The Mentoring Room - Ask the Working Pros

Erica and John:
The question of whether a church is legally a public or private
space for the purposes of determining whether a release is necessary
has probably been addressed by some court somewhere. My guess is
that the stronger argument is that worshippers have a reasonable
expectation of privacy in the interior of a church which cant be
seen from outside and that their permission to be filmed should be
secured. But pretty much anything done in public or which can be
seen from the outside ie through a window is fair game.

Hi guys i have a lsight tech question.
I shot some bmx guys in a skate hall last night and
it all came out great except it was fluro lighting and
my new mx500 doesnt seem to like low light situations a whole lot.
I got the cam because it is really small and inconspicuous
for the kind of doco stuff at festivals and the like i wanted
to shoot now i am worried that all my lower light stuff will
be excessively grainy.
Maybe this becomes an aesthetic i can use.
I am reading lots of stuff now about the gl1 being better in
low light etc.
the shutter speed doesnt go below 1/50 but it does have gain
up settings and manual whitbalance.
Any comments would be cool. I just didnt really have the budget
for another grand for the gl2 .
cheers
bb

Blake, I have the Canon GL-1, and it's pretty good in low light but
not what I'd call fantastic. I haven't shot enough with other cameras
to make a comparison. If it has a gain up setting, I'm not aware (and
I shoot a lot with it), but cameras that effectively give you a gain
up effect with a shutter speed give you that pixellated look when you
move the camera (which is sometimes nice, but not always). As for
manual whitebalance, it has no affect on low light shooting.

Anyway, my gut reaction is you take your own advice and use the
excessive grain as an aesthetic. Could work very well.

My partner and I have spent the past year writing a proposal and
refining our concept, approach and goals for a documentary
we've become obsessed with making. Probably not the best
idea to put all our eggs in one basket, but we've learned a lot and
hopefully we'll find ourselves able to be flexible if the need
arises.

The project involves a pretty big, but not neccessarily
controversial (i.e. Walmart) corporation as the setting and the
vehicle to understanding people within the environment and
ultimately ouselves as a whole. I suppose similar to Neiman
Marcus in Fred Wiseman's film. We have finally made contact
with them and are sending them information on the idea. They
were abrupt and skeptical, although polite in our phone
conversation.

Our approach to the film is one of personal, intimate
open-mindedness and we believe the film will be a celebration
of the place and certainly not critical or exposing in style. What
tone should we use in our letter and correspondence? For
example: sheer desperation, PR-style convincing,
sentimentality? I know that sounds false, but as I write the info
sheet out I can't help but fear that one step in the wrong direction
could blow everything. Also, the advice we were initally following
was to just send a letter of introduction but our telephone
conversation was so abrupt and marred with miscommunication
that we feel we should provide enough info to prevent any
misunderstandings. What we really want is to meet with this
person face to face, in the hope that our honesty and passion
will prevail. In moments of fear, I feel why in the world would they
care enough about us and honest personal filmmaking to say
yes. Any ideas?

Also, the info sheet we're writing is a page and a half bulleted
with headings, etc. Does that sound right? What other materials
or ideas should we include?

Whoever's out there, thank you very much for all your help.

Heather & Margaret

H & M, if I were a big corporation like Walmart, I'd be skeptical,
too. What could they possibly gain from having two unknown, indie doc
makers probing around with their video camera? These companies spend
millions in advertising and take their branding and corporate image
very very seriously.

If I were you, I'd think long and hard from their point of view about
what you could offer them by doing this doc. What promotional value
could it have for them? How will it enhance their image? My guess is
that the doc you wish to make isn't alligned with the public image
they wish to convey.

I assume you want total editorial control, so there is probably zero
chance they'll go for it. However, given that, you have nothing to
lose. My approach would be as honest as possible (it's almost always
the best approach in trying to get access, anyway). Explain what
you're attempting to do and convey your passion for your project as
best as you can. You never know.

Lotsa luck.

Hi, all. Um, there's a good chance I'll be commissioned to make a doc
for a production company. Problem is (and it's not, really), I'm a
movie guy and think in 'cinematic' terms. So I was wondering if
anyone could, and would, be kind enough to post a link to ANY online
web tutorial or article that covers the basic outline (subject
approach, research, blah blah blah) of Documentary film
writing/directing. I don't really need this information but an
objective (i.e. theoretical) perspective might prove a great time
saver in organizing my thoughts & actions.

Muchos gracias.

Heather, it sounds like a great idea for a project but I would have
to agree with Doug's comments. Also I wouldn't be too quick to say
Walmart does not involve controversy. Michael Moore made them look
pretty bad in "Bowling for Columbine" (if you haven't yet seen his
film, he takes WalMart and K-Mart to task for selling firearms and/or
ammunition in their stores. K-Mart changed its policy as a result of
his film, but now Moore is campaigning vigorously on his website
against Walmart). I'd be very surprised if Walmart would agree to
any filmmaker doing an observational doc about them.

Space, docs can be every bit as "cinematic" as fiction films -- with
a storyline, a protagonist/antagonist, a climax, a conclusion, etc.
The main difference is that most documentaries (barring those dull
historical films with only a narrator and archival footage) are not
scripted in advance of the shoot (though, of course, the director may
have an outline and a fairly good idea of what he/she is looking for)
and you have more leeway in structuring than you do if you come from
the Syd Field school. Sometimes the footage is just given to an
editor who re-constructs it. Sometimes it is tightly scripted. Even
when scripted, the format may look considerably different than what
you would be accustomed to with a fiction script. Others here may
disagree, but I find the 2 column approach works best, especially for
films that use a lot of voiceover over visuals.

I would recommend two books to you: "Directing the Documentary" by
Michael Rabiger (excellent overview of the process)
and "Scriptwriting for High Impact Videos" (covers industrials as
much as docs, but gives some suggested guidelines as far as script
format).

Erica,

Thanks for the info. I am well aware that a doc can (and
should) be cinematic, but I always feel that some kind of 'outline'
of objectives is always a great way of aligning ones thought process
before starting any kind of project (cinematic or not). I have heard
about "Directing the Documentary" and I'll probably buy a copy as it
seems to be very highly regarded by those in the doc circle. Anyhoot
thanks again. Also, any additional info (or links?) to the '2 column
approach' would be welcome.

Regards,

Space Ludwig

P.S. FYI, I can't stand that insufferable, patronizing Syd Field. I've
bought and read three of his books which I've given away.

Then you've come to the right place. Don't think there's much love
lost between most documentarians and Mr. Field though some folks
would argue that docs can and should follow a similar structure to
the 3-Act fiction film.

Not sure of too much on the web in the way of formatting. Closest I
could come is
<http://faculty.uscolo.edu/ebersole/handbook/script.html> If I'm
doing a paper cut based on window dubs, I usually also add a column
to note Tape Number and timecode.

Erica,

Thanks for the link. Also, I just won "Directing the Documentary" on
ebay for $5, which is a bargain, I guess, so that should provide some
useful info. Apparently this is THE book to read. However, I heard the
same thing about Field's books which turned out to be a pedantic
farce so I'll wait until I read it to pass judgement. I'm looking
forward to readjusting my thinking process. Thanks for your help and
info. I'll post my progress and hopefully the 'veterans' can give me
advice along the way when I hit road blocks.

Regards,

Space Ludwig

There is no THE BOOK to read other than Aristotle.
Directing the Doc has some useful info but is hardly the end all and
be all of making nonfiction. If you want insight go to the library
and look at the vast array of nonfiction books. That's the
possibilities that exist for nonfiction films. Everything from "In
Cold Blood" to Dave Barry Cleans His Sink.

Robert,

Um, I believe the rules laid out in Aristotle's poetics, if I am
correct in assuming this is what you are referring to, were
thoroughly - and successfully - refuted by the movie 'Pulp Fiction'.
If you read ALL of my previous posts you will realize that what I am
looking for is not info on how to write a story, nor am I lacking in
creative inspiration, but rather a basic outline of what to consider
when making a documentary picture, i.e. technical information. Dave
Barry cannot help me in this department. Thanks anyway.

Regards,

Space Ludwig

Pulp Fiction refuted nothing. Technical information for making docs
is no different than making any other film. They don't use different
presses for printing nonfiction and fiction.

I think Robert is taking the word "technical" too literally here.
Obviously Space is referring to the methods, the thought organization,
etc., not literally issues of tape stock, e.g.

And indeed there is a big difference in approach to making a fiction
or doc film. They are entirely different beasts.

Space, you might want to hire an a.p. or co-producer who is
experienced in docs to help you. I don't think a book can replace
human knowledge and experience in this case.

Heather, good to see you here and your idea sounds excellent,
although the challenges do seem a bit daunting. I wonder if you could
go ahead and do some shooting and cut a short demo for Walmart to look
at.

It's all rather unfortunate with the timing of Michael Moore's movie.
Did Michael Moore shoot inside Walmart? Did he get permission?

If the angle of your film is a Fred Wiseman type of
humanity-revealing through a microcosm, I'd imagine it would be great
publicity for Walmart. What makes this tricky is you don't know who
you're pitching to, exactly. If you can pitch in person, you can
gauge their sensibility better. You could pitch it to them as almost
a reality series built around Walmart (crass, but whatever). Of
course, if you pitch it to someone with a brain and sensitivity, pitch
the humanity/vérité angle.

Margot - disagree - the thought process for making a fiction or
nonfiction film is much the same. The only difference is that in
fiction you need actors and the outcome of the film is
predetermined. Figuring out what the scenes are and who you need to
talk to and how to go shoot it require same skills. No special
cameras/crews required for docs versus drama. Planning is planning.
Prepro is prepro.

Hello

Im very new to this site, and I was hoping there may be some people
out there willing to share their views on the work of Nick
Broomfield, controversial british doc maker, with me (Biggie and
Tupac, Kurt and Courtney,The leader..., Heidi Fleiss etc..). I am
currently compiling a biography and analysis of his career and
works. Im especially interested in a discussion on doc ethics, with
an emphasis on new documentary. I would also like to know if anyone
knows of anywhere, apart form the N Broomfield official website,
where I could gain access to a biographical outline of his career
timeline.

Any comments would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks- Hayley

Hayley, no need to post the same request twice. We read all the
different topics.

Hi all! I am a little new to the world of docs having been a
television producer for many years. My husband and I have recently
started our own company and are in the middle of our first
project. Here's my question-We are aiming to make a one hr piece
and our initial thoughts were to go for something like the History
Channel, Discovery, PBS etc. Assuming we self fund the project at
say $125,000 budget and we present the finished project to these
channels what would they typically pay? I understand the concept of
domestic international rights etc. Lets say for instance we were
looking to give them domestic and home video rights and leave the
international marketing to another company. We are just trying to
get an idea of a typical pay out from the nets. Thanks so much for
your help!

Leslie

ditto for Leslie.

Okay. So if you don't mind here is a second question. In two parts:

Where does an international market fit...in other words how much per
country-is it reasonable to expect say Germany to perhaps pay
$100,000 for a $125,000 budget piece if they are interested? Is it
better to work with a distributor who has international connections?

Secondly-I have been in the TV business for a good many years and
have worked freelance for a documentary production company. How do
these companies make any money? Does say History Channel pay little
more money once you have become established? I do love making
documentaries but I am also trying to make a living at it and trying
to figure out the best way to do that. Thank you again for your
help.

Leslie

Leslie, I strongly recommend you read the Jan Rofekamp conference on
Selling in the International Marketplace: {LINK NOT IMPORTED} It will answer your
questions.

Hello everyone,

First, thank you for your replies. It's super encouraging to hear words of advice and interest when you feel like you're floating in a
worldof what-to-do-next's.

I think I miscommunicated one thing and I'm curious to see if this changes anyone's angle/opinion/advice. The company we're
thinking of is actually not like a controversial Walmart-y kind of place. Although it is big and national, the branches we're interested in
are actually some of the smaller, less intriguing, and famous parts of the main company. Also, they have appeared
lately on dating shows and segments of David Letterman. So although I know image is a huge factor for them, it's not clear to me
exactly what they need to protect or project. Also, I think as a place on the fringes of big business I'm not sure if I can actually say -
'what have you got to lose'? Am I naive?

(btw - hello margot and thank you!)

-Heather & Margaret (again)

Yes, you're naive, Heather. But that's not a bad quality for a
documentary filmmaker. Nor is stubborness or persistence. If your
heart is set on this, you should just plow forward and try not to take
no for an answer from anyone -- including anyone here at this forum.