Week 4 Screening 2.

My Beamish Boy. Mike Hannon. 2009.

http://vimeo.com/10746716

This short (25 min) documentary focuses on the Cork Beamish brewery that closed in 2009. Its main method of representation is through interviews with former employees along with archive photographs for illustration. This limited pallette gives the film a strong focus which works because of its lenght but would feel insufficient if it were a feature lenght film. That the interviews were beautifully shot is no little help, it is also edited to stick strongly to a focused narrative. The different parts of the seperate interviews are edited togheter according to content and all have similitude due to the use of location and natural lighting. The film is a eulogy of sorts; events, objects and people are spoken of in the pastense, the old images and the meloncholic music used in the film reaffirms this sense of loss. There are no issues of representation in this film, all are agreed on the content, the workplace that brought them all togheter. The narrative arc is presented by going further back into the history of the brewery before being led back into the more recent past but all throughout the film the focus is maintained by all the different interviews staying with a specific topic. The photos are used alongside the interviews as reinforcement for the points being made, but because there is no argument put forward it presents more like an illustration of the content being disclosed. It is not until near the end of the film that the limited visual horizons become apparent, the closing montage then fittingly shows the present day brewery for the first time. Due to the limited range of content thus far the shots of the brewery seem visually inconsistent to the rest of the film but overall it manages to keep a stylistically balanced tone throughout. This is done by keeping the interview clips to similar lenghts, framing the interviewees in a similar fashion, keeping the narrative on a tight leash and using music that fits the film stylistically.

Week 4 Screening 1

The Queen Of Versaille. (2012) Dir Lauren Greenfield.

In the first shot of this documentary film the couple are shown surrounded by lighting and camera equipment, this reflexive shot informs the viewer that it is a documentary you are about to watch and the presence of a camera is to play a pivotal role in the footage that follows. The opening montage with its accompanying light music sets the story as a fairytale, in a clever way this idyllic opening montage conveys to the viewer a narrative that is in contrast to the reality. The placement of the footage that follows seems to be sequenced to convey the opposite; the reality of their existence (crying children and a chaotic family life). There is much reflexive content within the film, activity that reveals the medium (of film) and comments that reflect the influence of its presence. The reflexive elements of the film are evident in things such leaving in shots that are badly focused, lines of dialogue that are directed at the director; “tell me when your ready” or “When you first started filming this we were on top of the world...”. These elements serve as a reminder that the world of the film is being framed by these  uncovered devices, and this serves to convince of the films fidelity.

It is a character driven film in that the characters themselves inform the viewer, they are the main voice of the documentary. From the perspective of narrative they are united in their portraits at the beginning of the film but gradually when the pressures begin to grow they become contrary and uncooperative. Much of the communication is left to go uncontested, as a result they expose their own constricted perspective of events. This allowing the subjects to narrate their own story could go either way in a documentary as the subject seems to view the medium as their own mouthpiece. There is a recognizable element of playing for the cameras, the behaviour is pretty transparent and there is no intentional indication of what these characters are like without the presence of a camera, they are always aware of the camera. That this savy is transparent is one of the reasons why the documentary works as an expose of sorts. The director could very easily have been manipulated but the scenes and shots she decided to leave in the film are evidence of her individual perspective; the characters are overtly trying to lay down the narrative but the ethics of their occupation and their opulent lifestyle is removed from reality and the edited film reveals this.

For example the purchase of a seemingly innocent bicycle is commented on by use of montage; the shot following the purchase of the bicycle shows a garage full of bicycles and is complete with a voiceover which conveys how tight things have become. By not overtly commenting but by showing through documented example the point is made more effectively.

Keeping up appearances is the reccuring activity of the documentary, both for the cameras and for other people but the husband is too stressed to attempt to maintain the facade and the only beacon of honesty comes from his pessimistic monotones. The documentary, which started off being about “the queen of versaille” and the family unit of the (couples name here) changes tack halfway through and becomes about the troubles that the family business are facing. Either this change of focus was following the story or it is evident of the director needing to come away with something to show for her efforts. The end of the documentary strives for a resolution to the circumstance but seems to have been called time on by the subjects of the documentary.

When does the content of a documentary end? Unlike a fiction film the reality of the film does not end with the films credits, because the characters are somewhat true to life the story continues and can be continued every time a piece of media on the story is digested. As it stands the couple have tried to sue the documentary makers for false portrayal as their circumstances have changed since the film was shot. This documentary film is framed as the fall of one of Americas wealthiest families, I say framed because it is not the whole story, the story continues after the cameras stop rolling. A documentary is in effect an extended snapshot of the world, the story contained in this film is illustrative of this. In fact if the story were investigated to date it would not have the same narrative arc that the film contains.

Week 1. Screening 1.

The Plow that Broke the Plains (1936). Directed by Pare Lorentz. 25 min.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2taApjVSogQ

The documentary begins with a narrative and textual exposition that informs the viewer by way of a synopsis of the geography and a (very short) history of the central plains of North America. This exposition is rooted in fact and is presented as an extension of factual information. It introduces the viewer to what is known as the great plains at the beginning and assumes no knowledge whatsoever. The footage of the documentary itself is blended with the introductory factual portrait of the plains by way of clever editing; the plains themselves are edited to appear as part of the blackboard, a subtle method to suggest that the following footage, and thus the documentary itslef, is fact.

There are a number of scenes which would appear to be co-ordinated such as at 6:36 when a line of horses and wagons are seen to take off at the same time. This reconstruction of events is used to illustrate the advancement of farming onto the great plains, co-ordinated with the voiceover it has the effect of appearing to lead the viewer by the hand. This reconstruction of illustrative events also allows the director to script the telling of the story.

There is the use of newpaper headlines to illustrate the information given to settlers returning from war. While these headlines are obviously constructed as an abstract they demonstrate the gist of the message and illustrate the directors cynical view of the hype endorsed by both the media and the state, something which is illustrated by the later usurping of the promised land. The film foregrounds a heightened (?) score to emote the illustration of the script. The documentary encapsulates a historical event, the brief synopsis and constructed narrative ark mean that it brushes past many of the stories dimensions, even if this ark and narrative contruction makes it more watchable. The end voiceover narative represents only one dimension of the fallout from the depression, illustrated here with numbers in perhaps an attempt to factualize the information. The ending illustrates the attempts to repair the damage done to communities and to the land, the fact that it was funded by the US government indicates the scope of its objectivity.

Journal Entry Week 3.

Monday 21 jan 2013

Today I rang the boat builder Jim Connel (?), the boat they are currently building will not be finished for another couple of weeks. This means that I cannot start filming the boat documentary until then (I had originally intended to film the process from beginning to end). I can however start filming for the introduction to the documentary and some other non activity related filming (interview, scenic shots..). I hope to begin this next week once I have the tripod and microphone available to use.

Thursday 24 January 2013

Today I finally got going with the cameras, or so I thought; I forgot two things, to check if the batteries were charged and to bring a consent form for the participants of the documentary. These are not things that cannot be absorbed from reading Bill Nichols. I did however talk to the members of some of the clubs (table tennis & fencing) and I have cleared to film others. These are the little things that I will check without thinking once I develop a workflow.

Monday 28^th January 2013

Today I went into college to collect the camera and the tripod from the Huston. I have no mic to do any interviews but I wanted to get going with the filming and so I shall film regardless. I think that I need to make a few mistakes and the sooner I get them out of the way the better. I managed to film the activities of two clubs today, the archery club and the badminton club. They were both very accommodating and were happy to coordinate in order for me to get the shot I wanted. I am trying to film in accordance with a few motifs and the shots are intended to express this. The two main ones are the coordinated movement of groups and or specific shots of movement that are going to be repeated across a few sports disciplines. As occurred previously when filming ideas come when you are in the process working. I find when filming clubs (and perhaps this goes for all documentary) that I need to strike a balance between coordinating the activities and letting the participants get along with their activities. Is my shot list just in fact a script, and am I straying into fiction.

Week 3 Screening 3.

Bernadette. Notes on a Political Journey. 2011. Lelia Doolan.

Huston Screening.

This documentary, which was filmed over the course of nine years in conjunction with its subject (Bernadette Devlin), sets its stall out early on in stating that it is a “series of interviews”. The interviews form the basis of the documentary; as a result of this and the collaborative involvement of Bernadette Devlin it takes the form of an autobiographical film. One of the earliest quotes from Bernadette herself performs the function of puncturing the quotes that follow; she states clearly that the media have created an image of who she is. This seemingly perfunctory comment very intelligently deconstructs the only other voices in the documentary. Any other voice that portrays her it is perceived in light of the idea that it is a media construct; the structure of the documentary has seemingly become an extension of her skills of oration. The first (and one of the only) uses of music in the film is used to reinforce the ideas that have been articulated verbally (Loenard Cohen. Everybody Knows. “the dice are loaded”).

The primary voice in the film is of course that of Bernadette Devlin herself, but the fact that it has been demonstrated that she has integrity means that the viewer comes to trust her word. The other voices are themselves given constructs through which they are viewed, ie; “the image makers”, or “they created the profile in America”. This ironic use of a construct on forces that constructed her image is just one of the ways that the film is a manifestation of her intellectual dexterity in the form of a documentary. Bernadette at one stage describes herself as “an amplifier of the peoples voice” and continues describing herself in the third person as if joining in with the process of constructing an identity for Bernadette Devlin. At one stage while she is talking there are a series of images that are related to the subject she is discussing, these images are completely changed by her voice-over and this is the crux of the documentary; once we have established who we identify with in the film everything else is then colored by her perspective, but the integrity of the interviewee is the strength of this documentary.

Week 3 Screening 2.

Paris Is Burning. Jennie Livingston. (1990)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWuzfIeTFAQ

Paris is Burning opens with an observational tone in that the characters are seen to talk uninhibited to the camera. Occasionally a producer is heard directing the flow of information (what is being said) from behind the camera. It gives the impression of fidelity by appearing to be purely observational. The camera is allowed to observe uninhibited during the ball scenes because the performers are showing off to the audience in any case; the camera is not unduly distracting them from their normal (ball) activities. The subjects of the documentary are given a free reign to explain their world and its cultural elements from their perspective. The impression that is conveyed by the interviews is a sense of the dearth of opportunities that have driven the characters to find meaning in this cultural activity. Somehow (as mentioned the questions are not often revealed) the producer has managed to hit the vein as to why they participate in the “balls” to begin with: they are used as an escape from the normal. How the interviewees came upon this vein of conversation is not revealed to the viewer, in this regard it is not reflexive. But in relation to an accurate depiction of the world that is documented in this film: the fact that they are allowed to shape their representation is indicative of the transparent methods utilized by the director. She has stood aside and allowed others to express themselves through the medium she has made available to them. Several aspects of the ball culture are explained in turn and this structure gives the film a well-paced rhythm, this rhythm is something that is created in postproduction. Although it is not how events unfolded in actuality this interspacing of elements stops the balls from becoming just a show or a spectacle. It is also informative, the interviews providing an expositional element to the film.

Week 3 Screening 1.

Irish Folk Furniture. (2013) Tony O'Donoghue
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrfDAIqn6KE

This short documentary film uses visual reconstruction to tell the story of the restoration of several items of furniture; although the situations are real the capturing of the footage is staged. A combination of stop motion animation and time-lapse photography is used to capture or fictionally recreate the furniture’s journey. The journey is described by the documented audio of interviews with the owners of the furniture. The fact that the audio is factually based while the video is fictionally pieced together meant that the director had complete creative freedom with the visual representation of the audio. It is in effect a fictional film attached to a factual audio documentary. That it has won at the Sundance Film Festival for best animated short even though it is pitched as a documentary is evident that the lines between fact and fiction are being straddled. The film footage is arranged in poetic mode in that it “explore(s) associations and patterns that involve temporal rhythms and spatial juxtaposition” Nichols. While the audio is captured in a participatory capacity, the interviewers questions are heard alongside that of the participants, he has himself become a “social actor” Nichols.

Nichols, Bill. Introduction to Documentary. Bloomington, IN: Indiana UP, 2001. Print.

Journal entry. Week 1 / 2.

For the first week I have spent a lot of time organizing the documentaries I am going to make. A lot of progress is in snippets in that a quick conversation or a chance meeting will move the project along ever so slightly. I am a little concerned that the access to equipment will hamper the smooth production of the documentaries, mainly the tripod and the microphone. I have emailed the relevant department and she has said that when they have a schedule she will send it on. When I have this schedule to hand I will be able to work around this non-flexible element. I have thus far been concentrating on the non-practical elements of the term such as the essay, the treatments for the documentaries and the screenings.

I had a meeting with the head of sports Kathy Hynes to discuss the sports documentaries; mostly we discussed the format that the documentary will take. I am making two documentaries in conjunction with sports clubs. One of which will entail a lot of small portions of different clubs (who all train at different times), this will be many small pieces making up the whole documentary, these small pieces need to collected individually. In short there will be no one ‘production day’ but many small instances of filming. The discussion with Kathy went well in that she accepted that the format of the films would be determined by myself (although I have assured her that I am intending to produce something that will be useable for the clubs). She also gave indication that there would be assistance if required with certain equipment (a model helicopter and the use of a gopro camera for filming aerial shots of the sports fields, I could also use this for aerial shots of the rowers on the Corrib). On the whole the clubs are more than happy to be filmed, they are aware of the benefits regarding things such as promotion. Regarding the filming of the clubs I have made up a training schedule (at the moment just for the indoor clubs) in order to organize when I shall film them. This element is ready to go I am just waiting on access to the equipment.

I also had a meeting with Jim Horgan who is a boat builder in Furbo (http://www.galwayschoolofboatbuilding.com/project.php). He is more than happy to be filmed. Discussing the documentary with him I noticed that he is quite aware of what constitutes the making of a film as he has been filmed quite a lot in the past. Although it will not be a problem it will be interesting to try to film him anew and from a fresh perspective. Jim knowing exactly what is required to make a film will affect the questions I will ask, the film itself will be in poetic mode and so I would not like the answers to be by rote. He is however very accommodating and is more than willing to allow me access to film the process of building a boat. It will also entail a lot of footage filmed over a period of time, as Jim put it I would travel out to film for the ‘key moments’. I am hopeful that the venue in which we shall build the boats will be well lit as otherwise it shall entail the borrowing and use of lights, either that or I shall improvise. This film will be the process of wood being turned into a boat and as such will be done also over the course of the semester. I am a little worried that the end few weeks of term will be spent with my head stuck in a computer screen 24/7.

Week 2 Screening 2.

The River. 1938. Written and Directed by Pare Lorentz. Sponsored by USDA and The Farm Security Administration.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpz0XI6U97U

The film titles begin accompanied by weighty orchestral music, setting the tone for the subject matter which is to follow. The introductory titles are placed over a map of the Mississippi and give the viewer direct contextual placement, this also conveys that within this film there are elements of the expository documentary. The commentary and the visual narrative are poetic, they trace the sources of the Mississippi beginning with images of clouds and mountains and moving into listing the many tributaries before ending in the gulf. This, like much of the film, is sequenced by linking metaphorical rather than logical connections. Within three minutes the documentary has given a synopsis of the river, a memory template of the sheer size of the river for the viewer to refer to for the rest of the film. Following this short introduction to the river the documentary then moves into telling some of the history that occured along its banks. The chapters or episodes of the documentary are indicated by the change of music with a certain score used for the poetic observations of the documentary and no score used for the expositionary sections. This gives the film the feel of verse chorus verse, as if it were designed in modules. The positivity of the ending gives the film its resolution, but the optimism shown towards the content illustrated has also the slant of triumphalism.

Week 2 Screening 1.

Forks over Knives. 2011. Lee Fulkerson.

The introductory documentary scenes that place the viewer into the context of the film is a montage of warnings about the diet of americans. News headlines are used (giving an official but alarmist tone) in a montage that compacts the information in an attemt to consolidate the its force. The same effect is used in the editing; the picture frames moving towards the viewer for greater emphasis, constant foregrounding. Use of illustrative graphics to reinforce what is being said, once again attempting to forground the weight of the information conveyed. Editing is used to emphasize a speech for example, when the footage is magnified for the punchline of the quote. The Style of the documentary is most definately expository, with the emphasis on information and substance over style. For the first 3 minutes and 50 seconds of the introduction there is no original footage used, the entire section is created in post production using resourced footage. Forks over knives takes on the same subject as Super Size Me in an information providing context and with a less populist tone. Pitched as a look at the food eaten by the average american, the producer explores the subject by setting out to interview people who are of the same viewpoint as himself. Only once this position is established do we then hear from someone who is of a different viewpoint, although this is immediately undercut and rebuffed by the information that follows. This gives the impression that the documentary was formatted with a viewpoint in mind, right or wrong it is far from objective. The footage is interspersed with facts and figures that support the pitch of the documentary; the unhealthy diet of americans. Woven into this maelstrom of information the producer inserts a case study of somebody who is feeling the ill effects of having lived on a bad diet. An interweaving of storylines that complement each other giving the overall narative a sense of depth. The editing is regularly structured to reinforce and backup the information being disclosed and the theme. Instead of being an emperical collection of information this reinforcement has the effect of forcing the viewpoint presented. The documentary indicts the western diet but not unlike a lawyer it presents its case with an argument in mind making it hard to disagree. Use of quotes and proverbs that are without substantiation (often anonymous) are indicitave of the bias of the film maker. The director also presents and provides the commentary, this foregrounding of the directors personality colours the documentaries voice. His personal story which begins the documentary, encapsulates it by also ending towards the end of the documentary. Where it began with the problem it ends with the solution, thus providing the narative arc with a formulaic happy ending of sorts.

Week 1. Screening 2.

Knuckle (2011) Directed by Ian Palmer

Ian Palmers (sole) film is shot from the perspective of the embedded journalists. Embedded in that he maintains the trust of the documentaries participants over an 12 year period and does not contradict the informational status quo presented by them. When the director is informed he is not allowed to film a fight the resultant frustration and dissapointment are evidence of his attachment to the thrill of the fighting, demonstrating his perspective of the boxing. Aside from some light commentary towards the end of the film on the perpetuation of the fueds he mostly stands aside and lets the participants direct the content (the content directing the content). The trust between subject and documentarian is in evidence when he is asked to return repeatedly by the participants. They have forged a mutually beneficial relationship, he is allowed acces to his content and the content is allowed access to their medium. In this regard it is fitting that in the first scenes of the documentary it is the central characters who explain the premise to the “shades” and thus the viewer. The documentary participants are allowed to represent their views unobstructed and the result is that their portrayal in the documentary is self constructed. This self construction of image allows for a social commentary, the director shying away from any political arguments or views on the unfolding illicit activities. Initially the footage was not intended to become a film rather the participants had intended that the footage would be for their own use. In this regard the filming of the bareknuckle fights helps to prolong the fighting as the videos are used to both revel in their victories and goad their opponents into more fights. The creation of content further generating content, an unusual example of the documentary subjects behaviour being altered by the presence of a camera.