Editing:
The editor gives the documentary
pace and structure just like any other filmmaker. So the editor might build up a sense of
drama or tension by cutting together a number of short shots that get increasing
shorter - and this might be enhanced by some exciting music on the sound
track.
Editors also use transitions as a sort of
'film language' – so a slow dissolve (where you see one shot slowly fading away
as the next shot slowly fades up and replaces the previous one) could suggest
time slowly passing and small changes taking place. Whereas a sudden cut – say
from a night shot to bright daylight - might be saying to the audience "hey wake
up!" and sort of jerk them in time from the past to the
present.
Performance
The people who appear in a
documentary are often referred to as "social actors" or "social performers"
(it's thought to be very rude to refer to them as "talent" – tho that's
precisely what they are). You tend not to see many boring, ordinary people in
documentaries: like real actors, they're chosen because the filmmakers thinks
they'll convince audiences to stay watching the film. A doco filmmaker might not
give as many directions to their social actors as a drama film director but if
the "performance" of the real person being filmed is awkward, clumsy or hesitant
they'll usually either be asked to do it again or it will end up being cut
out.
Even tho social actors in documentaries
often have to give up a lot of their time and do things they wouldn't
necessarily do, and contribute to the income of the filmmakers by participating
in their film, they don't usually get paid. Do you think this is fair? Can you
think of arguments both for and against paying social
actors?
Sound:
Documentary filmmakers often use
less complex sound technology than in drama films. One school or "genre' of
documentary films that is called "observational' or 'fly on the wall' often uses
only actual sound and won't add any additional sound or music. But this is less
fashionable than it used to be. There is also a very popular genre of music
documentaries (including "rockumentaries") that uses highly sophisticated sound
technology and many sound tracks as the audiences got to hear the music as well
as to see their favourite bands and orchestras. But next time you watch a documentary,
listen especially hard to the sound track –'non-diegetic' sound is often used.
(If your teacher hasn't told you about 'diegetic' and non-diegetic' – go ask
her/him and demand to know!)
We often think of a documentary as simply
"capturing" reality but, in fact, a documentary film is not that much different
from a feature/drama film. All the techniques that the filmmaker can afford are
often used. Doco films, however, are usually very poorly financed so the
filmmakers (and audiences) have to make do with a poorer quality. This makes
many doco filmmakers quite angry.
I'm not quite sure if I understand the
second part of your question: "How would these techniques differ when making a film?" As I hope I've explained above, a documentary is a film like
any other – it just has a different sort of relationship to reality. Mind you, a doco, like a
drama/fiction/feature might not be "film" at all – it might be shot on video
tape or digital.
The Sydney Film Festival is going on at the
moment and last night I saw 2 short films made by Aboriginal filmmakers in Alice
Springs. The drama was shot on High 8 and the doco was shot on
film.
But if I've misunderstood your question just
let me know and ask it in another way – I'll be happy to answer
again!
[See next email for Part
2]
