Throughout my years of filmmaking, one problem that has reared its head repeatedly is determining the importance of a plan versus the importance of adaptability. Can equilibrium be found, or is prioritisation more effective? This assignment forced me to dwell on such thoughts. Our group had a plan and precise allocation of roles, which gave me a sense of belonging and clarity. Because of, or perhaps in spite of this, I find my post-assignment outlook to be critical of both my input and various issues that emerged throughout the filmmaking process.
What went wrong? Well, it might ultimately be better to start with what went right. We successfully pulled off an almost wholly participatory documentary. The final documentary is honest, it’s approachable, and to beat a well beaten drum, it’s human. We are empathetically looking into the experiences of a woman who has, like us, lived through the last year and suffered a little for it. We wanted the audience not to feel like a fly on the wall, but be in the room with the social actor, to share a physical space with them.
The final documentary remained fairly close to our initial plan. We explored the issue of the pandemic’s effect on people’s mental health and how our social actor personally dealt with it. Instead of contrasting experiences we delved into the singular experience, allowing it to gestate and grow on screen. This ultimately benefits our initial idea of building an empathetic short.
The interview itself was shot by Mel, the social actor being a friend of hers. Surprisingly I don’t think her name actually came up at any point during the discussion or edit. We know her experience, we know her interests. Names are irrelevant, as isolation has reduced and homogenised identity through a shared struggle. As a result, an introduction was not shot. Mel did a fantastic job with limited time and equipment, she framed her shots well and shot excellent coverage through b-roll. Minor audio issues, but again, that’s a technical issue. It’s very clearly either the camera’s lens focussing or an internal component. This could be mitigated with separate audio equipment, but again, time and availability. Overall, fantastic work on her part.
Janelle handled the editing with great diligence. She posted a number of consecutive drafts before and after the preview screening on Monday. There was fast turnaround on any and all critiques, and she translated and subsequently subtitled sublimely. The edit itself isn’t wild or sporadic but instead pragmatic; by avoiding unnecesary auxiliary techniques the audience is immersed. If we wanted the audience to have explicit awareness of this being a documentary, we would’ve adhered more closely to the reflexive mode.
Julie handled the behind the scenes planning. She provided a lengthy list of recommendations for Mel’s shoot and critiqued the edit. While there is very little to say, the concise nature of her work speaks for how smoothly her work integrated into the filmmaking process. The shoot would undoubtedly have turned out differently without her input.
Regarding my contribution, I spearheaded the early planning phase, which led to the obvious consequence of dealing with a myriad of planning issues and various complications. I was going to shoot some interview footage, but the interviews ultimately never happened due to a lack of consent from potential interviewees.While frustrating, these are acceptable losses as I was able to learn from them, honing my skills in organisation and adaptability. In addition to my core role, I provided commentary and critique throughout the process of production, both in the creation of our planning document and the quality of the edit.
Back to what I said earlier, planning is important. Seriously important. But all the plans in the world can’t save you if you don’t know how to adapt. That’s more or less what I needed to learn on this. I spent a week putting my eggs into the one basket, the next week into another basket, and the last, into one last basket. Now? I don’t have any eggs to show for it because I dropped three consecutive baskets here.
So what’s the ultimate lesson of this? Cynically, maybe tackle a less difficult topic. Genuinely, try a little bit harder and cover more bases. A clear fault of my efforts is focus firing, I’d chose one target and basically wait until that goes wrong. Woefully inefficient. I needed to practice more flexibility.
Really, it might not have been the worst thing for me to not shoot an interview. I’ve been methodically watching through Werner Herzog’s work with a mate and I feel as though I’ve just spared the world from my terrible impression of his dry, unrelenting voice. That said, his method and his madness are noteworthy, particularly his admiration of the esoteric and of the strangeness of human nature. Even if Encounters at the End of the World is in my humble opinion, his worst documentary, it still boasts his vision with great clarity. You, as the audience, are dragged through the ice and snow and bear witness to the kooky characters down in the Antarctic. Bus drivers, cooks, divers, all with their own unique esotericism. His documentaries, short of Grizzly Man (given the material), are warm, empathetic and cozy, with his voice cutting sharply through it all, the almost comic antithesis of those words.
I’ll paraphrase the only line from the reading that struck a chord with me here, “How much can the filmmaker insist on testimony when it is painful to provide it?” This shaped my view of this project, and honestly a lot of my life in the last few months. As documentarians, as storytellers, as human beings we are told that the truth, or reality, is an important goal of documentary, of history, of day to day life. The concept of emotional truth lacks a singular firm answer, so why pretend that it does? It’s the conundrum of both the Observer’s effect and the Hawthorne Effect: the “truth” or whatever it is, is changed through the act of observation and how that affects the behaviours of those being observed. By recording it, it’s further obscured by way of being physically unable to capture the truth accurately and holistically. With this film, the subject could be lying, withholding her thoughts, or exaggerating. The editor could be cutting parts that don’t suit the message or fit tonally. There are endless conundrums that face those seeking to tell a story, be it obfuscation of material or the accusation of it by others. Ultimately, exclusion and editorialising are as necessary a part of the documentary process as they are any other creative endeavour. I believe that even in the face of these challenges, our efforts have produced a final result that makes a concerted effort to promote and foster an authentic response from our audience.
Life’s short, tell a pretty lie. Make a documentary worth watching.
Thanks for having me,
Thomas.