We are Legion The Story of the Hacktevists (2012 Brian Knappenberger)

We are Legion The Story of the Hacktevists is as basic as documentary gets, it doesn't break convention, it sticks to simple interviews and representations of the world as it is, not challenging any of the documentary form. It is a simple I talk about them to you that follows the Expository mode all as defined by Bill Nichols in Introduction to Documentary (2001) and the interviews themselves are not particularly probing however the film itself is good, revolutionary and interesting simply because of the subject which itself has a revolutionary, poetic and ground breaking feel. The film however shows very well that the I in Nichols' sentence, representing the film maker can be there without an actual presence or even narration. The film makers view of the "hacktevists" and the way he represents them gives the audience an idea of what the film makers believe in, in this case that the hacktevists are being mistreated and unfairly prosecuted. The ethic of the documentary is somewhat questionable, whilst they clearly represent their subjects fairly and in a way they would wish, the fact that the film promotes illegal activity is clearly a morally questionable thing. However if you take the film makers personal views into account and remember that they support the actions of the hacktevists removes any real ethical debate the film makers may have had.

One of the disadvantages of the film is that there isn't really a character focused on enough to gain an emotional connection with or identify with. However again the "cause" is the thing the audience can identify with, and the issue itself is the main focus of the film, not characters ie. social actors in the documentary it only uses said social actors to make its points about the revolutionary "hacktevism", they are not well rounded characters, they are just part of an argument not "real" people.

The revolutionary, poetic and interesting subject makes up for the conventional treatment of the form and shows that if you have an interesting enough subject the classic documentary forms still work wonders to capture and interest an audience.

Bibliography

1. We are Legion: The Story of the Hacktevists (2012) Brian Knappenberger, USA,  Luminant Media


2. Nichols. (2001). Why are ethical issues central to documentary film making . In: Introduction to documentary. usa: Indiana University Press. p1-19.

3. Nichols B. (2001). How do documentaries differ from other types of film. In: Introduction to documentary. usa: Indiana University Press. p20-41.

Bowling for Columbine (2002 Michael Moore)

With its cutting sarcasm and dark comedy Bowling for Columbine is one of the blackest comic documentaries ever, Michael Moore tackles the thriving gun culture of America, questioning all, from Mayors to actors on why Americans shoot each other so much. Michael Moore presents the documentary, probing those around him and using ironic voice overs juxtaposed with archive footage to show the sheer ridiculousness of the American media. Whilst no conclusion is reached the film offers some simple reasons and quickly disproves many of them using well known hooting such as those in Columbine High school to emotionally punctuate the entertaining film.

Bowling for Columbine is a truly participatory documentary (Nichols 2001) his involvement in the documentary whether through voice over, probing interviewees or just wondering around it is his character that makes the film what it is. The fact that I am not an American may change my view of the film, for those outside of America it seems somewhat true and comical. Americans however may find the film an attack on them but it is worth remembering that the majority of "expert" witnesses that agree with Moore are, like Moore himself, actually American. The whole documentary is an extremely good example of a stongly formed, one sided argument, it has a typical problem/ solution structure as defined by Nichols (2001) in Introduction to Documentary however there is no solution, just on big problem. The documentary follows Nichols' "3 way relationship" between audience, subject and film maker in an interesting way. It is very similar to what Nichols describes as I speak about them to you however the them is, for Americans, us therefore I would frame it as I speak about you to you which is an odd concept only pulled off because of its satirical nature.

One of the best parts of the documentary is the part in which Moore questions Charlton Heston, president of the NRA of which Moore is a part of. Moore digs at the NRA, in part blaming them for the gun culture in the USA, throughout the whole film, using Heston's prolific catch phrase "from my cold dead hands" at the most inappropriate times possible constantly vilifying him for this scene in which Moore interviews Heston. Moore gets into the interview on slight false pretences and repeatedly questions Heston more and more on a harsher basis, to an extent to which Heston turns to escape in his own home.

The structure of the documentary is fairly simple, after the initial set up of the problem Moore presents a possible reason for the killings and then uses historical cases of other countries that have had or have similar situations but not the same effects on the culture. The only possibility Moore doesn't deny is the idea that the media uses fear to promote consumption and this fear and consumption perfectly benefits the gun trade. Another common theme is that of the American government itself perpetuating the violence, hiding the murder that it commits rather than dealing with its problems.

Moore's documentary is stunning, and painfully comical, you cannot help worrying about the deep and emotive events such as the Columbine shooting, which Moore respectfully leaves to the 911 phone calls, that leave a dark undercurrent throughout  the film. However it seems as though the character/ persona Moore has created for himself allows him to easily satirise any subject without too much difficulty, lightening it for the audiences. Bowling for Columbine is Moore documentary and dark comedy at its very best!

Bibliography

1. Bowling for Columbine (2002), Moore M., USA, Canada, Germany,  Alliance Atlantis Communications

2. Nichols. (2001). Why are ethical issues central to documentary film making . In: Introduction to documentary. usa: Indiana University Press. p1-19.

3. Nichols B. (2001). How do documentaries differ from other types of film. In: Introduction to documentary. usa: Indiana University Press. p20-41.

Into the Abyss (2011 Werner Herzog)

Into the Abyss is the chilling story of a triple homicide committed by two young boys one sentenced to death and the other life in prison. The horror of this story is clear, director Wrner Herzog mixes unsettling archive footage of the murder scenes with a large range of interviews exploring the victims, their families, the crimes, the criminals and their families and ultimately the people who deal with corporal punishment, the issue that lies at the heart of the film.

The film begins as a clear argument against capital punishment, a priest retells stories and process' he goes through when an inmate is given the lethal injection, he holds their ankle, reads them their rights, and prays for them. With all of his faith he says "I cannot stop that process, I wish I could", one would expect the documentary to continue in this way, and then to further its point justify the crimes of an inmate on death row and put him on an almost heroic pedestal, Herzog doesn't. Instead Herzog uses real crime footage of the bodies and harrowing recalls of the moment the families discovered what had happened, in a large number of segments Herzog explores every facet of the crimes.

The film is largely participatory, as is Herzog's style, he constantly and visibly pushes people into an emotional response creating a really heartfelt piece of cinema that touches the whole audience. The ethics of this participatory documentary, in Herzog's pushing, for example one of the culprits says he cant explain how he felt, to which Herzog responds "try, try to explain it". Pushing people in this way is clearly crossing a boundary into a level of manipulation that heightens drama and gets the emotional responses Herzog is looking for. I think the only thing that saves Herzog's approach from being incredibly insensitive is that he leaves in his own probing, he doesn't display the "pushed" answers as natural therefore exposing his probing to the audience for their judgement. The biggest problem with this is that it works against the emotional connection the audience gain from their recounts of lost family members. Herzog uses these characters in part as witnesses but mainly to give the audience an emotional connection and "activate" (Nichols 2001) the audience, making them actively think about their own family members.

Into the Abyss is a good example of a documentary which splits the line between being about a subject and telling a story. Clearly the crimes committed and the way they have effected everyone involved is the main story of the documentary however almost every scene is laced with a point for or against, although usually against, capital punishment. Whilst these points may seem hidden by tears and emotion and the middle of the film villifies the clear villains further for their crimes Herzog ensures the argument is not forgotten and tays the most poingient thing in the film. He does this by framing the whole narrative with "expert" witnesses arguing against capital punishment in the "Prologue" and "Protocall of Death" sections. Despite the clear argument against capital punishment the film makes Heerzog is careful to include some other opinions however briefly.

It is clear throughout Into the Abyss that Herzog has done his best to show all of the damage that the crimes caused in a fair and emotive way. He shows the culprits not as evil but as people who have made a mistake working towards his argument against capital punishment. He goes some way to trying to explain why it could have happened, in a cultural way, and works his hardest to show what the people involved have learned. Overall Into the Abyss is a look into all facets of life after murder from all angles and perspectives presenting all as victims in some way. Throughout all of these messages the theme of anti capital punishment rings through compiling a compelling argument through its heavily constructed representations of good and evil people throughout and after the hardest of times.

Bibliography
1. Into the Abyss (2011), Herzog W, USA, UK, Germany,  Creative Differences Productions

2. Nichols. (2001). Why are ethical issues central to documentary film making . In: Introduction to documentary. usa: Indiana University Press. p1-19.

3. Nichols B. (2001). How do documentaries differ from other types of film. In: Introduction to documentary. usa: Indiana University Press. p20-41.

Grizzly Man (2005 Werner Herzog)

Grizzly Man is a 2005 documentary directed by Werner Herzog about Timothy Treadwell, a man who spent 13 summers living with grizzly bears only to be eaten along with his girl friend by the bears he cared for so much. Werner Herzog uses a mixture of interviews, his own footage and the footage of Timothy Treadwell himself who filmed himself to educate school children of America about the Alaskan Peninsular and the animals he interacts with, whether they be fox's or grizzly bears. A stunning character portrait is formed showing Timothy the "grizzly man" as a nature loving, frustrated eccentric whose videos "take on the quality of a confessional" showing how "the actor in his film (himself, his created persona) has taken over the film maker".

The film plays with several "modes" of documentary cinema as defined by Bill Nichols in Introduction to Documentary (2001) it does this through the several "levels" of film making. Firstly and a whole the film is reflexive, through Timothy's documentary Herzog analyses the medium of documentary itself and shows how what Timothy presented as nature documentary can have a different meaning when looked at in a different context and as Herzog puts it "it is not so much a look at wild nature as it is an insight into ourselves and our nature." Through the images Timothy would how us we also get a sense of the observational mode, the classic nature documentary, that with rough and improvisational camera work gives us an insight into the lives of the grizzly bears. Through the interviews and Herzog's interaction with the family and friends of Timothy we get a sense of the participatory mode, Herzog seems to gain a compelling personal connection with Timothy and his friends, most notably after listening to the audio recording of Timothy's death when he pleads with Jewel Palovak, a woman described by Herzog as Timothy's "widow", never to listen to the tape. Through the sections that Herzog shows us, perhaps the parts Timothy would not have deemed useful we get a beautifully poetic documentary, as Herzog says the camera tends to "linger" and captures beautiful images and some beautiful incorrect tapes showing the inner character of Timothy Treadwell. There is another further reading into the film that explores Herzog himself, which Mode this fist into is unclear, possibly reflexive possibly performative however though Timothy's character and Herzog's treatment of him we get a picture, a portrait of Herzog himself, I would go as far as to say that if looked at closely enough Grizzly Man is a film as much about Timothy Treadwell, an eccentric film maker, willing to do anything to get his message across, methodical, emotional and driven as Herzog himself, also a driven film maker whose emotion comes across in this film.

One of the central ideas put across by Nichols, although it is fairly obvious, is that most documentaries have an aim or a point, "they work to convince us one view point is preferable to the other" (Nichols 2001) however the view point Herzog is trying to put across in Grizzly Man is somewhat unclear, at least on a simple negative or positive scale. Herzog never shies away from the brutality of Timothy's death, we hear many accounts of what the scene looked like, Herzog himself says "what haunts me, is that in all the faces of all the bears that Treadwell ever filmed, I discover no kinship, no understanding, no mercy", all of this depiction shows Timothy as playing with danger for no reward. However this isn't the only representation of Timothy throughout the film, he is also shown as a passionate eccentric who truly believed in his quest to protect the relatively safe bears. The pleasure he gains from his life with the bears is clear, his friends all believe in what he did, you get an overall sense throughout the film that the 13 summers he had were worth his life, without the bears he wouldn't have wanted to live. This is a cleverly constructed image partly from Timothy himself who crafted his new persona after a failed acting career and alcohol abuse and party by Herzog himself who shows Timothy's passion through light and dark times, from ecstatic happiness to fury and all in between. I believe when you view this as part of a larger number of films about similar characters by Herzog the "case" becomes that passion, striving to do something you love no matter how difficult, is worth it, Timothy paid the ultimate price but lived the ultimate life. His obsessive qualities are not a bad thing, maybe his passion was misplaced but there is nothing wrong with passion. 

One of the most captivating scenes, the "participatory scene", is when Herzog listens to the tape of Timothy's death to decide whether to include it or not. At first he narrates what he hears, then falls silent before asking Jewel to turn the tape off. This ethical decision is part of what happens in all documentaries, it must have happened with many of the things said and shown by the coroner, all of which are harrowing and graphic enough, but the inclusion of this ethical decision adds a gravity to the situation, as an insider, exploring with Herzog that is the point in which Timothy's death becomes a real undramatised event not to be exploited by the film, it makes the decision known, the audience are therefore not unsatisfied when they realise his death deserves some privacy.

Grizzly Man is a pretty basic "I talk about them to you" (Nichols 2001) kind of documentary, it uses the character of Herzog as a film maker to explore Timothy's life and choices. The I talk about them to you relationship that the film uses mimics Timothy's own documentaries in a parallel that works hauntingly well, highlighting the "Grizzly" in the man, a subject, somewhat alien to the audience, somewhat animal, yet insightful and identifiable, an appropriate link between Grizzly and audience. This is extremely important however the most identifiable person in the film is Herzog himself, we feel as though we are discovering Timothy with him, and learning what he has learned. There is a large question in my mind of how much of the "persona" of Timothy's on screen presence was real, although there is little reason to doubt it we know that for the last trip at least he lied about being alone, he was with his girl friend, this adds a sense of doubt, maybe Timothy was a different person when the camera wasn't rolling. Admittedly there is a large amount of footage from "between the takes", footage that Timothy wouldn't have wanted us to see so why would he continue to act? It is also possible that he does act differently, the continuation of the character is only occasional, if so Herzog wouldn't have wanted to show this, it would work against his depiction of Timothy as a passion driven warrior.

Grizzly Man is a heavily constructed exploration inside a heavily constructed exploration, it works on many levels and simply leaves the audience with a melencholy joy for the passion Timothy possessed and ultimate sadness for his death. Herzog has crafted an emotional termoil within the audience and questions us all about how far we would go for our passions. The visually and emotionally stunning film offers and interesting insight into the life of an eccentric, the life of a film maker and the life of an obsessive. It is a clear success, gripping and heartwarming.

Bibliography
1. Grizzly Man (2005), Herzog W., USA, Lions Gate Films
2. Nichols. (2001). Why are ethical issues central to documentary film making . In: Introduction to documentary. usa: Indiana University Press. p1-19.
3. Nichols B. (2001). How do documentaries differ from other types of film. In: Introduction to documentary. usa: Indiana University Press. p20-41.

2000 Word Self Evaluation

MOVING IMAGE PRODUCTION NARRATIVE MODULE

EVALUATION PROFORMA

YOUR EVALUATION MUST BE 2000 WORDS IN LENGTH AND MUST ADDRESS THE POINTS BELOW - PLEASE NOTE THIS IS AN INDIVIDUAL PIECE OF WORK.

1. CRITICALLY REFLECT ON YOUR FINISHED FILM AND IT'S STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES - ANALYSE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT YOU INTENDED TO DO AND WHAT YOU HAVE ACTUALLY ACHIEVED. (APPROX 600 WORDS)

Our completed documentary “Urban Exploring” has turned out very similar to our original idea, I feel it works well as an instructional and emotional piece that has a very specific and easily felt tone that was one of our main aim throughout. My original idea of the film was a little different, the visuals are pretty much the same however I expected the interviews to be manipulated so that they sounded as though they were recorded on the shoot and aid them at the time. Although this was not the end product I think it gave the piece a more poetic and artistic feel which lends itself well to the subject material. Overall one of the strengths of the film are the visuals, the poetic and artistic imagery was something that we tried really hard to put across and I think it has paid off. It is clear when watching the film that we have carefully considered the composition, lighting, focus and all aspects of mise en scene to create visually engaging material.

One of the disadvantages of our film is that whilst the focus on artistic images fits the subject well and our specific subjects, our social actors, are clear, understandable and friendly not showing their faces or actual interactions with things forces an emotional wall between the audience and subjects themselves. The lack of sync sound, the lack of character and the lack of commonality between most audience members and the subjects all work against the film giving the audience less and less to identify with. The emotional connection instead comes from the locations and the tone that defines the film comes from the abandoned appearance and general loss conveyed by the images. The audience also instead identify with the sense of exploration and nostalgia of being in dark abandoned buildings, it appeals to the dark rebellious childhood in which the audience too participated on some level with some kind of “urban exploration”.  I think we missed a trick by not getting any stories about them in the locations we were actually in, one of the best parts of the film is when one contributor talks about something he found in Stanley Tools our third location, we should have expanded on this throughout the documentary and used more of their stories.

I think the sound aspect of the film is another one of its strengths, I feel that the general ambience of the soundtrack perfectly articulates the emotional feeling the visuals convey, the creepiness and emptiness it adds help to poeticise the piece. A disadvantage as I have already said is the lack of sync sound, again it makes the film more poetic but makes it harder to identify with the situation and the subjects, I think the choice not to use it has strengthened the piece on the whole as the poetic feeling is coherent through sound and camera. I feel we could have added to the soundscape of the film by using industrial sounds to articulate parts of the camerawork and speech whilst keeping the slightly creepy atmosphere created by the sound track and adding relevant and poignant foley.

I am extremely happy with our end product, as the camera man I feel I had a particularly large amount of room to experiment with the form and shot setup, the freedom the subject allowed me helped me and our director create such haunting, engaging visuals. Our original plan was to explore urban exploring and I think we achieved it in an interesting way that does connect well with audiences. One of my favourite things about it is how after watching it almost everyone has said "I remember this one time I was in an abandoned building like that..." glad audiences can actually identify with it, although that was not a reaction I had at first expected it is definitely one of the films biggest strengths.

2. REVIEW THE PROCESS OF MAKING THE WORK AND WHAT YOU HAVE LEARNT FROM IT. (APPROX 400 WORDS)

The first and possibly most important thing I learned from this documentary is that having a lot of footage is always a good thing., in past projects I have undershot, in this one we spent a lot of time shooting and got lots of cutaways and experimented with focus, ISO and lighting to ensure that we had enough footage and it paid off. Not only that but the planning and discussion of camerawork and overall tone was extremely helpful, the conversations I had with Stephen Maclean our director informed the expression of the film and was always at the back of my mind when setting up a shot.

Whilst filming a poetic short to inform the final piece was a module necessity I think the process allowed us to play with the form a little before committing to a specific idea. It allowed us to try out narrative and camera techniques we may have been afraid to use without testing. The process of experimenting with the material before committing is one I would repeat in the future, our documentary would not have been as strong without it.

Another central thing to our planning and filming process was our reccies, we looked at 5 locations before shooting 4 of them a few days later. This gave us the chance to plan for time, for shot set ups and for equipment. The shot planning was extremely important, whilst I do not work particularly strongly from shot lists they gave me an opportunity to plan some of the more complex shots which reduced the amount of time it took for setup. The reccie also just gave me some time to get comfortable with the surroundings and let the visuals sink in, I found that the things I remembered from the reccie, the features of the building that stuck in my mind were the things I wanted to shoot. In some cases it wasn’t until a few day after the reccie I realised I had paid so much attention to a hanging piece of wood or a specific piece of graffiti, without the reccie I may never have shot those images at all.

Technically I learned a lot about how to use DSLR’s, about ISO’s and F stops and how manipulating them alter the light qualities, although I knew about these things I paid more attention to their specific functions within this piece of work than ever before. I also improved my skills with a track and dolly, I had used them once before but the extent of their use in this piece is one of the defining features of the third section of our film and the specific framed stopping and experimenting with the starting points for the camera helped me to learn a lot about what is aesthetically pleasing and what just doesn’t work.

Throughout this project I have learned how beneficial planning can be, whilst previously I have strived to do more planning this time I felt the benefits thus reinforcing their importance. I have learned valuable planning and shooting lessons throughout this project and feel my camera skills will strongly benefit from those lessons.

3. DISCUSS YOUR INDIVIDUAL CONTRIBUTION TO MAKING THE WORK, YOUR APPROACH TO GROUP WORK AND ANY PROBLEMS OR CHALLENGES YOU ENCOUNTERED WORKING AS PART OF A TEAM. (APPROX 400 WORDS)

I feel our whole group was dedicated and worked well together, we all performed our jobs to a high standard and that comes across in our final piece. Although in the planning stage there were a few cases of communication break down I think by the time we were shooting everyone had a strong sense of the final goal and felt as though they were working as part of a whole rather than individuals within a project. I feel as our projects subject was partially about visual shots and we focused a lot on camera work my individual contribution to the final project was extremely important.

Before shooting we decided that both me and Stephen Maclean would shoot the documentary, having two cameras shooting as often as possible, this meant we could get a lot of footage even if we were pressed for time. Originally I was a little worried that Stephen’s work as a camera man and director would allow him to get the most important shots or even effect whose images were in the final edit most. However whilst working on location with Stephen and in the planning stages we were both clear about what and how much we wanted to shoot, on location we developed a kind of short hand and were able to get the job done efficiently, this gave us time to have fun and experiment, benefitting out final project. Stephen’s helping with the camerawork is greatly appreciated, I feel we had the same images in our head and appropriately consulted with each other on shots resulting in a high quality of carefully considered work.

As I was so interested in the work and invested in the camera work I would have liked to have been part of the editing process however after hearing that thing in the editing room were a little tense with too many opinions already working against each other I decided to leave the editing to Stephen and Allie our editor. After watching the final product I am really happy with the edit, I wonder where a few shots have gone but Im sure there are good reasons for not using them.

I would be very happy to work with this group again. Our project was well planned and well executed, this is one of my favourite projects to date, I enjoyed making it and have enjoyed watching the final product.

4.  WITH REFERENCE TO THE TEXTS GIVEN IN SESSIONS AND THE MATERIALS ON THE READING LIST; REVIEW YOUR APPROACH TO MAKING THE WORK AND LOCATE YOUR PRACTICE WITHIN A THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK. (APPROX 600 WORDS)

One of thee most influential texts I have read has been Bill Nichols’ Introduction to Documentary which covers many of the basics of the documentary genre, whilst we did not specifically set out to create a particularly poetic piece our film definitely falls into the modes of poetic and expository, we shed light on the specific hobby of urban exploring through a mainly poetic approach. I feel ethically (a big factor for Nichols) we treated our subjects fairly, their only specific wish was not to be identifiable and I think we were vague enough with their images that they could not be identified by a third party. Other than that there were no ethical debate about the documentary, we considered the morality of trespassing but decided it was worth the risks. I think as far as “representing” the world in the same a lawyer may represent his clients interests (Nichols p41) I think we do well to present the “case” for urban exploration as an interesting and valid hobby, as a victimless crime that is pleasurable and should be viewed as such, not as the actions of a criminal nuisance. As far as Nichols’ “three way relationship” between film maker, subject and audience the film is clearly I talk about them to you whilst we don’t have a presenter or voice of god narration it is clear we have a positive view of the “urbexers” and it is that opinion we are representing and shedding light on.

Another text I have read is Stella Bruzzi’s New Documentary, in chapter 2 Narration Film and its Voice Bruzzi talks about the use of narration, whilst we have not used “voice of god” narration our interviews, without subjects faces, non synch and without audible questions have many of the qualities of voice of god narration. She describes narration as a technique which “emphasizes the unity, and imaginary cohesion of it various elements; so the dominance of the narration covertly seeks to emphasise the incontrovertibility of the images by refusing to dispute and doubt what they depict”. Whilst she ignores this traditional narration and focuses on documentaries that break that convention it is clear that our documentary uses interviews in the same narrative way many films use voice over narration. Although we do not deviate from that classic narration the fact that it is all actually interview saves it from being too conventional and boring, the narrative they put across is personal and unpolished unlike a voice of god narration.

One of the most influential films for me as the camera man throughout the project was Regen (1929 Joris Ivans) the poetic imagery of this film informed our own poetic and final films greatly. The poetic side of our documentary is very similar, carefully shot, using almost only a collection of cutaways and mainly creating a general tone more from images and tone than from spoken content. I feel that we could easily remove the spoken side of the documentary and not lose too much content, create a piece even more like Regen however the influence of more conventional documentary is obvious in our use of interview to tie together the “evidentiary editing”(Nichols p30).

I think that we have created a fairly poetic conventional documentary, we do not break any specific conventions or challenge the form however we have used the poetic and the expository modes of documentary well to create an interesting piece about urban exploring.

Bibliography

1. Nichols B. (2001). How do documentaries differ from other types of film. In: Introduction to documentary. usa: Indiana University Press. p20-41.

2. Bruzzi S. (2000). Narration, The Film and its Voice. In: New Documentary. USA and Canada: Routledge. p46-72.

3. Ivans J. (1929) Regen. Netherlands

Urban Exploring Documentary Treatment

Urban Exploration

Length: 10:00

Format: 16:9 Full HD

Hook or tag line: Just because it’s abandoned, doesn’t mean it’s empty.

Short synopsis (25-50 words):

What is the film about?

Our short documentary will focus around the sport of Urban Exploring, following a small group of urban explorers as they photograph the Stanley Tools warehouses.

Mid-Length synopsis/outline (250 words):

What is the core subject matter of your film? How will the story unfold? What are the themes/issues/arguments you are trying to uncover? Who are the key contributors? What makes them interesting? What will we learn about them? Use visual language the aim is to bring the story alive and the characters off the page.

The core subject matter of the film will be explaining the sport of Urban exploring.

We are currently thinking the story will take the full 10 minutes of the allotted time and will play out in a structure similar to this;

·         Introduce the urban explorers and urban exploring through VO

·         Follow the explorers as they prepare to go ‘explore’

·         Explore the Stanley Tools and other sites with the explorers

·         Intercut this interviews from Stanley Tools site owner and VO and images from the explorers

·         End with future of Urban Exploring

Some of the arguments we will look at will be that buildings shouldn’t be left to rot because it’s a waste of space and resources, but as they are rotting why not take the opportunity to admire them in a temporary state while trying to adhere to the law.

The key contributors throughout the piece will be the Urban Explorers we follow and the site owners,

What makes them interesting is a very unique and uncommon hobby on the edge of the law with an insight into a world most people don’t know exists.

Our two main contributors are Matt and David. Their both in their early twenties and are friends who met at university.

Both Matt and David were born in small towns, growing up in tight-knit communities in which it seemed that not a lot happened and not a lot changed. For both boys, they found entertainment not on the streets but in abandoned buildings in their local area. Unlike the everyday pattern of their lives, discovering these buildings offered a new sense of excitement. Gradually discovering and seeking out these sites became a regular occurrence and is something that helped seal their friendship.

Matt is an eccentric individual with an artistic flair. Whereas others may think these derelict sights are a waste of space, for him it’s a blank canvas. The unique aesthetics of the sites offer a new, completely different space to work in meaning that every piece is unique.

David is a much quieter character with attention to detail. For him, these places are a haven of undiscovered secrets waiting to be captured through a lens

We hope that this will give a glimpse into the wider urban exploring movement.

Analysis of approach (500 words):

How will you make this film? What will it look and sound like? What is its style? What are the techniques used? What works were inspirational to the film? What works does it resemble? What is its mood? Its ambience?  Demonstrate enthusiasm and a distinctive visual/aural voice here. Include references to TWO films that you have watched as research.

We will make this film by getting our footage partly from interviews, b-roll and hopefully archive footage, while also gaining observational footage from following the Urban Explorers.

It will have an urban gritty feel to match the subject matter and environment we will be shooting in, while at the same time implementing many cinematic style shots such as large sweeping pans, wide angle shots, extreme close ups and possibly time lapses to help convey the emptiness and vastness of the location we are filming.

Its soundtrack will be entirely instrumental, we are thinking something with a strong beat but relatively simple with not too many individual instruments or sounds because a cluttered soundtrack wouldn’t suit the mase en scene and would detract from any voice over’s from interviews.

Some of the techniques used will be expository and observational, archive footage, interviews, voice over’s, still images and montage.

Some of the inspiration we have gotten for the style of our film is from a short 30 minute documentary on a new drug that is appearing in Russia called krokodill. It is an incredibly potent drug far stronger, and more importantly for the addicts much cheaper, than heroin, but it literally rots the body from the inside out. The documentary focused largely on the fact that it is the poor who are succumbing to the urge to try it as a cheap alternative to heroin.

They really drove this message home by getting a lot of b-roll of the poor areas of the city, and doing interviews with the inhabitants on location in the run down dangerous looking areas. Seeing the extreme poverty really drove what they were saying home, and we want to implement this in our film by interviewing on location if we can.

Its mood will be exciting and light-hearted but with serious undertones regarding the legality of the things the explorers do and the future of Urban Exploring as a sport.

Its ambience will generally make it seem like a quiet piece that focuses on the artistic side of the abandoned buildings, trying to show the viewer a world they probably have never seen before, but also trying to illustrate why the Urban Explorers risk getting caught just for a chance to explore these strange locations.

Filmmaker biography (50-100 words) :

What kind of documentary maker or filmmaker are you? What are the themes in your work? How do you approach work? Do you have any awards?

This is the second documentary in which I have been the main camera operator and I already feel a strong visual style coming through my work. I strive to create artistic shots utilising the specific visuals within the documentaries subject to show the beauty of the mise en scene and engage the viewer. I also personally enjoy making documentaries about peoples passion for their individual hobbies as they are positive and give audiences a chance to understand each other better as people. When working on documentary I look for the most interesting and eye catching cutaways that give tone and meaning to a film. I work both to shot lists and in an improvisational way grabbing shots of unique and interesting moments quickly and efficiently to ensure a comforting amount of B roll footage.

Stella Bruzzi, New Documentary, Narration, Film and its Voice

Stella Bruzzi New Documentary, Narration, The film and its voice.

New Documentary by Stella Bruzzi works to redefine and critique more classic versions of Documentary theory and bring them into a new age, using new and old documentaries to prove wrong some of the theories of the past. Unfortunately I feel that it has itself fallen victim to time and many of the arguments it makes are either no longer relevant or are painfully obvious. Whilst many of the observations she makes about Bill Nichols’ modes of documentary in her introduction are astute he himself says that the modes and all of documentary is a “fuzzy” concept to define thus making his modes more like helpful guidelines, like genres in fiction, than set rules. The chapter of New Documentary I have focused on is Narration, The Film and its Voice. In this chapter Bruzzi champions the voice over as a valid tool for documentary film making rather than the “imposed destroyer of the ‘pure’ film image.”

Bruzzi believes is in “the 'problem' at the heart of the discussions of narration is the question of how one views the relationship between sound and image”. She cite many big names in early documentary that believe sound ruins image before again turning her sights on Nichols and his “expository mode”, she says “Most to blame for this negative perception of voice over documentaries has been Bill Nichols’ definition of the ‘expository mode” as didactic, the oldest and most primitive form of non fiction film”. She runs to the defence of the mode which she disagrees with by underpinning all of Nichols’ modes as ignoring many historic documentaries. However my fundamental issue with Bruzzi’s attack on Nichols is that he seems in his own book Introduction to Documentary to have no problem with either voice over or speech driven documentary, in fact he says “Speech fleshes out our sense of the world.” He also in discussion about the rhetoric language used by documentaries as well as when he talks about “evidentiary editing” he highlights the importance of a voice over or speech to tie together and sums up the importance of dialogue by saying “arguments call for a logic that words are better able to convey than are images". I therefore believe that Bruzzi's attack on Nichols is unwarranted, I do agree that the use of voice over in documentary is not a bad thing but I also believe that it has to be used in an interesting an well written way for it to have an impact.

I do agree on large with the examples of good documentary voice over that Bruzzi offers, her examples of voice over as ironic, emotional, political and even times when "words fail" excellently show that voice over can be a brilliant tool to enhance images. The other side to the argument Bruzzi fails to address is the cases in which voice over is used instead of or in lack of images, not to concrete or anchor their meanings and tie together an argument but to tell the audience what to think and what they are looking at.

I believe Bruzzi's general defensiveness gets in the way of her theoretical study however she does explain some good uses of voice over and well defines what voice over should do. Whilst she admits the basic use of voice over is to connect images that seem to have no link she recognises the importance of this role saying "The traditional voice-over form emphasizes the unity, and imaginary cohesion of it various elements; so the dominance of the narration covertly seeks to emphasise the incontrovertibility of the images by refusing to dispute and doubt what they depict." That is not all the voice over does and not all it encompasses, in fact she states that sometimes the voice over can do the opposite, ironically commenting on the visuals creating a juxtaposition that makes the piece more open and polysemous. Not only can it do the opposite but the actual "failing" of words within a documentary can be extremely powerful, she agrees that sometimes words aren't best but when there is a lack of words at a specific time, a silence or unwillingness to continue on the part of the commentator, it is more poignant than removing the voice over completely. "Voice over is no longer a controlling mechanism" this is also a point in which the direct mode seems to be broken and the audience identify with the voice and give it a kind of character, struggling with them through the experience of the film. There are many other specific unique and interesting uses of voice over which Bruzzi uses to create a stong argument for its use and I and I am sure many other film makers agree with those specific uses disregarding the "suspicion that a voice over has the capacity to violate the 'truth' revealed in the image" in these cases. However it cannot be forgotten that voice over as well as any individual element of a film has the "capacity" to ruin a film if done carelessly.