*
How do you keep a sense of realism in your documentaries and still have an
impact?
This is a tricky question – or, rather, it's
very tricky to answer!
The term "realism" in screen studies (which
is what you're doing) usually refers to the sort of film language used in most
mainstream drama films (such as Hollywood movies) to give the "illusion of
reality". This sort of illusion (or trick – like a magician's trick) makes it possible for
audiences to "suspend their disbelief" and get really engaged in what they're
seeing on the screen – without thinking "I'm in a cinema watching a film that
has been constructed with a crew and cast" all the time. If they did this, they might not enjoy
the film so much, so mainstream cinema tries to hide HOW the film is made. The
cinematography, editing and sound, etc. are all used seamlessly – audiences
aren't supposed to se or hear how it was all stitched
together.
"Reality" is usually used to refer to what
the documentary camera sees and what the documentary microphone hears. But as my previous answer suggested, it's
not as simple as that!
And remember, what has impact for one person
might not have impact on another. I saw a brilliant doco last year called "The
Weeping Camel" (I think that's the title). It was actually the graduation film
of a German film student. It was shot in Russia among a small group of nomads
and at one point a small camel appeared to be crying because its mother
abandoned it. Now in actual fact, the camel was 'weeping' because of the wind
and sand. But the filmmakers wove it into their story to have this maximum
emotional impact on the audience. It certainly did on me - I was weeping as much
as the little camel! But to my amazement, my sister just shrugged and said she
thought it was "over the top".
[End of part 2 - see next email for part
3]
