• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

What makes a good documentary?

Undesired Walrus

Penultimate Amazing
Undesired Walrus
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
11,691
It is becoming easier and easier to make a documentary. The Internet has become a blessing for the low budget filmakers, but also a cancer for people who want to peddle crap like Alex Jones' 'Terrorstorm' and Dylan Avery's 'Loose Change'. However, it has never become easier to write a screenplay or a novel.

This thread is to ask a question I hope will get many an answer; What makes a good documentary? A narrative? A fictional layout? Or simply well researched talking heads for 2 hours?


ETA: Damn, I was planning to put this in 'History and Arts' but the thought of 'Loose Change' put it here.
 
Subject matter, and directorial control. Errol Morris could make a documentary on paint drying and find a way to make it fasinating and compelling.
 
I would have to say...Original camera work, a logical and chronological approach, historical accuracy, interesting interviews with experts and witnesses (if applicable), and stick to the FACTS. Of course a well voiced narrator couldn't hurt either.:p:rolleyes:
 
I'm actually thinking of doing some kind of documentary work on conspiracy theory movements in general, with special emphasis on the top ones today (9/11, anti-Fed, etc.). The more I find out about the research and coverage of content, though, I realize that it's more work that I can do.
 
I have a rule of thumb. If a documentary starts with more than a minute of sinister music while displaying quotes, then I will not watch it.
 
The essential groundwork for a good documentary is no different than for a good narrative work. Structure, structure, structure.

A good documentary tells a story. It has a set up, in which it ensures the audience become emotionally (or intellectually) invested in the characters (though of course those characters tend to be real people). The documentary then takes you on an emotional and (hopefully) informative journey through the characters' experiences, finally closing with a pay off.

The thing that makes a good documentary a hard thing to achieve is that you have to find the story. Generally that's a single element which everything hangs upon. Of course sometimes the story is handed to you on a platter, like the Naudet brothers' documentary on 9/11, which was a story about two brothers trying to find each other in the midst of chaos.

But other times the filmmaker has to really work to identify the story, and structure it correctly.

-Gumboot
 
gumboot said:
A good documentary tells a story. It has a set up, in which it ensures the audience become emotionally (or intellectually) invested in the characters (though of course those characters tend to be real people). The documentary then takes you on an emotional and (hopefully) informative journey through the characters' experiences, finally closing with a pay off.
Click to expand...

I agree with this completely. In fact, it's why I want to do this kind of thing. I feel there is a place to put this topic into a point of view where the viewer can look at the various CT movements as a group of individuals that they can connect to intellectually or emotionally on some level. I believe that it is an important tool for displaying the hows and whys of conspiracy theory as a phenomenon where that disconnect can occur in our perceptions, and our minds attempt to fill in the gaps for us.

It's a concept that is at the heart of illusionist shows. Have you ever seen those posters made of dots that claim to have a 'hidden' image in it? That's where it is. It is the results of a Roscharch test. It's the glass-half-empty versus the glass-half-full, but with a twist-- asking where the glass came from in the first place. To take the common thread from each of them, it is the search for "truth" in why the world is the way it is. A desire for there to be no secrets. More often than not, a desire for a better world.

That's the tactic I would take. Making a narrative telling someone that a whole group of people are sheep being told lies, with gullible idiots eating it up like candy, is the kind of tactic megalomaniacs like Alex Jones take. That's just the same old "preaching to the choir" nonsense that belongs in a church, not in a skeptical analysis meant to encourage critical thinking.

But that's just me, so that probably doesn't mean a whole lot.
 
GreNME said:
I agree with this completely. In fact, it's why I want to do this kind of thing. I feel there is a place to put this topic into a point of view where the viewer can look at the various CT movements as a group of individuals that they can connect to intellectually or emotionally on some level. I believe that it is an important tool for displaying the hows and whys of conspiracy theory as a phenomenon where that disconnect can occur in our perceptions, and our minds attempt to fill in the gaps for us.

It's a concept that is at the heart of illusionist shows. Have you ever seen those posters made of dots that claim to have a 'hidden' image in it? That's where it is. It is the results of a Roscharch test. It's the glass-half-empty versus the glass-half-full, but with a twist-- asking where the glass came from in the first place. To take the common thread from each of them, it is the search for "truth" in why the world is the way it is. A desire for there to be no secrets. More often than not, a desire for a better world.

That's the tactic I would take. Making a narrative telling someone that a whole group of people are sheep being told lies, with gullible idiots eating it up like candy, is the kind of tactic megalomaniacs like Alex Jones take. That's just the same old "preaching to the choir" nonsense that belongs in a church, not in a skeptical analysis meant to encourage critical thinking.

But that's just me, so that probably doesn't mean a whole lot.
Click to expand...

I think, given time and resources a good documentary could be made by focusing on the people involved in the CTs and not on the theories.

I don't know how long you could sustain an audience's attention with facts about engineering and such, but I think a talented film maker could take all the hours of footage already posted online by the LTW crew, add some interviews with people that know them, maybe one or two psychologists or social commentators and cobble together an interesting visual essay on the arrogance, ignorance and greed of this noisome cult.

That's what I'd do if I had the time, money and talent...
 
firecoins said:
I saw that one. It was my favorite That was the one Errol Morris made right after the pet cemetary one, right? :confused::)
Click to expand...

I've been thinking about this some more. I think 90% of the actual work of a compelling documentary ends on the cutting room floor. Look at say Capturing the Friedmans (If you've not seen it is the most harrowing and compelling documentary I've seen in years), but I think 90% of the work that went into the film was making the subjects comfortable enough to trust the film maker to discuss the subject matter on camera. There's an enormous amount of work to be done, empathy must be struck, trust built, those people did not just stick themselves in front of the camera and just let out all this information about a dark and painful chapter in their lives.
 
This thread is to ask a question I hope will get many an answer; What makes a good documentary? A narrative? A fictional layout? Or simply well researched talking heads for 2 hours?
Click to expand...


As gumboot already mentioned, the success of your documentary will depend almost entirely on how well you tell your story. There are obviously other factors, like production quality (and everything else that ties directly to your budget), but a great story should be your #1 priority.

There are countless ways to tell a story (some of which have been mentioned), but it really comes down to asking yourself, "if someone else was sitting here telling me this story, would I be dying to hear the rest of it, or trying to think of an excuse to leave?". Then, once it passes that test, you need to make sure it's interesting to other people, too. :)

With regard to actually filming the documentary and transforming everything into a final product, there's obviously a lot to consider. If you don't have any hands-on filmmaking experience, you'll need to decide if you want to learn everything on your own or get others involved to help; however, to get help from others (without paying them a lot of money), you need to have a knock-out story.
 
Last edited:
8den said:
I've been thinking about this some more. I think 90% of the actual work of a compelling documentary ends on the cutting room floor. Look at say Capturing the Friedmans (If you've not seen it is the most harrowing and compelling documentary I've seen in years), but I think 90% of the work that went into the film was making the subjects comfortable enough to trust the film maker to discuss the subject matter on camera. There's an enormous amount of work to be done, empathy must be struck, trust built, those people did not just stick themselves in front of the camera and just let out all this information about a dark and painful chapter in their lives.
Click to expand...


You're right, and that's actually an understatement. It varies based on the subject matter & the director's style/tendencies, but it's not unheard of to have 150-200 hours of raw footage for a 90 minute documentary.

Even shooting digitally to keep costs down, that's a lot to go through in the editing room.
 
8den said:
Subject matter, and directorial control. Errol Morris could make a documentary on paint drying and find a way to make it fasinating and compelling.
Click to expand...

Didn't he make a Holocaust denial documentary? Or am I thinking of the same person? He did the Stephen Hawkings film right?
 
The question I ask myself, is that what is a more effective documentary? One that has a voiceover going with you on this journey, or one that takes you on the journey regardless of this higher voice?
 
I would think it depended on the subject matter, and whether the production is meant to have education purposes or journalistic purposes (or more of one than the other, I suppose).
 
Undesired Walrus said:
Didn't he make a Holocaust denial documentary? Or am I thinking of the same person? He did the Stephen Hawkings film right?
Click to expand...

Morris made a documentary called Mr. Death. It centers around a guy (Leuchter) who helped develop different methods for American prisons to execute condemned criminals. Throughout the course of the film it's uncovered that Leucther is a holocaust denier, one of the man's many off-putting qualities. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0192335/

So no, while Morris did a story about the guy, he didn't make a documentary saying the Holocaust never happened.

ETA: The only thing I hold against Errol Morris is his tendency to have Philip Glass write the soundtracks to his movies.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom