Documentary Film Journal - Essay Example

? Documentary Film Journal Background and Research Process As I set out to develop a documentary for the third term I recognized that I needed to gain considerable understanding of the subject matter. I gave great consideration to potential topics and continually returned to the need for documentary filmmaking to address issues of social importance. As such I worked to develop a method of artistic expression that would consider an area of prominent social concern that also contains a great emphasis on individual humanity. I recognized that through previous academic research I had cultivated a thorough understanding of issues surround illegal immigration practices and the challenges these individuals face for survival. My homeland is Iran. After the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Iran experienced a tremendous influx of immigration from these regions; today this immigration constitutes one of the largest social issues in Iran. As the issue has garnered significant media attention, it’s recognized that there has also been significant misrepresentation. To a large degree I recognized that the media’s representation of these immigrants was unfair and increasingly produced negative stereotypes. In fact, these immigrants are required to work long hours for extremely limited pay in a process that is akin to modern slavery. While I had direct experience with immigration in Iran, my knowledge of the illegal immigration experienced in the United Kingdom was limited. Still, after a quick perusal I came to recognize that the immigrant experience in this region held many parallels to the abhorrent conditions Iranian immigrants experienced. Indeed, further research demonstrated that the problem of the illegal immigration experience cannot be limited to any one region, but is instead a global problem. Indeed, Chinese writer and journalist Pai notes: The number of people living outside their countries of origin more than doubled between 1975 and 2000, from 75 million to 175 million, and is likely to double again in the next twenty-five years, according to International Labour Organization (ILO). Among the 175 million away from home, migrant workers and their families now account for 120 million people globally. It’s estimated that undocumented migrant workers constitute about twenty per cent of global migration: which means that there are around 24 million ‘illegal workers’ world-wide (2007, p. 246). This understanding of the global and expanding nature of the illegal immigration crisis greatly influenced and inspired my research and motivated my documentary production. To a large degree it was the namelessness of these immigrants that grabbed my attention and emotionally affected me. I considered that because of the nature of their condition they lack any status and in a sense it’s as if they don’t exist. I began to focus my research on a number of books and articles. These include: Reluctant Refuge, Enslaved, Modern Slavery, Chinese Whispers and etc. After my initial research of the pervading subject literature, I sought out a number of individuals who were experts in immigration law. Finally, having gained a thorough foundational understanding, I turned to major films on the subject. There is a tremendous amount of cinematic exploration of the immigration issues. My research involved films including: Ghosts (2006) by Nick Broomfield, Welcome (2009) by Philippe Lioret, Journey of Hope (1990) by Xavier Koller, La Promesse (1996) by Dardenne Brothers, Dirty Pretty Things (2002) by Stephen Frears, Gypo (2005) by Jan Dunn, The Visitor (2007) by Thomas McCarthy and etc. My next step was attending trials that included illegal immigrants as a means of gaining a first-hand perspective on the interaction between law and immigration. Interview Process After researching literature, film, and legal elements, I turned my focus to reaching out to interview actual illegal immigrants. As one might expect this was the most challenging aspect of my research. These individuals are an invisible part of the economic structure and as such actively resist easy location as their position as modern slaves has become a hidden crime (Bales, Trodd and Williamson, 2009, p. 254). Still, I had moderate success locating these individuals in I found some of these people who were working in restaurant’s kitchen, burger shops, corner shops, etc. Generally these individuals refused to be interviewed in front of a camera. Even when I began taking notes they started to panic. Ultimately, I had to resort to more surreptitious methods, including hiding a tape recorder in my pocket during interviews and then transcribing their responses at a later date. Despite tremendous resistance to on-camera interviews I did find a degree of success. The most prominent such example occurred with two men I located who were willing to speak on camera about their experience as illegal immigrants. I convinced them to be filmed by agreeing that they may be in danger, but they could hide their faces to avoid detection by law enforcement. Still, I was surprised as when we began to film they agreed to show their faces. These individuals both worked in a burger shop. One of them had worked illegally for approximately 14 years, while the other had been working illegally approximately for seven years. Despite failing to receive legal asylum they were not deported. This resulted in them falling into limbo where they had to accept extremely low pay and abhorrent working conditions as they had no recourse for complaint. Gupta notes, “Current immigration legislation plays a central role in keeping people trapped in slavery. An individual is powerless while her immigration status is in hand of somebody else, whether it is an ‘employer’, a ‘spouse’, an ‘agent’, a ‘trafficker’ or indeed the government as in the case of failed asylum seekers” (Gupta, 2008, p. 3). This understanding is one of the most recurrent aspects of the illegal immigration experience. In addition to the two men, I located a young boy who agreed to be interviewed on film. He had just arrived in the United Kingdom three months prior to being interviewed. He had sought asylum through the legal system, but had failed in his plea; his case was currently in appeal. After meeting him I immediately understood that this individual would make the perfect central focus for the documentary. He is charismatic and full of optimism about his future. He was always smiling but had a deep wrinkle on his forehead demonstrating that he’d experienced tremendous difficulties in his life. In contrast with the other two undocumented individuals who were depressed and pessimistic, this young boy, Sharif, was generally happy. I met him several times and I tried to build trust and make him comfortable with me. Still, I wanted to discover more about him during the filming. I wanted the filming process to become like a journey and I wanted to share this journey with audience. Research played a pivotal role in the development and filming of the documentary. It both provided ideas for the film and ultimately changed a number of areas of investigation. In the beginning, I wanted to concentrate on the law and the rights of undocumented people. This would include interviews with actual illegal immigrants, as well as journalists and solicitors. During the research, as I interviewed several illegal immigrates I came to develop a changing perspective on what the documentary should investigate. After this research, I decided to concentrate on the life of these people. I had a clear idea and structure about what I wanted to do. I decided to show Sharif’s life as a new comer to the UK and how he spends his time while waiting to hear from the appeal’s court. Also, I decided to include the interviews with the two other men who worked in the burger shop. I recognized that in editing, I could cut from Sharif’s life to two other guys in the burger shop talking about their life. As such, instead of having interview with the main character, Sharif, I just could show his current situation and how the other two guys talking about their own situation relate to Sharif’s life. The pervading understanding was that this parallel and montage like structure would function to show the profound connections between the experiences of all illegal immigrants. I was influenced in this idea from the movie Wings of Desire directed by Wim Wenders. I wanted the function of these the men in the burger shop to be similar to the two angels in the movie, as the viewer would receive nearly all verbal information through this apparatus. Structure and Aesthetic Elements I had approximate structure for movie and the next step was to think about an aesthetic approach. The style I had intuitively believed would work was largely an observational aesthetic. With this in mind I began conducting researching on similar observational documentaries. I came to recognize that the idea of style and the observational documentary films is to some extent a contradiction in terms. With cinema verite the idea is that the filmmaker should exhibit as little interventionist practices as possible, employing an essentially ‘benign voyeurism’ (Saunders, 2010, p. 73). Nevertheless, it may be argued that the observational documentary does require a particular style of observation to be adopted. In terms of observational aesthetic one of my most pronounced influences was from the documentarian Frederick Wiseman. It has been argued that observational documentary films are in danger of moving from strict observation towards building a narrative (Himmelstein, 1994, p. 283). It can readily be seen that this can be the case because if a particular topic or person within a documentary seems more appealing, the filmmaker would almost instinctively build on that and, moreover, subjects could play to the camera (Curran Bernard, 2007, p. 297). Although critics frequently denounce observational documentary on these grounds (Grant and Sloniowski, 1998, p. 298), the observational documentary style provides a valuable cohesion between social purpose and artistic form (Ellis and McClane, 2005, p. 154). Therefore, when considering the style used in observational documentary films, there must be a balance between the intrusive and the creative. It might be argued that cinema verite is a more creative process than observational or direct cinema though they have much in common (Corner, 1996, p. 16). This is because there is a greater emphasis on aesthetics in cinema verite (Grant and Sloniowski, 1998, p. 224) whilst observational documentary seeks to record reality without interventionist techniques: ‘the direct cinema documentarist took his camera to a situation of tension and waited hopefully for a crisis; the Rouch version of cinema verite tried to precipitate one.’ (Barnouw, 1993, pp. 254-5). It is true to say that the current drive towards the approximation of reality, however, would not have been possible without the development of the lightweight camera which facilitated less intrusive styling. The use of different stylistic techniques in documentary filmmaking can be understood to contain both technological and artistic elements. The observational style employed by Frederick Wiseman, in groundbreaking sociological documentaries such as Titicut Follies (1967), for example, would not be possible without portable equipment. When I considered this dichotomy in terms of my own artistic approach to the documentary the need for digital modes of capture became readily apparent. While film has an appealing aesthetic element, the aesthetic of digital capture also allows the filmmaker considerable ability in following the interview subjects in real-life contexts. Had I decided on implementing film I recognized I would both miss out on many aspects of real-life experience and would be more prone to staging scenes. Such staging I believed would be both unethical and would reduce both poignancy and authenticity; it’s notable this such considerations underlay the connections between observational filmmaking and aesthetics. Throughout filming the crew’s ability to fluidly and actively follow the characters movements proved invaluable. In further considering this interaction between aesthetics and observation I further considered Wiseman’s filmic approach. One characteristics of Wiseman’s movies is that he further extended observational film’s impact by using its subject metaphorically ‘to explore broad social issues as well as the ethical implications of its own approach to documentary.’ (Grant and Sloniowski, 1998, p. 238). I intended to do same thing for my documentary. In this process I worked to demonstrate the observational aspects of the lives of undocumented people, while implementing subtextual references to the capitalist system to exploits these illegal immigrant’s labor in a process of modern slavery. Even as I had this vision in mind, I feel that the ultimate creation was not as accurately able of capturing this structure; as such, I recognize that the documentary could further develop the criticism of capitalistic exploitation. Still, there were indirect references that I was satisfied with. For instance, during the interview with the two men they referenced the low payments they receive for long hours of working while neon lights from streets reflected through the window in the background. Still, it perhaps it wasn’t enough to just show the idea of capitalism as a subtext and I may have demanded too much from the viewer. As a structural and aesthetic element I decided on eschewing a traditional narrative or chronology. The main thought in this decision was that eschewing these traditional techniques would require a sort of Brechtian emphasis on audience participation, leading them to make further connections both personally and within the confines of the filmic structure. While I recognized that this slightly experimental approach carried with it a degree of risk as it could potentially too strongly alienate the viewing experience. Still, I greatly appreciated this fresh approach. Again, I was greatly influenced by the way Wiseman’s films are styled to some extent subverts the usual methodology of the documentary filmmaker: Unlike other documentaries, Wiseman's work does not progress chronologically; rather, the segments are arranged thematically, and are linked via rhetorical devices such as comparison and contrast to create a patterned structure. I went about building such a structure through comparison and contrast between the main character and the burger shop workers. In addition, Wiseman’s films are never narrated, thereby ‘forcing viewers to make connections between the sequences themselves’ (Brennan, 2010). This reliance upon reaction to make connections encourages viewer participation and aids realism, since it does not overtly project editing to achieve a specific goal: ‘Direct cinema/video thus seems to leave more room for viewer response and subsequent action because of the inherent continuation in the work itself. The form's weakness, however, is that the subsequent plan of action is often vague or nonexistent because the social relations explored in the work are not clearly explicated within a well-developed conceptual frame.’ (Himmelstein, 1994, p. 279). Still, it has been indicated that Wiseman ‘combines detached observation and expressive manipulation, merging observational cinema’s aesthetic of the seemingly “uninvolved bystander” with an expressive use of mise-en-scene and montage’ (Grant and Sloniowski, 1998, p. 239). There were a number of further cinematic proscriptions I developed during the filmmaking process. From an overarching perspective, I attempted to limit any form of external manipulation in the filmmaking process. This involved avoiding any staging techniques, such as feeding characters contrived lines. Instead, I attempted to act as a pure observer. Still, as is characteristic of the documentary film process and a noted aspect of film theory, the documentary filmmaker always experiences the observational paradox; namely, the very act of observing the subject matter affects the way they act and the elements they present to the camera. I think it is an inevitable feature of documentary making, and filmmaking in general, that the filmmaker’s personal perspective intrudes upon the decisions that are made whilst filming and during the post-production editing. I wanted to avoid any manipulation but as I will explain later, in editing some manipulation was necessary to enhance meaning. I came to recognize that the juxtaposition of shots in a documentary will encourage the audience to adopt a certain view. When my tutors watched the first cut they talked about some shots or some camera angles that created meaning in term of context. Oftentimes, I never even considered the effect of some of these shots during filming. It’s clear that in these instances the viewer’s own experience affected the way the film was interpreted. Now, I understand why Wiseman places so much emphasis on the spaces between the shots, where the viewer must make up his or her own mind about the subject matter. At the time I wasn’t brave enough to do that in my film. I cut too soon and I didn’t give space to the viewer to think about the subject. I was afraid that the audience might get bored and I decided, in some scenes, to use too much of certain cuts. One of the comments that I received was that the audience couldn’t connect with the characters in the film. Collaboration Process After developing and establishing my own perspective on subject and aesthetics I turned to articulating this vision to the crew. I was confident with my director of photography (DoP) since he was with me during the research process. We engaged in a long discussion about the film, style and general aesthetics. We study many of Wiseman’s films and discussed his implementation of camera movement. We also observed the Dardenne Brothers films for their hand-held camera techniques. In the practice shoot, we practiced a general dialogue. We shot with a hand-held camera and simply moved the camera towards the individual talking; for example, if the man in the scene was talking the camera was with him, but as the woman started to talk we moved the camera towards her. The camera was too shaky since we paned from one character to another too quickly. As such we amended our original perspective, such that rather than shifting focus between characters we would try to allow a main character to expound on their ideas. This would restrict character interaction an extent, but it would greatly contribute to our strong articulation of the subject matter. Sharif, the main character, exercised everyday in the park everyday. I wanted to film that aspect of his daily life. Before shooting, the crew and I went to that park and discussed shots and camera angles. Since we didn’t want to stage anything, we discussed possible places Sharif might go and the subsequent film movement these changes would engender. Then we discussed where the camera should be in these different situations. Since I didn’t want the character to feel the appearance of the camera the director and photography and myself decided to implement a great degree of long shots and implement zooming. Since the movie is observational and investigates the human condition I wanted the camera to be eye-level with the character as this would allow the viewer to peer into Sharif’s eyes. Filming There were a number of further changes that occurred during the filming process. The first such recognition occurred in terms of announcing that filming would begin. Initially I had indicated to the crew when to begin, but I quickly observed that this announcement also resulted in the filming subject becoming self-conscious and destroy the naturalistic atmosphere. From this point on I asked the director of photography to be ready to shoot without announcement. While this placed further demands on the crew, the strategy made the subject more comfortable and allowed us to retain a degree of naturalism. One of the concerns we had was that we would ultimately run out of film. As a means of circumventing this challenge we agreed to cut every three or four minutes. This allowed us to review the cuts on a nightly basis and then reuse the film that we edited out. After a few days I came to believe this was a mistake. There were many storylines that developed in the process to which I wish I had earlier footage that had since been deleted. Still, we managed to retain a number of poignant scenes. During shooting in the main character’s room, we discovered that he picks poetry every day and places it in the box. This poetry box was something that I didn’t expect. As he became comfortable with crew he started to share his life with us. I soon noticed how the concept of time could have a strong relation to the character since he was waiting for the appellate court; during this waiting time, he had nothing to do and he started to kill the time physically (by doing exercise everyday) and mentally (by writing poetry). In the editing, I decided to use this element. But after screening, I noticed that just a few people got this idea. I believe the main problem was that I introduced the time theme too soon. I should have introduced his situation first and then give the audience time to identify with his life. There were a number of instances where during the filming process specific scenes emerged that made great contributions to the documentary. One scene found Sharif sitting alone in the park. He was observing different children with their families. I recognized that this scene could be implemented to provide the viewer insight into the unique aspects of the immigrant’s experience. Like Wiseman’s movies, I tried to show the situation through pure observation, without dialogue. I didn’t expect to film such a scene and when it happened I was pleased. I believe this one of the great aspects of observational film: not knowing what will happen next is an authentic journey for both the viewer and filmmaker. Still, this mode of filmmaking is risky. For example, in the second day of shooting, I couldn’t film anything useful because the main character was tired and taciturn. I had to ask him questions to get some information about him; this is perhaps the worst part of the film. That day I came to realize that perhaps my central aspect was attempting to make an observational movie in six days. The nature of observational film is that through countless non-descript hours, moments of importance and poignancy emerge. Filming in six days drastically limited our ability to capture these moments. Indeed, observational documentary filmmakers like Albert and David Maysles or Wiseman spend a few months filming to get to the core of the situation. We experienced challenges during filming that were not anticipated. One such instance occurred when Sharif was going to cook dinner. The crew and I blocked our movements for this scene, but as it unfolded Sharif’s roommates entered the frame and wanted to help him cook. This scene was further complicated as the individuals began to speak in their home language. Our camera operator did not understand this language, making it next to impossible to focus on the core areas of concern. While I understood their language, rather than aiding the film process, this alienated them. They soon became uncomfortable talking. I made the decision to leave the kitchen, resulting in their continued conversation. Still, the camera operator struggled to focus the scene. Even as this process was chaotic, in post-production I recognized we had captured a genuine moment of human interaction. The fact the camera operator did not disrupt the focus, as he was instinctually able to follow the action. This resulted in a sort of sublime quality to the scene, with the nature of cooking and food functioning as a metaphor on survival. In retrospect, this is one of the scenes with which I am most pleased. The preconception we had regarding Sharif’s optimism proved accurate upon further filmic investigation. In addition, the depression and cynicism of the two men working in the burger ship also remained generally consistent. While we attempted to go beyond too simplistic of an allegory, these character elements perpetually emerged. I believe that this contrasting element functioned to show the complex nature of the immigrant experience: while it holds the potential of driving down one’s hope and outlook, there are still bright spots. These contrasting perspectives of hope and hopelessness were prominently explored in the editing process as we capitalized on these roller coaster like changes in emotional perspective. To an extent, I was influenced by the film “The Wind Will Carry Us” by Abbas Kiarostami. This film explored the duality of life and death and implemented contrasting modes of light and darkness in every scene. I tried to implement this aesthetic in post-production and editing. As the title of our film was “Limbo”, I tried to end the movie with a shot that was emblematic of this moniker. I filmed the main character at night in the park but he is looking at the bright moon in the sky. Overarching Reflections Throughout the third term my knowledge of filmmaking progressed dramatically. While I had a background in film theory and production, there was no amount of reading our preparation that could have prepared me for the actual process of filming. Countless times during filmmaking I had to make spur of the moment decisions to follow the character’s spontaneity. Since one of our specified aesthetic goals was to retain an observational and non-manipulative approach, I came to recognize the need to be prepared for almost anything to occur. While the film attempted to capture the journey of the characters being filmed, the actual process of filmmaking was itself an journey. Intellectually, philosophically, and aesthetically I grew and developed. I consider that even with this growth I received a degree of criticism. One issue was that individuals believed I tried to tackle too broad a topic in such a short film and that I bombarded the viewer with too much information. In this sense the film was like biting into an apple, and before finishing this apple, moving onto another. In retrospect I believe that many of these criticisms were warranted and I would have focused on a more narrowed thematic concern if I started the project again. In terms of project success, I believe the film profoundly handled modes of nationality. The three characters that appeared in the film were from different nationalities, yet this was never directly mentioned. I wanted to concentrate on the human condition and if the audience didn’t know anything these individuals’ past it would potentially engender greater degrees of sympathy. After screening people said that they didn’t even notice they needed to know anything about the characters’ backgrounds and they just feel sympathy for them as a human. Notably, none of the critics mentioned that the filmed neglected the characters’ backgrounds. Overall, all the process was a new and great experience for me. This term I perhaps most appreciated the opportunity I had to work in a great unit. Our unit held several meetings before shooting as a means of establishing our strategic approach. During these meetings I recognized that we had an excellent cooperative relationship. During these meetings all the group members freely expressed their opinions and concerns. These meetings not only enabled us to organize our findings, but also served as a platform where we could remove our differences and develop strong relationships with one another. Occasionally, we had misunderstandings, but we never failed to overcome them through considerate and rational discussions. I loved the teamwork that we maintained throughout shooting. All group members enjoyed making the film because of the friendly atmosphere that resulted from our mutual creative efforts; everybody’s opinion was valued and respected in the decision making process. This term was a great experience for working with real people not just in terms of filmmaking but also in terms of life. References Pai, Hsiao-Hung. (2008). Chinese Whispers: The true story behind Britain’s hidden army of labour. London: Penguin Books Bales, Kevin and Trodd, Zoe and Williamson, Alex Kent. (2009). Modern Slavery: The Secret World of 27 Million People. Oxford: Oneworld Gupta, Rahila. (2008). Enslaved: The New British Slavery. London: Portobello Books Ltd Saunders, David. (2010). Documentary. New York: Routledge. Himmelstein, Hal. (1994). Television Myth and the American Mind. Westport, CT: Praeger. Curran Bernard, Sheila. (2007). Documentary Storytelling: Making Stronger and More Dramatic Non-fiction Films. Boston: Focal. Ellis, Jack C. and McClane, Betsy A. (2005). A New History of Documentary Film. London: Continuum. Corner, John. (1996). The Art of Record: Critical Introduction to Documentary. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Grant, Barry Keith and Sloniowski, Jeannette. (1998). Documenting the Documentary: Close Readings of Documentary Film and Video. Detroit: Wayne State University Press. Barnouw, Erik. (1993). Documentary: A History of the Non-Fiction Film. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Brennan, S. (2010). ‘Frederick Wiseman’. At: [accessed: 04.12.11]. Filmography Ghosts. Dir., Prod. Nick Broomfield. Writ. Nick Broomfield and Jez Lewis. Nick Broomfield, 2006. Welcome. Dir. Philippe Lioret. Writ. Philippe Lioret, Emmanuel Courcol, Olivier Adam. Prod. Christophe Rossignon, 2009. Journey of Hope. Dir. Xavier Koller. Writ. Feride Cicekoglu and Xavier Koller. Prod. Peter-Christian Fueter and Alfi Sinniger. 1990 La Promesse. Dir., Writ. Dardenne Brothers. Prod. Hassen Daldoul, Luc Dardenne and Claude Waringo, 1996. Dirty Pretty Things. Dir. Stephen Frears. Writ. Steven Knight. Prod. Robert Jones and Tracey Seaward, 2002. Gypo. Dir., Writ. Jan Dunn. Prod. Elaine Wickham, 2005. The Visitor. Dir., Writ. Thomas McCarthy. Prod. John Woldenberg, 2007. Wing of Desire. Dir. Wim Wenders. Writ. Peter Handke, Richard Reitinger and Wim Wenders. Prod. Anatole Dauman and Wim Wenders, 1987. Titicut Follies. Dir., Writ., Pro. Frederick Wiseman, 1967. The Wind Will Carry Us. Dir., Writ. Abbas Kiarostami. Prod. Marin Karmitz and Abbas Kiarostami, 1999. Read More