Writing!
And my pupils are starting to sting from this laptop light again...
How I look right now trying to finish this blog
Main takeaways from this research!
- These documentaries made me feel comfortable with creating a bias documentary
- They are taught me to get as much footage as possible! Including interviews :)
- I really liked the "social commentary" kind of documentaries, and I tried to mimic that in mine.
Okay, that's it! I want to nap, here's Pedro to keep you company. Bye reader! I'll see ya tomorrow.
.jpeg)
No comments:
Post a Comment