Reading 1 : Documentary Reading, MacDonalds, K & Cousins, M. Imagining Reality, (p. 389-392). London: Faber & Faber, 1996.
Paweł Pawlikowski
In this article the author Paweł Pawlikowski (a prizewinning documentary filmmaker) discusses the changing field of documentary film making and the rise of reality TV. Written in 1996, he was distressed then by the, “meaningless glut of images” from ‘omnipresent cameras’… he must be very upset in 2104.
I was initially drawn to this article as it raised the question of ‘reality’ and whose reality are we really documenting. The author touches on the idea of constructed reality and raises questions about the line between fiction and non-fiction. I think this is a really important area to observe – it is a broad and grey area.
Pawel states that in his documentary work, he sets up events and scenes, as he wants to ‘show the world’ as he sees it. This to me means he documents – his version of ‘reality’.
I think in any form of film making, it is impossible to not include some element of your self in the film as even the decision of where to put the camera, where to edit the scene, the decision on the light etc. all contribute to the ‘drama’ of the work.
There is a continuing line from trailing from purist observational cinema and blurring over to fictional drama; with news, journalism, contemporary documentary, and reality TV and the like, sitting at various points along this line. There are new blends of this ‘blur’ being created even now. One example is the 2014 film ‘20,000 Days on Earth’ by Iain Forsyth and Jane Pollard.
Pawel, I think, judges some forms of documentary as inferior to his own version of film making. Pawel, is quite judgmental of the changing landscape of film making in 1996 and somewhat righteous in his opinions on reality TV. ( I suspect this chap has a rather healthy ego).
Interesting to note that after this article was written and since 1998, Pawel has transitioned into fiction!
Reading: Fiction
Source: Chapter 2 Narratives: from Branston, G. and Stafford, R. The media student’s book, (p. 32-48). London: Routledge, 2003.
The reading compares a few different theories, techniques and conventions in both fiction and non-fiction story telling.
I selected this reading as I find challenging choosing the ‘best’ narrative structure for the short documentaries I make at my workplace. What I find most overwhelming, is the vast array of possibilities in arranging and structuring events to ‘create a realty’. The difficulty lies in choosing the most appropriate sequence of events, which will best engage the audience.
Therefore, this reading had several points that were of interest and new to me.
I work in international development, and so the idea of common myths and archetypes across cultures was significant. I am aiming to capture and communicate universal values across cultures, so this was a helpful insight to keep in mind.
Another point, which I was aware of – but this reading articulates well, is the creation and construction of characters by the news. The fictionalization of news stories has become a common device for TV journalism. Making it less objective and more dramatic.
In point, over the last week, the trial of Oscar Pistorius, and his whole life preceding the ‘event’ has been dramatized, even on ABC TV. It has been classically presented as a story with all the mythological archetypes. The handsome man who overcame physical challenges and adversity to succeed – the beautiful girlfriend – and then the fall of the hero. Compelling and selling!
Furthermore, this article also contains several useful techniques which are commonly used:
Todorov (p. 36) – the idea of stories starting with an equilibrium, which is then disrupted.
Barthes (p. 37) – the idea of an ‘enigma code’ also is interesting and does create a strong visual. Small puzzles within the story which need to be solved, I like this as a tool to ‘build the possible involvement’ of the audience.
Levi-Strausss (p. 37) – dependency on binary opposites. E.g. good vs evil.
Prior to reading this chapter, I hadn’t noticed soap opera’s technique of making it appear that the viewer has ‘secret knowledge’ that the characters don’t. A good technique to create an idea of privy. I also was not aware that the term ‘Soap opera’ came about from soap company sponsorships!
And lastly, on ADVERTISING interrupting my favourite shows… I am now going to actually watch the adverts! I will look forward to analyzing how they manage to persuade and tell a story in under 30 seconds. Good one!
kyoungish 