Guidelines for producing a short documentary

Before shooting the film

 

The starting point is, of course, to think of an interesting topic that all the members of the group are enthusiastic about.

 

Watch documentary movies.

 

Choose a subject that you find fascinating and is accessible to you. Choosing a subject that is compelling & timely will result in a strong and relevant film. It is often better to focus on a local personality or local event so that you will have access to loads of resources for your film. Besides, it's much simpler & cheaper to shoot at home than abroad.

 

Become an expert on your chosen subject through research. Research your subject as thoroughly as possible. Gain knowledge through the internet, books, and word of mouth. Attend events pertaining to your chosen subject.

 

It is important to formulate the basic idea of the film as precisely and clearly as possible. If you do not know why you want to make this film, what it is about and where the story is going, then it might not be a very good idea for a film.

 

Find a selection of different documentaries, discuss the qualities of each film and note the good elements. This will probably give you an idea of how you want to structure your own film. During these screenings, however, keep in mind that most documentaries are not made on the same basis as the short fiction film – this limits the degree to which you should be inspired.

 

The preparation phase is very time consuming in the documentary genre. It requires thorough research on your topic or source of inspiration. In order to get a fairly good understanding of your person and his or her story you need to visit him or her and make some test interviews. This will give you an impression of the person's limits and boundaries, and what s/he is willing to talk about.

 

If possible, bring a video camera (to the first meetings) to find out how the person reacts to the camera, and to let him/her get used to its presence before the actual shoot. It also gives you a chance to map the different locations and thus plan more precisely what you want to be in the film (a test film is the basis for working out a fairly accurate storyboard/preliminary script.)

 

As regards the screenplay, there are different ways of structuring the material in a documentary.

 

1) The Linear Narrative Form, also known as classic Hollywood storytelling;

 

2) The Discursive Narrative Form, which gives priority to information, facts and logic;

 

3) The Episodic Narrative Form, which juxtaposes situations that have no narrative or causal relations.

 

4) The Poetic Narrative Form, which is built up around visual poetic associations.

 

 

The Camera plays a role: it acts on the sender's (i.e. your) behalf. Remember that the camera angles and movements are significant for the degree to which you express respect for, solidarity with, antipathy against, etc., the people in the film. (In some respects you always make films about yourself – even though you are working in groups). Before the shoot starts make sure you have agreed on certain principles for operating the camera (of course this is of special importance if the camera is operated by more than one member of the group).

 

It is a good idea to draw up a set of rules, some aesthetic narrative guidelines for what you can and cannot do. This will save you many discussions during the shoot and will ensure you a fairly coherent style (it easily becomes rather mixed with more than one director).

 

For instance, you can make rules about the interviews and the rooms where they should take place; whether or not the interviewer should be visible in the picture; whether the camera movements should be calm or swift; in which rooms or situations the camera should be on a tripod or handheld; whether the persons should be filmed from below, at eye-level, from above; if the interviewer's questions should be cut out (in which case a certain interview technique is required); whether you want to use voice-over commentary, and so on and so forth.

 

Note that one of the dangers of operating with a set of aesthetic rules (like using the storyboard method) is that the interviewee may become too "stiff" and tense. The rules are only meant to be guidelines – not dogmas – and you should be willing to change them as you go along.

 

It is important that you reflect on what sort of "voice" you want in your film already in the preparation phase (before working out a storyboard):

 

1) The Expository Mode: The viewer is addressed directly "with titles or voices that advance an argument about the historical world," and often images merely become illustrations of what the authoritative commentary (voice of God) maintains. A logical connection between sequences is predominant.

 

2) The Observational Mode: The camera acts as 'a fly on the wall,' style and mise-en-scène become invisible and in its purest form inter-titles, interview and voice-over commentary are excluded; the filmmaker is unobtrusive and the viewer is left to interpret reality for himself.

 

3) The Interactive Mode: Different kinds of dialogue and monologue are dominant. Most often these films are based on interviews.

 

4) The Reflexive Mode: This renders visible the epistemological and aesthetic reflections that are the basis for the production, thus drawing attention to the process of filmmaking. The poetic representation focuses on experiencing the world, not on the objective representation of it; it attempts to perceive the world aesthetically, and is often emotional in a poetic way. Remember that a documentary can speak with many 'voices.'

 

If your film contains an interview session it is important that you experiment with different interview techniques before you start shooting. It can be difficult to find the right technique; at any rate it should always be developed in accordance with the people in the film. Find out whether the person is dependent on the interviewer's response or if s/he is a natural storyteller. This is important when you decide whether the interview in the film should have a visible interviewer (dialogue) or a hidden interviewer (pseudo monologue). The choice of an inaudible interviewer challenges your interviewee to a larger extent: S/he must be able to handle a 3-4 second pause between your question and his or her answer while remaining natural and engaged. The interviewee should always make clear who and what s/he is talking about (without depending on the information incorporated in your questions). Not everyone can handle an interview situation like that. Many people are – to a large extent – dependent on the interview being more like a conversation.

 

As you develop your method for the interview, try out different ways of asking questions. Your questions should be phrased in such a way that the answers are delivered within a limited time and do not omit any important information.

 

Furthermore, you should test different interview set–ups (i.e. different positions of the camera, the microphone, the interviewer, the interviewee, lighting, and so on) for aesthetic reasons as well as out of consideration for the interviewee.

 

An interview is always an artificial situation, and it is important to make the interviewee feel as comfortable as possible – some people find it difficult to avoid looking into the camera if it is placed right in front of them.

 

Deciding what style of music (if any) you want in the film can be very time consuming. Your choice of music plays an important part in the overall impression of the film, and these discussions should not be postponed until the editing phase. Music is an important factor when it comes to creating a 'mood' in the film, and the wrong choice of music can ruin the production. Discuss whether the music should be supportive, controlling, disturbing, or contrapuntal in relation to what is visually expressed. If you make a test film on location, try out different types of music with the filmed material.

 

A storyboard might be useful even though you are making a documentary. By making a storyboard (instead of improvising your way through) you get a high degree of control. This ensures that the project is realistic within the given time.

 

By using a storyboard you reduce the risk of lacking important shots in the editing room. It is clear, however, that the storyboard of a documentary cannot be as accurate as that of a fiction film (which does not mean that it shouldn't be as detailed as possible): You cannot plan the exact length of the different shots, at least not those involving 'real-life' people. Try not to be too ambitious when it comes to the number of stories that you want people to tell. Telling a story often takes longer than you expect.

 

One of the fascinating aspects about filming reality is that it cannot be controlled. Invariably, new possibilities will turn up along the way. Thus, the storyboard should always be regarded as a preliminary script that can be adjusted on location. Just remember that the danger of improvising a lot is that you might end up with a story lacking some of the essential elements.

 

Consider whether you can give information 'the cinematic way' and show rather than have people tell the story (through talking-head monologue, explanatory voice-over, and so on).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Shooting Phase:

 

Shoot the 'soft' things first (the daily chores). Don't shoot the interview until the person has become used to the presence of the camera as well as his/her role as an 'actor.'

 

As regards the interviews, compared to the interviewee the members of the film group are 'high status' (because you control the technical equipment and know what is to be filmed). In order to make the best of the interview and make the interviewee feel more comfortable, try to place yourselves in a low status position. You can tone down your high status position by pretending that you are not in complete control of the technical equipment. It may also have a relaxing effect if the interviewer improvises his other questions instead of reading off a script.

 

If a scene doesn't turn out as you planned (and it has to be re-shot), don't indicate that the interviewee didn't do well (even if that is the case). Instead, find some other excuses for re-shooting the scene; for instance, that the sound wasn't good enough, the picture was out of focus and so on.

 

When you need to check your filmed material, it is a good idea to leave one or two members of the group to chat with the interviewee (while the others check the pictures). Let the interviewee finish his or her story, even though you have already gotten what you wanted (to show respect for what s/he is saying).

 

In order to balance the unequal relationship between interviewer and interviewee and to make the interview situation less artificial, it might be a good idea for the interviewer to share some stories and contribute to the conversation.

 

Be careful about the technical side of the production. Making a documentary – filming 'reality' – is not an excuse for poor technical quality.

 

In order to make your persons appear as natural and spontaneous as possible, it is important to shoot the different scenes at psychologically the right times and places.

 

If the person is occupied with something, s/he is more likely to forget the camera.

 

If you use such camera movements as panning and tilting, make sure you have several takes of each shot in which the camera is moved at different speeds. This will give you more possibilities in the editing room.

 

If the camera is handheld it is important to keep it fairly steady. Make sure the picture pauses for 4-5 seconds every now and again, as this gives you a natural place to cut.

 

Avoid zooming unless you have deliberately chosen the aesthetics of television. It is difficult to edit a shot that contains a zoom. If you need to get closer to an object it is better to move the camera.

 

In general it is good to make the shots a little longer than first intended – you never know what you might need in the editing room.

 

Be ready to switch on the camera (or leave it on) if something unexpected happens that takes the full attention of your character to sort out. It might turn out to be a magical moment that you should consider using instead of one of the scenes from the script. In general, you need to be spontaneous and open to chance.

 

Shoot the general pictures in different formats (e.g. full shot as well as close shot). Often people find themselves lacking a particular format in the editing room. In general, extra pictures might come in handy.

 

Using the potential of cinematic techniques without drowning reality is a fine balancing act. On the other hand – don't rely so much on reality that you forget that you are actually making a film.

 

Be ready to make changes – maybe even to give up the original concept of the film (i.e. throw away the storyboard) if you find out that what you had planned doesn't really work. This goes for the shooting phase as well as the editing phase.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Editing phase:

 

Basically, the editing principles of fiction and documentary are the same. However, there are more possibilities when editing a documentary, as you are not bound by causality in the same way and thus do not need to tell your story in a certain way, which gives you a high degree of freedom; you should therefore consider alternative ways of piecing the material together. Try to maintain certain sensitivity towards the raw material in order to avoid forcing it in the wrong direction because you are too focused on the story you had planned to tell.

 

Rather than throwing the good story or the good feeling overboard, it might be better to give up on style, aesthetics or beautiful pictures.

 

It can be difficult to identify the unnecessary 'darlings' or 'bad bits,' especially if you have become hypnotized by the material and are no longer able to see what works and what doesn't. It is always a good idea to get somebody to view your production with a fresh eye.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BASIC STEPS TO FOLLOW In CLASS:

 

Step 1:

Write a good documentary script, and do your research thoroughly.

 

Step 2:

Create a shot-by-shot outline of the script and use this as your guide. A timeline is also beneficial.

 

Step 3:

Lease or purchase a camera, tripod, microphones and video editing equipment. Without these basic tools, you will not have the means to make a documentary.

 

Step 4:

Contact all of the people you want to interview and set up times to meet with them.

 

Step 5:

Stick to your outline and relay the story. Film everything on the script.

 

Step 6:

Film two or three times more footage than you expect to use. It can always be edited later.

 

Step 7:

Edit the footage into a concise 90-minute film. Enlist the help of experienced documentary makers or editors to help you with this process.

 

Step 8:

Write a documentary treatment, which includes a synopsis and other details about the film. Submit it to film distribution companies for consideration.

 

 

 

 

Customer Choice and Demands

It is not the province of economics to determine the value of life in “hedonic units” or any other units, but to work out, on the basis of the general principles of conduct and the fundamental facts of social situation, the laws which determine prices of commodities and the direction of the social economic process. It is therefore not quantities, not even intensities, of satisfaction with which we are concerned. . . .or any other absolute magnitude whatever, but the purely relative judgment of comparative significance of alternatives open to choice.
Frank Knight
 eople adjust to changes in some economic conditions with a reasonable degree of predictability. When department stores announce lower prices, customers will pour through the doors. The lower the prices go, the larger the crowd will be. When the price of gasoline goes up, drivers will make fewer and shorter trips. If the price stays up, drivers will buy smaller, more economical cars.  Even the Defense Department will reduce its planned purchases when prices rise.
Behavior that is not measured in dollars and cents is also predictable in some respects. Students who stray from the sidewalks to dirt paths on sunny days stick to concrete when the weather is damp. Professors who raise their course requirements and grading standards find their classes are shrinking in size. Small children shy away from doing things for which they have recently been punished. When lines for movie tickets become long, some people go elsewhere for entertainment.
On an intuitive level you find these examples reasonable. Going one step beyond intuition, the economist would say that such responses are the predictable consequences of rational behavior.  That is, people who desire to maximize their utility can be expected to respond in these ways. Their responses are governed by the law of demand, a concept we first introduced in Chapter 3 and now take up in greater detail.
Predicting Consumer Demand
The assumptions about rational behavior described early in the book provide a good general basis for explaining behavior. People will do those things whose expected benefits exceed their expected costs. They will avoid doing things for which the opposite is true. By themselves, however, such assumptions do not allow us to predict future

At the old prices, the original combination (two Cokes and two hot dogs) gave you a total utility of only 64 utils (45 from hot dogs and 19 from Coke). If you cut back to one Coke and three hot dogs now, your total utility will rise to 67 utils (57 from hot dogs and 10 from Coke). Your new utility-maximizing combination—the one that best satisfies your preferences—will therefore be one Coke and three hot dogs.  No other combination of Coke and hot dogs will give you greater satisfaction. (Try to find one.) 

To sum up, if the price of hot dogs goes down relative to the price of Coke, the rational person will buy more hot dogs. If the price of Coke rises relative to the price of hot dogs, the rational person will buy less Coke. This principle will hold true for any good or service and is commonly known as the law of demand.  The law of demand states the assumed inverse relationship between product price and quantity demanded, everything else held constant. If the relative price of a good falls, the individual will buy more of the good. If the relative price rises, the individual will buy 

Thus far we have discussed demand solely in terms of the individual’s behavior.  The concept is most useful, however, when applied to whole markets or segments of the population. Market demand is the summation of the quantities demanded by all consumers of a good or service at each and every price during some specified time period. To obtain the market demand for a product, we need to find some way of adding up the wants of the individuals who collectively make up the market. 

This is, of course, an extremely simple example, since only two individuals are involved. The market demand curves for much larger groups of people, however, are derived in essentially the same way. The demands of Fred, Marsha, Roberta, and others would be added to those of Anna and Betty. As more people demand more Coke, the market demand curve flattens out and extends further to the right. 

Elasticity: Consumers’ Responsiveness to Price Changes 

In the media and in general conversation, we often hear claims that a price change will have no effect on purchases. Someone may predict that an increase in the price of prescription drugs will not affect people’s use of them. The same remark is heard in connection with many other goods and services, from gasoline and public parks to medical services and salt. What people usually mean by such statements is that a price 

The Advantage

The advantage of letting people know that you have been, and are planning to be, in business a long time is that it informs them that you have something to lose –potential future business -- if you engage in dishonest dealing.  In effect, you are providing poten­tial customers with a hostage, something of value that one party to a contract (the customer) can destroy if the other party (seller) does not keep its promises. There are numerous other ways that businesses create arrangements to provide hostages in ways that make their commitments to honest dealing credible.  Before examining some of these arrangements, however, it is important to consider an important feature that hostages should have.

The use of hostages has a long history, and is traditionally thought of as a way to reduce the likelihood of hostilities between two countries or kingdoms.  For example, if King A intended to wage war on Kingdom C and wanted to keep Kingdom B neutral, he could assure King B of his good faith by yielding up his beloved daughter to King B as a hostage. Assuming King A really did love his daughter, he would then be very reluctant to break his promise and invade Kingdom B after conquering Kingdom C. But even if King A does have a compelling incentive not to wage war against King B as long as his daughter is King B’s hostage, a potential problem remains.  King B may find the daughter so attractive that he values her more than her father’s promise not to invade.  Therefore, King B may decide to join with Kingdom C against King A and keep the daughter for himself. This suggests that an ugly daughter (one only a father could love!) makes a better hostage than a beautiful daughter.

A firm’s reputation can be thought of as a hostage that the firm puts in the hands of its customers as assurance that it is committed to honest dealing. A firm’s reputation is an ideal hostage because it is valuable to the firm, but has no value to customers apart from its ability to ensure honesty.  A firm has a motivation to remain honest in order to prevent its reputation from being destroyed by customer dissatisfaction, but customers cannot capture the value of the reputation for themselves. The more a firm can show that it values its reputation, the better hostage it makes.

Consider the value of a logo to a firm. Companies commonly spend what seems an enormous amount of money for logos to identify them to the public.  Well-known artists are paid handsomely to produce designs that do not seem any more attractive than those that could be rendered by lesser-known artists (many of whose artistic efforts have never gone beyond bathroom walls).  Furthermore, companies are seldom shy about publicizing the high costs of their logos.

It may seem wasteful for a company to spend so much for a logo, and silly to let consumers know about the waste (the cost of which ends up in the price of its products).  But expensive logos make sense when we recognize that much of the value of a com­pany’s logo depends on its cost. The more expensive a company’s logo, the more that company has to lose if it engages in business practices that harm its reputation with consumers, a reputation embodied in the company logo.  The company that spends a lot on its logo is effectively giving consumers a hostage that is very valuable to the company. Consumers have no interest in the logo except as an indication of the company’s commit­ment to honest dealing, but will not hesitate to destroy the value of the logo (hostage) if the company fails to live up to that commitment.

Expensive logos are an example of how businesses make non-salvageable investments to penalize themselves if they engage in dishonest dealing.  Such investments are particularly common when the quality of the product is difficult for consumers to determine. The products sold in jewelry stores, for example, can vary tremendously and few consumers can judge that value themselves.  Those jewelry stores that carry the more expensive products want to be convincing when they tell customers that those products are worth the prices being charged.  One way of doing this is by selling jewelry in stores with expensive fixtures that would be difficult to use in other locations: ornate chandeliers, unusually shaped display cases, expensive counter tops, and generous floor space. What could the store do with this stuff if it went out of business?  Not much, and this tells the customers that the store has a lot to lose by misrepresenting. The idea of firms intentionally making their profits vulnerable to the actions of others may seem inconsistent with our discussion on “make-or-buy” decisions.  In that early chapter we argued that firms often forgo the advantages of buying inputs in the marketplace by making them in-house to protect their profits on their investment against exploitation by others. The difference in the two cases is important.  When firms put their profits at risk as a hostage to consumers, those consumers cannot capture the profits for themselves. They can only destroy them, and their only motivation for doing so would be that the firm is no longer satisfying their demands. In the case where a firm incurs the disadvantage of producing in-house to protect its profits, the problem is that suppliers can actually capture those profits for themselves by acting opportunistically, or dishonestly. So in some cases protecting profits promotes honest dealing, and in other cases putting those profits at risk promotes honest dealing.  
The importance business people attach to committing themselves to honesty sometimes leads them to put their profits in a position to be competed away by other firms that will benefit from doing so.  Consider a situation where a firm has a patent on a high quality product that consumers would like to purchase at the advertised price, but a product that would be difficult to stop using because its use requires costly commitments.  The fear of the potential buyers is that the seller will exploit the long-term patent 

Consider the value of a logo to a firm. Companies commonly spend what seems an enormous amount of money for logos to identify them to the public.  Well-known artists are paid handsomely to produce designs that do not seem any more attractive than those that could be rendered by lesser-known artists (many of whose artistic efforts have never gone beyond bathroom walls).  Furthermore, companies are seldom shy about publicizing the high costs of their logos.  

It may seem wasteful for a company to spend so much for a logo, and silly to let consumers know about the waste (the cost of which ends up in the price of its products).  But expensive logos make sense when we recognize that much of the value of a com¬pany’s logo depends on its cost. The more expensive a company’s logo, the more that company has to lose if it engages in business practices that harm its reputation with consumers, a reputation embodied in the company logo.  The company that spends a lot on its logo is effectively giving consumers a hostage that is very valuable to the company. Consumers have no interest in the logo except as an indication of the company’s commit¬ment to honest dealing, but will not hesitate to destroy the value of the logo (hostage) if the company fails to live up to that commitment. 

Expensive logos are an example of how businesses make non-salvageable investments to penalize themselves if they engage in dishonest dealing.  Such investments are particularly common when the quality of the product is difficult for consumers to determine. The products sold in jewelry stores, for example, can vary tremendously and few consumers can judge that value themselves.  Those jewelry stores that carry the more expensive products want to be convincing when they tell customers that those products are worth the prices being charged.  One way of doing this is by selling jewelry in stores with expensive fixtures that would be difficult to use in other locations: ornate chandeliers, unusually shaped display cases, expensive counter tops, and generous floor space. What could the store do with this stuff if it went out of business?  Not much, and this tells the customers that the store has a lot to lose by misrepresenting.

Another possibility is for the seller to give up his or her monopoly position by licensing another firm to sell the product.  By doing so the seller makes his or her promise to charge a reasonable price in the future credible, since if the seller breaks the promise the buyer can turn to an alternative seller.  Giving up a monopoly position is a costly move of course, but it is exactly what semiconductor firms that have developed patented chips have done. To make credible their promise of a reliable and competitively priced supply of a new proprietary chip (the use of which requires costly commitments by the user), semiconductor firms have licensed such chips to competitive firms.  Such a licensing arrangement is another example of making profits by way of a hostage intended to encourage honesty.7 

The more difficult it is for consumers to determine the quality of a product or service, the more advantage there is in committing to honesty with hostage arrangements.  Consider the case of repair work.  When someone purchases repair work on their car, for example, they can generally tell if the work eliminates the problem.  The car is running again, the rattle is gone, the front wheels now turn in the same direction as the steering wheel, etc. But few people know if the repair shop charged them for only the repairs necessary, or if it charged them for lots of parts and hours of labor when tightening a screw was all that was done. One way repair shops can reduce the payoff to dishonest repair charges is through joint ownership with the dealership selling the cars being repaired. In this way the owner of the dealership makes future car sales a hostage to honest repair work. Dealerships depend on repeat sales from satisfied customers, and an important factor in how satisfied people are with their cars is the cost of upkeep and re¬pairs. The gains a dealership could realize from overcharging for repair work would be quickly offset by reductions in both repair business and car sales.  

Automobiles are not the only products in which it is common to find repairs and sales tied together in ways that provide incentives for honest dealing.  Many products come with guarantees entitling the buyer to repairs and replacement of defective parts for a specified period of time.  These guarantees also serve as hostages against poor quality and high repair costs. Of course, guarantees not only provide assurance of quality, they provide protection against the failure of that assurance.  Sellers often offer extra assur¬ance, and the opportunity to reduce their risk, by selling a warranty with their product that extends the time, and often the coverage, of the standard guarantee. 

Knowing that a product is under guarantee or warranty can tempt buyers to use the product improperly and carelessly, and then blame the seller for the consequences. With this moral hazard in mind, sellers put restrictions on guarantees and warranties that leave buyers responsible for problems they are in the best position to prevent.  For exam¬ple, refrigerator manufacturers ensure against defects in the motor but not against damage to the shelves or finish. Similarly, automobile manufacturers ensure against problems in the engine and drive train (if the car has been properly serviced) but not against damage to the body and the seat covers. While such restrictions obviously serve the interests of sellers, they also serve the interests of buyers.  When a buyer takes advantage of a guarantee by misrepresenting the cause of a difficulty with a product, all consumers pay because of higher costs to the seller.  Buyers are in a prisoners’ dilemma in which they are better off collectively using the product with care and not exploiting a guarantee for problems they could have avoided.  But without restrictions on the guarantee each indi¬vidual is tempted to shift the cost of their careless behavior to others. 

Adverse selection is a problem associated with distortions arising from the fact that buyers and sellers often have different information that is relevant to a transaction. Most of this chapter has been concerned with the ways sellers commit themselves to honestly revealing the quality of products when they have more information about that quality than do buyers. But in the case of warranties it is the buyer who has crucial information that is difficult for the seller to obtain. Some buyers are harder on the prod¬uct than average and others are easier on the product than average.  The use of automo¬biles is the most obvious example. Some people drive in ways that greatly increase the probability that their cars will need expensive repair work, while others drive in ways that reduce that probability.  If a car manufacturer offers a warranty at a price equal to the average cost of repairs, only those who know that their driving causes greater than average repair costs will purchase the warranty, which is therefore being sold at a loss.  If the car manufacturer attempts to increase the price of the warranty to cover the higher than expected repair costs, then more people will drop out of the market leaving only the worst drivers buying the warranty.8 

Even though people would like to be able to reduce their risks by purchasing war-ranties at prices that accurately reflect their expected repair bills, the market for these