For this post I looked at the chapter: Life does not tell stories: structuring devices in documentary filmmaking  from Creative Documentary: Theory and Practice by Wilma de Jong,  Erik Knudsen & Jerry Rothwell. I decided upon this chapter because it seemed to begin looking at the production side of documentary and though that it would raise some questions and ideas I could continue to explore throughout semester.

When discussing the structure of documentary it is so often explained with links to fiction. Surely the separation between the two is minimal yet why do we segregate them so as a viewing audience and as producers? Throughout this particular chapter the de Jong constantly refers to fiction films as examples for both the structuring of documentaries themselves and also how they segregated into sub-genres. However, the notion that they are separate identities is constantly reinforced as if they are mutually exclusive. When examples of documentaries that blur the line are mentioned it’s as if they are a pure anomaly of the documentary form.

What makes these two genres so different they both typically contain actors, a narrative and have a director at the helm of production. This segregation was central to our theoretical stories in True Lies last semester yet I’m now eager to explore this from a practical viewpoint. I decided to particularly focus upon this chapter to see how production practices and traditions reflect this discussion present within theory. It’s obvious from this excerpt how central fiction is when thinking about non-fictional content, yet in essence is there really fiction content? Having exhausted my capabilities of a scholar on this topic I’m eager to explore it from the view of a filmmaker.

In reference to class last week we watched a variety of Lumière clips each with it’s own varied degree of realism. Even the first filmmakers grappled with the fiction/non-fiction duality. Once a camera is present, what is captured is selective and is no longer the complete truth. The Lumière’s are also a perfect example as they often wielding a great degree of control of their subjects and aimed to capture a particular shot.

Moving back to the excerpt, the last section of the chapter on short documentary appeared to give the best practical advice. Earlier on in the chapter the various discussions of structuring were something I was familiar with from last semester but it was beneficial to read about which circumstances these structures suit. The overarching theme of the chapter seemed to be to ensure structure and formal decisions were chosen to best suit the content.

It also appears that all of these structures can be thought about and planned for in pre-production yet it is the content that is captured for a film that ultimately directs how the film ends up being structured. It seemed to be wise to have a fair idea of how you want something structured so that in production you aren’t lost without an idea of some end point. I doubt that this end point envisioned is ever realised but it seems to be a very practical consideration.

I was keen to read about advice for short documentary films however the section seemed to amount to the fact you need to be specific and concise. It was interesting to explore how wider themes can be explored and arguments made use a specific small-scale story. These smaller narratives become embolic of far wider issues that would be near impossible to explore in a short documentary.