Select from one of the readings and briefly describe two points that you have taken from it. Points that excite you, something that was completely new to you.

Paul Ward’s ‘Documentary: The Margins of Reality’ examines the “complex relationship between fiction, nonfiction and documentary as categories and how they overlap”.  Having studied True Lies: Documentary Studies last semester, it’s obvious now that the exploitation of these apparently separate forms is a common trait of recent films, and Ward reinforces this overlapping of modes via the use of reconstructions and re-enactments.  Ward explains that in many examples we are asked to take documentary as something that is in fact performed by actors, yet we don’t merely accept them as fabrications because they are (often) still real experiences of real people.

Documentary dramas (or docu-dramas) too, very much focus on the issues of truthfulness, instead relying on the viewer’s interpretation of what they see, with stories often given a number of different versions from different perspectives.  Often these stories are built on a ‘based on a true story’ foundation, but arguably should not be completely excluded from the ‘documentary’ category.  I’m personally unfamiliar with any of the reading’s discussed films, but a good example of my own sourcing would be the film adaptation of Truman Capote’s ‘In Cold Blood’ (1967), or closely-linked 2005 biographical film ‘Capote’, starring Philip Seymour Hoffman in the title role.  I feel that the best description of this genre is ‘creative non-fiction’, and am keen to explore this further.

Paste the link here from your version of the abstract editing exercise.  Then reflect on the whole process – Consider: the quality and usability of your recordings; the effect of layering and juxtaposition of both the audio and the video and; the things you learnt from working with this kind of audio and video.

https://vimeo.com/103489040

I really liked a few of the audio tracks we recorded, such as of the lone basketballer shooting hoops in the courtyard.  The quality of the recordings were good, however, many of the tracks were indistinguishable chatter and noise, seemingly without a target subject, such as our attempt to record the sounds of RMIT’s cafeteria.  The sounds would work for atmos, but more direct sounds for this exercise would have been more suited.  The video task was insightful, and we experimented a little from traditional shots.  I really liked the overexposure from sunlight streaming through the lens, and while this may look awful in a drama film, for documentary purposes, the experimentation pays off, and we kept the iris settings as such throughout our shots, giving the film an apparently blue hue.

In terms of the editing, it was interesting to reinvent and re-purpose random material and add the non-digetic sounds to unrelated images.  I think layering the sounds could have worked better, rather than the abrupt cuts I chose, but overall, it was an interesting exercise and one to definitely take into account before producing our major documentary assessment.

Select from one of the readings and briefly describe two points that you have taken from it. Points that excite you, something that was completely new to you. 

I found the article Documentary Storytelling by Bernard Curran very interesting and insightful into the world of documentary filmmaking.  Here are two points I took away from it:

• It was interesting to learn how, as is often the case with documentary filmmakers, the story is “found” or realised and refined after planning and pre-production.  Curran explains that this is not to say that “a film maker has simply shot material without any story in mind, but that he or she alters the story’s focus or, more likely, its structure during production and post-production”.  This method however, for American documentary filmmaker Frederick Wiseman, necessitates a high shooting ratio and a lengthy editing period; time we will not have, but it’s important that we don’t restrict ourselves in the footage that we have only planned on taking, by serendipitously shooting footage that pleases and appeals to us.
• There are a large range of factors to consider in order to make a successful documentary.  From a target audience, to the film’s relevance, and what has already been explored in previous documentary projects.  However, one of the most important aspects is the film’s hook.  How will audiences become interested in the film’s subject in the first place?  “The essence of the story and its characters, encapsulating the drama that’s about to unfold” must be established from early on in the piece, Curran writes.  Commonly, the hook involves a conflict of interest between two or more of the film’s subjects.

In the lecture we screened a short film called ‘End of the Line’ – the film shot in Broken Hill. 

Please describe in 300 words or less if you think they achieved what they set out to do.  You may not remember much detail, if so, it could be helpful to talk about your first impressions, after all this is what most of us are left with after one viewing.  Feel free to write to any categories you wish (eg. story, choice of participants, sound, camera, editing, etc.). 

Listen to the audio you recorded in Tute #1.  Write a paragraph or two about your recording from a technical and/or “poetic” perspective.  Consider:

What these sounds evoke for you.  What associations they have. 

Do any of your recordings suggest images?  What might they be?  

Do any of your recordings suggest the possibility of other recordings?

I particularly enjoy the sound we recorded in the Week 1 Audio Task of the solo basketball player shooting hoops.  To me, the sound could be used to demonstrate the drive and determination of this person to better themselves at the sport, their dedication emphasised by clearly being the only person on court, heard by the atmospheric silences between the bouncing of the ball, the spring off the backboard, and the shuffling of feet as he runs to retrieve the ball.

Listen to the first 10 minutes of Glenn Gould’s radio documentary, “The Idea of North”.  The idea of North 10min.wav or Files are here (experimenting with different sizes and file types) If possible, use headphones.  Record your impressions in a paragraph or two.

I didn’t warm to Glenn Gould’s 1967 radio documentary “The Idea of North”.  Of course, with little background knowledge about the creation of the piece, I found it hard to follow, and despite further research, the documentary still did not resonate with me.  I found the first three minutes of the documentary to contian little purpose, beginning with seemingly all of the interviewees edited together in an almost senseless cacophony, and found it particularly hard to focus on any particular voice.  Despite this profound effect, which may have been of outstanding use for a documentary of another subject, I found its use here completely nonsensical, irrelevant and confusing.

I found that even when the piece was formally introduced by the narrator (I think), the subject, or at least the piece’s motive, was still unclear, as well as who the people talking were and why they were being interviewed.  Perhaps I’ve overlooked some important defining details, or possibly the piece’s style is sufficiently dated, but I really didn’t connect to ‘The Idea of North’, or at least, its first ten minutes.

In this week’s lecture, scenes from Scott Ruo’s ‘Four Images’, Brian Hill’s ‘Drinking for England’ and Chantal Akerman’s ‘D’Est’ were screened.  Choose one of these, and consider, in a single paragraph, what might have intrigued, interested, displeased or repelled you.

I found Brian Hill’s ‘Drinking for England’ rather amusing, the poetic rhythm of the rhyming couplets used throughout not only extremely clever, but also applicable to the documentary’s substance on drinking, and gave the film quite an ‘intoxicated’ feel.  The film, not only in the title, but in the cinematography, was incredibly English, and I absolutely loved the look of the British bars, characters, accents, and humour.  Despite all this, the film’s subject matter is incredibly serious, and is a film I would like to watch in full soon.

In 200 words or less please outline your goals, desires – what you want to get out of this semester. You will review this later in the course. Many will rethink this dramatically by the end of the course – this is a good thing.

As with Film-TV 1, I wish to continue to expand my filmmaking knowledge exponentially with its follow up this semester.  I’m looking extremely forward to creating a documentary, and would like to employ much more artistic and creative expressions than that of the narrative film in the previous semester.  Although undetermined as to the subject of documentary I will be involved in creating, it appears that although there will perhaps be much more planning be done before the shoot, the shoot itself should be completed much more efficiently; an area I’d like to improve upon for this second film.  As director in the previous project, I learned much from the experience, and is a role I would be happy to take on once more, however, it could potentially be more beneficial for myself to work more with the technical equipment on camera or audio, to further expand my knowledge with the process.  I’d also like to take a more hands-on role throughout the editing process, having gained some confidence tweaking our last project.