Tag Archives: documentary

Week 05: Reflections

The main lesson I learnt from this week’s symposium is that k-films can change the way viewers see things, but they can also change the way makers see things. This is my favourite part of the IM1 course so far – I’m learning so much from expanding my thought processes and developing my lateral creative thinking skills. The content we’re talking about/producing takes the familiar and has a wonderful way of making it unfamiliar, or abstracting it. This changes how we experience our place in the world.

Documentaries all want to engage with the world, always having the ambition to change something (most often this is to change our understanding of something). Many of them can have a social purpose, and this can be utilised by Korsakow too (think Money and the Greeks). Kate Nash wrote a great post here about “[the] growing collection of works that marry the social, political and aesthetic ambitions of documentary with the forms and representational possibilities of digital media.” She talks about some of the social functions of documentary, including how to effectively engage audiences, as well as discussing their position within the documentary.

Interactivity is all about offering possibilities to your audience. As the architect of the work, it’s your responsibility to build your work in a way that allows these possibilities in the best way. All films rely on audiences to interpret them. However, experimental films (and their filmmakers) are generally made to explore something, so the conception of audiences tends to come later (which is the reverse of our traditional/commercial habits).

Seth encouraged us to think of filmmakers/creators as designers. I think this term is part of his PhD research, but I really like how it captures a lot more of the process around creating content. As a filmmaker, you have to design an experience for your viewers.

(Image via flickr)

Week 04: Expectations

Bill Nichols three-part definition of documentaries is often the springboard for discussions about documentary practices and discourse. It was my first time encountering his ideas when I read the first readings for IM1. In particular, I was drawn towards his third statement about audiences and their expectations. I began thinking about my own assumptions that I bring with me when engaging with documentaries, and media in general.

Do I expect that I will be entertained? Educated? Enriched? Do I approach the artefact with any pre-existing opinions? Will I love it/hate it? Will it make me laugh/cry/cringe?

Recently a friend recommended an episode of ABC’s Four Corners program called ‘The Boy With The Henna Tattoo’, which delves into the underground sex work ring operating in Australia. Her precursor to the recommendation was that it is harrowing, twisted and hard to watch. She told me that a few times she had to question whether or not it was right for her to keep watching. However, she said she was rewarded with one of the most interesting and insightful pieces of media she’d seen in some time.

I have a habit of watching countless documentaries on YouTube – often in quick succession in one sitting on a cold Melbourne evening. Some of my favourites are those produced by Vice. I find their distinct style and unique/unconventional topics and niche interests never fail to entertain me and keep me falling down and down the rabbit hole, click after click and link after link.

I wonder if my viewing experience will change if next time I click through to Vice’s YouTube channel and stop to think about what my expectations are before delving into the content. I almost think it’s a more exciting and interesting experience when you don’t acknowledge your expectations, and let things unfold without your picking up on them. Although that doesn’t necessarily mean that you’re not filled with expectations, it might just be the difference of paying attention to them in that moment which makes you cognisant of them.