I will be assessing the Pentridge Prison pitch. I thought this group did a really good job at providing a direct, interesting and informative pitch to the class, especially considering they were first to present. Having never heard of Pentridge Prison, I felt they gave a great introduction to the location and it’s history. They went onto expand on the surrounding area of the prison and how it is evolving over time. I appreciated how they combined Arielle and Tal’s interests from assignment 2 and were able to create a new direction together for their documentary.
I agree with the panel in that there are several focus points the group mentioned and that they should consider focusing on one. As this is only a 3 to 5 minute documentary, I personally think it would be more effective to just focus on the prison history, an interesting inmate story or the ghost/haunted aspect of the prison. I equally like the concept of focusing on the change within the urban environment that is growing around Pentridge but I think they would need longer than 5 minutes to successfully capture that story.
I would definitely green light this project as I think it has a lot of potential and multiple avenues it can go down, whichever one it may be. Their passion and interest in this topic definitely showed in their presentation and I think that was what was one of the most captivating aspects aspects of this presentation, other than their great location and ideas. My only concern for this group would be that there is potential for some really great interviews with people who live nearby or an ex employee or even ex inmate, but these could be extremely difficult to come by and will definitely take a lot of time to capture.
Overall I was really pleased with the feedback Andi and I received. I think our pitch successfully communicated the ideas we have for our Retro Star documentary and with the panel’s feedback I’m feeling confident that we have a clear direction moving forward.
The main feedback that we received that was that we had a unique and interesting topic however for a 3 to 5 minute documentary we should try and focus in on one of our several different potential directions. Going into this pitch we had several ideas of who our main interview subject would be, possibly a Retro Star employee or customer but the panel really seemed to enjoy our Humans of New York inspired customer interview style. I think interviewing multiple people coming in and out of the store on how they found Retro Star, why they are there and what they are buying will allow us to capture a wide variety of the different cliental Retro Star has. The Humans of New York social media posts are always able to capture a captivating and intriguing story in a short amount of words so I definitely think that is a goal for us and it would give vintage clothing and the world of Retro Star the most justice. It was also emphasized to us that it’s important to not interview anyone we know as having a personal connection to an interview can possibly hinder how authentic their responses are.
In terms of the shots and visual ideas we mentioned, the panel agreed that this would be a very visually immersive story and that we should try and capture as much colour and texture within the store. They were also in agreement with our idea on having a tracking shot walking through the Nicholas building and up to Retro Star as that will emphasize the hidden gem aspect of our location. However they also noted that we should make sure not to over do it with establishing shots of the CBD, suggesting two or three establishing shots would be sufficient in setting the scene before delving right into shots of Retro Star.
It was mentioned that we should be wary of making our documentary come across as an advertisement or promotional video for Retro Star. I hadn’t considered that this could be a very realistic issue we might face so I was really pleased that a potential issue was brought up. Now as we move forward we can try to avoid it by focusing on what questions we ask, how we ask them and the editing process will also be essential to avoiding a promotional type documentary.
I am however disappointed that our presentation time was cut short as it meant we were unable to get as much feedback from the panel as other groups did. Whilst I appreciated the feedback we did get, the panel members all had very different careers within the media industry so it would’ve been beneficial to hear all of their opinions.
A reference point when thinking about my own work is the online documentary series Inside the Wardrobe, which is published on the British Vogue YouTube channel.
I find this series to be extremely fascinating as it allows a first hand look into the closets of influential members of the fashion community such as Vogue editors and contributors Sarah Harris and Bay Garnett as well as others like Camille Rowe and Suki Waterhouse. Having grown up shopping in op shops and vintage stores with my mum, I have always had a very big interest in fashion and love this series as it allows me to see a detailed insight into someone else’s fashion sense and why and how they came across certain items that have made it into their wardrobe. I think this series strongly relates to our documentary as it focuses on individuals talking about particular clothing items or accessories that they like to style a particular way or have an interesting back story.
Clip-1.33-2.04
In terms of sound, the conversation between Rowe and Garnett is very off the cuff and natural which I think makes this mini documentary as a whole a lot more inviting to watch as you feel like you are in the room with them. This is definitely something I am taking into consideration for my documentary, as I want the social actors to feel as though they can just answer our questions freely in a way that lets their personality show. I’m undecided if I would include upbeat background music like they have done in this clip as I think we would have to see how our interviews go and what the general emotional tone and pace of them is.
The camera work through this clip and entire video is at times a bit shaky and hand held but I think that works perfectly with the subject matter and location as it is a very casual, comfortable and welcoming environment. It’s easy to imagine yourself standing in her room looking through her wardrobe yourself. The shots themselves are quite quick at times but this is necessary in my opinion in order to be capture the extent of her wardrobe. As Retro Star offers such a variety of products and is quite large for a vintage store, I feel at times we could also have quite quick cuts in order to truly showcase the atmosphere.
You can really see that Camille Rowe feels very safe and happy and it’s almost as though the camera isn’t even there. The camera captures a lot of colour and texture within the confines of her bedroom and wardrobe, which is something we are definitely aiming to do in our final documentary. Even within this short clip you can see a wide variety of different fashion and accessory items so I think for our documentary by talking to different people within Retro Star we would be able to capture an even wider, more unique array of vintage fashion items.
In recent years, a lot of magazines have created YouTube channels as a way to visually communicate stories with readers online and open themselves up to a wider audience. Although having never actually read Glamour Magazine, it regularly posts content on YouTube that has caught my eye. There is a particular series, 70 People Ages 5-75 Answer, that almost acts as a short documentary. Each video features one person of each age providing their answer to the exact same question. Although its very simple in concept I find these videos not only entertaining but I appreciate how we are given a glimpse into someone’s identity not in just what they say but the mannerisms and emotions. I think this type of video is also an inspiration for our documentary as everyone is giving very direct clear answers and therefore they have been able to compile such a wide variety of answers into a short video. We are definitely aiming to do something similar with our documentary in that we want a wide variety of vintage shoppers of different ages who have different stories and opinions.
Despite being a Rolling Stones fan, I had never heard of their 1970 documentary Gimme Shelter until recently. Having now seen it, I find it to be a very unique documentary due to what the initial goal of the film was and what the final product was. The Rolling Stones paid the directors, Albert and David Maysles, to create a documentary, which would hopefully improve the bands negative rock and roll reputation. After filming at concerts in Madison Square Garden and the band recording in the studio, the Maysles asked if they could continue filming the band as they went on tour and were granted permission to do so. The Rolling Stones would then go onto hold a free concert at the Altamont Speedway in northern California. With roughly 300,000 attendees and the Hells’ Angels as the only security, the documentary depicts how things start to go awry. The festival resulted in four deaths, the most well known being of Meredith Hunter who was stabbed by a Hells Angel member. The question the viewer then asks himself or herself is who is to blame for Meredith Hunters death? I personally feel as though the Rolling Stones are to blame as they did not organise proper security. However the documentary does not depict them as being to blame at all. During the sequence in which Hunter is shown to be attacked, Mick Jagger and the other band members faces are barely shown whilst they play on stage, as if to say that they are removed from the event and aren’t to blame for the violent outbursts in the crowd. I think if the Rolling Stones themselves hadn’t had such a say in the documentary, having been the ones that funded it, this film could’ve turned out entirely differently. The question is therefore raised as to whether or not this film is ethical? Are we seeing only what the Rolling Stones want us to see? Are the victims such as Meredith Hunter given enough attention? And how much of what we do so is the truth in this documentary?
Capturing the Friedman’s is a 2003 HBO documentary directed by Andrew Jarecki. It details the story of a father and son, Arnold and Jesse Friedman, who in 1987 were accused of sexually assaulting children in the after school computer classes run in the Friedman basement. The documentary consists of new interviews with members of the Friedman family, victims and those involved in the case from a legal perspective. However a majority of the film utilises home camera footage shot during the arrests and what followed in the late 1980’s by Jesse Friedman’s younger brother, David Friedman. The case had little to no hard evidence meaning that the viewer is being asked who to believe based not on fact but on the recounts and memories of those involved. This therefore begs the question of whether or not this documentary is a reliable depiction of the Arnold and Jesse Friedman investigation as all interviewees’ detail their own subjective view of what occurred without evidence to back their statements up. Furthermore the tagline of the documentary is ‘Who do you believe?’ with Jarecki arguing that he shows both sides of the argument and allows the viewer to decide whether or not Arnold and Jesse are guilty. However I felt that Jarecki had a clear bias and was heavily in favour of the Friedman family, particularly Jesse. The editing of the documentary allows for Jarecki to suggest that those who are against Arnold and Jesse Friedman are exaggerating and lying about facts. When detective Frances Galasso argues that there were stacks of child pornography everywhere throughout the house, the documentary then shows images of a very clean house with no porn in sight. Furthermore an interview of Jesse Friedman admitting to committing the crimes against the children is entirely left out of the documentary. Although I found this documentary to be highly interesting to watch, it makes me question if any documentary can ever present itself from an non subjective and unbiased perspective.
At the start of this assignment, I was struggling to think of a location that had undergone an evident physical change. However when I stopped thinking of change as something so black and white and something that can be a personal experience, my ideas began to broaden.
Cemeteries are something that as a child, I was extremely scared of. Whenever my sister and I would drive past one, we would hold our breaths and pray that our mum or dad would drive faster (living about 2 minutes away from a cemetery meant lots of breath holding). The Brighton Cemetery is at the end of my street and it’s become the easiest way to identify where I live to strangers. When co-workers or new friends ask where I live and I’m having trouble explaining, I simply say ‘you know the cemetery on North road? Right near there’, and they immediately understand. Houses surround the cemetery, along with the 64 tram line, and a strip of shops such as the neighbourhood chemist and a BP petrol station. A world of busy suburban life comes right up to the tall red brick fences of Brighton Cemetery. A world I feel completely comfortable in, so why had I been so scared to step through the gates and into the cemetery? For a place I see nearly every day, I couldn’t be more separated from it. However after recently actually going into the cemetery for the first time, my perception of this place that I had lived so close to for 17 years changed in a matter of minutes. Although this place has never physically changed, my experience of the environment did. But why had I been, like so many other people, scared of cemeteries? Of course the obvious answer is that they are full of dead people, which would scare most people. But realistically, they can’t do much to harm you. Is it superstition? Because maybe if you go near a cemetery your body will be taken over by an evil spirit? Or because Hollywood only ever shows cemeterys as these dark, foggy places where zombies awaken? Throughout this documentary I hope to explore this question of why cemeteries have such a bad reputation of being scary, when in reality they can be one of the most calm and peaceful environments.
To answer this question, a majority of the documentary will be focused around a particular member of staff who spends a lot of time at the cemetery and therefore clearly feels comfortable and safe there, unlike most people. Ideally this employee would be in a caretaker type position as I feel they would have the most experience being on the grounds and would be an interesting character to explore due to having such a unique job. As it is very family oriented neighbourhood, it would also be interesting to interview someone who lives directly across from the cemetery, both adults and children. However this could be more difficult to arrange.
Historically, I think the Brighton Cemetery would be an interesting location to explore as it was established in 1854 and has several notable interments such as Sir John Monash, Dame Marie Breen and Arthur Boyd. I feel with such an extensive history, this would definitely be a unique place to try and capture the emotion of.
I would use a hand held camera to walk around the grounds with my interviewee and just allow them to guide the cameraman wherever they want as I feel it would be more beneficial to let the interviewee talk about their experiences and where they happened on the grounds than to box them in one small location with a still camera. However I would use a still camera with a seated interviewee subject in parts of the documentary where I wanted to ask more general questions.
It would be interesting for this documentary to have somewhat comedic elements as the location is so serious and I think having the interviewer featuring on screens at times with the interviewee as well as narrating the documentary can often lead to a funnier style as I’ve seen with Louis Theroux and Chelsea Handler documentaries. However I think this would depend on the personality of the interviewee.
Diana Vreeland: The Eye Has to Travel, is a 2011 documentary by Lisa Immordino Vreeland, Bent-Jorgen Perlmutt and Frédéric Tcheng. It depicts the life of fashion icon Diana Vreeland from her work as a fashion editor for Harpers Bazar magazine, editor-in-chief for American Vogue and a consultant at the Costume Institute of the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Immediately this documentary lured me in and kept me interested as it was incredibly aesthetically pleasing with their being countless shots of Vreeland’s work for Harpers Bazar and Vogue. There was a wide variety of interviewees that detailed there own unique relationship with Vreeland which helped build her character for the viewer. Something I was unsure about was the way in which the documentary included recordings of a woman pretending to be Vreeland who used material based on recordings of conversations that took place between her and George Plimpton who helped write her memoirs, D.V., in 1983. It felt quite strange and inauthentic to me to have someone else masquerading as Vreeland and I questioned how realistic this depiction really was. I appreciated that this documentary attempted to give both perspectives of Vreelands character. There are several interviewees that question how accurate her understandings of particular cultures she claims to love are as at times her depictions of them in her MET exhibitions are inaccurate. Furthermore her sons describe her absence throughout their childhood and even adulthood as Vreeland was constantly working. However by the end I still found myself admiring Vreeland for her confidence, passion and impact on the fashion industry.
Amy is the 2015 documentary directed by Asif Kapadia, which tells the story of British singer-songwriter Amy Winehouse throughout her singing career up until her death in mid 2011. Prior to watching this film several days ago, I knew little about Amy Winehouse. I enjoyed her most popular songs and covers, Back to Black, Rehab and Valery, but never cared to venture any deeper into her discography. However within the first several minutes of watching Amy, I was hooked with fascination into her life and who she really was. A big attraction of the film is that it features entirely no new footage and is a chronological montage of home videos and other media production footage. Therefore we don’t actually see the faces of any of the interviewees as they are speaking, they are only heard through voice over. This style of documentary and editing surprised me at first however I think the combination of old videos with the voice over of some of the closest people to her works really well because they were able to narrate you through the footage as if you were there.
However the film raises an interesting ethical debate in whether or not making it in the first place was a fair decision given that Winehouse was obviously unable to grant permission. With the film’s main attention being on avenging Amy’s poor reputation for substance abuse, a majority of the focus goes toward how the media tore her to shreds and she therefore hated being on camera and the idea of being a celebrity, therefore it begs the question as to whether or not she would have really wanted this documentary to be made.
The documentary was successful in being mostly objective in that it displayed the poor actions of those around her, specifically her dad and husband, who had a major role in some of her behaviours and actions. For much of the general public, she was displayed as simply being a drug and alcohol addict around the time of her death but I think Amy is beautiful in that it reminds viewers, even people who just know her cult classics like myself, that she was a very talented artist and should be remembered for that.
