Major Project Research: "The Insider" (With Reggie Yates)

Major Project Research: "The Insider" (With Reggie Yates)

As part of my ongoing research for this project, the next documentary I looked in to was "The Insider". A BBC Three documentary lead by Reggie Yates. With BBC Three being our intended audience/output for our film, I felt h=this doc had particular relevance. Below you can read the notes I have after watching it through. 

• The first thing we hear is the presenter, clearly explaining to the audience exactly what it is he will be doing in this documentary, and he also feeds us some key facts.
• We see him very early on, and we’re already symbolically travelling with him (as we’re in a car).
• Effective, snappy start that instantly gets us hooked (great editing here to).
• The presenter brings up their past early on, right away establishing that connection with the audience.
• Narration is also used to explain what the presenter is about to do in the following scenes.
• The narrative is easy to follow thanks to effective editing and use of narration.
• Music is used to emphasise the presenter's emotions (and they cut all other audio to focus on this).
• Presenter verbalizes their thoughts regularly through PTC’s.
• High/low angles are used at different points in the documentary to symbolise the presenter's mental state.
• Effective use of cuts and reaction shots used in interviews to maintain a constant pace and make a point.
• The pacing was a little too fast in places, and we didn't get a chance to linger on certain moments.
• There was a lack of music in some of the places it was most needed.
• The presenter directs the focus away from him at times, so we learn about and connect to other contributors, but he brings the attention back to him when it is most relevant/effective to do so.
• There's a nice use of shallow focus on the presenter at times (helping us focus on his emotions).
• Some of the cutaways could have been better (in terms of timing, shot choices etc).

• Due to the fast-paced narrative, we didn’t get a lot of time at the beginning of the documentary to establish/flesh out the concept and the questions we want answering. And it would have been nice to get more time to be introduced to the presenter and his background.
• The narrative remains easy to follow thanks to the presenter and editing style.
• The presenter seems to have a clear idea of the questions he wants answering in this documentary.
• The editing keeps the narrative at a fairly consistent pace.
• The camera switches between static and moving depending on the situation and nature of a scene/interview/PTC.
• Several contributors are given some context as/before we meet them.
• Again the presenter appears to be clip mic’d so we can hear them clearly at all times.
• The documentary does a good job of manipulating our emotions and helping us gain new insight, just as it set out to do.
• Makes a primarily, one camera set up work much better than the last documentary.

Closing Thoughts

• Although not perfect, it is probably stylistically the closest to what we want to achieve in our documentary.
• It has a solid start and end that asks and answers key questions.
• The editing is consistent throughout and helps identify these key questions.
• Very presenter focussed with good narration and equally good PTC’s.
• Great shots that highlight exactly what the presenter goes through.
• We feel a strong connection with the presenter throughout.
• It does lose some of the cool stylistic techniques that we’ve seen in other documentaries (clever camera shots, editing techniques graphics etc).

Overall Relevance Score 8/10

Major Project: Research-Louis Theroux "My Scientology Movie"

Major Project: Research-Louis Theroux "My Scientology Movie"

As part of my ongoing research for this project I looked in to the Louis Theroux documentary "My Scientology Movie". Below are the notes I made.

• The documentary starts off by giving the audience some solid facts. Good set up for the story and premise.
• It uses text instead of narration to start to the doc, which is a unique choice I haven't seen used before.
• One of the first things we hear is our presenter (we hear him before we see him).
• We are clearly introduced to all our contributors and given some context about them.
• Clever use of establishing shots (e.g. reflection from a car mirror or shop window). This will be a consideration in the cinematography of our doc.
• We have a comparison between current events and previous events (through the use of stock footage and reenactment).
• Great use of B-Roll and cutaways that play with your emotions (e.g. the shots of fences and barbed wire makes you feel paranoid and on edge).
• Fades are used to show the passing of time as opposed to a montage. I'm a fan of this style when used appropriately.
• Frequent close-ups of presenters face that let us gauge their reactions. This will be important in our filming.
• The doc could have used more cutaways in certain places in order to better maintain our attention.
• Similar to previous documentaries, car shots are used for transitional purposes and to allow us to see authentic, unedited thoughts from the presenter.
• Lack of shot variety in PTC’s and interviews, which sometimes leads to our attention wandering.
• The presenter is clip mic’d so we can hear him clearly at all times, this helps us form a better connection with him. Ideally, we'd want Alex mic'd as much as possible.

• During some PTC’s and other shots, the presenter begins to walk around. So symbolically he is taking us on a journey with him.
• Although there is voice over throughout this is always paired with a location PTC.
• Lots of two-shots (likely because they only had one main camera operator) i’m not sure how well this works as a stylistic choice.
• Although there is plenty of narration, very little of it actually serves to push the narrative forward or answer any questions.
• At a few select points, there were cuts between different close-ups that helped us connect with the presenter/contributors emotions.

Closing Thoughts

• The Narrative was relatively easy to follow.
• Some effective narration throughout.
• The doc didn’t answer some questions as well as it could have done, leaving us as an audience somewhat dissatisfied.

Overall Relevance Score 6/10

Major Project: Research- Icurus

Major Project: Research- Icurus

As part of my ongoing research for this documentary, the next film I looked at was the Netflix film Iccurus. This was anotehr film Alex had strong feelings about and recommended we watch as a group. Bellow are my personal notes from the viewing.

• The use of narration laid over stock footage, and mixed with the voice over from the original footage was really effective. It helps the audience piece together a more coherent story in their minds.

• The presenter narrates over their lowest/hardest points and there’s plenty of matching footage/shots. This not only grounds them as a person to make them more connectable as a person, but also provides an early cathartic release that will keep people watching.

• Photos are used when matching stock footage is not available. A technique often used in documentaries that should not be forgotten or underestimated.

• Interviews are trimmed and cut down to make a specific point. Something which I'll be considering in the edit of our film. To keep audience attention is it important that all contributors make a point and make it without too much rambling (something which often has to be guided by the editor).

• Interviews are also used as voice over in places (SOT), this is a technique that could play nicely with our diary room sequence that we've been planning.

• The presenter takes us along with them on their journey; some of this is done “video diary” style. Parts of this are worth considering as a stylistic technique, but other parts should be disregarded for their lack of effectiveness to move the narrative smoothly.

• The presenter doesn’t talk to the audience very often, as a result, we don’t feel a strong connection with them.
• There is a lack of establishing shots or other effective transitions. One of the golden rules of film making has been disregarded here.

• Good cuts between presenter and contributors during interviews, keeping us engaged in the subject matter.

• Sound effects are occasionally put in place over interviews for dramatic effect.

• The pacing of the narrative, editing and music is changed to match the presenter's emotions. This will be a key focus for me going foward.

• Shot types (e.g. handheld vs tripod) also change to match this, giving the documentary a raw feel.

• Car shots help the narrative get from A to B, as well as pick up additional thoughts from the presenter. I really think we can utilise this concept well in our film. Especially with the journey metaphor we will have throughout.

Closing Thoughts

• It has a strong start that introduces us to people and makes some effort to connect us to them.
• Narration helps to direct our attention.
• Some strong storytelling techniques present.
• However, this documentary isn’t quite the style we’re after.

Overall Relevance Score 6/10

Major Project: Research-Senna

Major Project: Research-Senna

As part of my ongoing research for this documentary, the next documentary I looked in to was the early 2000's film "Senna".

This was a film that Alex felt had particular relevance to our's and was keen for me to watch. Below are the personal notes I made after watching it through.

• It isn’t immediately clear what the subject matter of the documentary is. It seems to start off talking about one topic, before divulging into a different area within that topic.

• It isn’t immediately clear exactly who are contributors are (they aren’t given many contexts). We don't quite understand what purpose they serve in the narrative or even what they do.

• The documentary begins with the presenter talking about their memories of the subject matter (vaguely), something I'd be keen to replicate in our film.

• Good use of stock footage, especially early on to get us interested in the topic. This is a point I have raised before for its effectiveness in the narrative.

• Good use of soundtrack at the start of the documentary. Sound design should never be underestimated and music is a great way to maintain a pace.

• Poor camera angles. Clearly, not much attention was paid to the cinematography in parts of this film.

• Cutting between different contributors throughout the documentary helps get different perspectives (good use of storytelling).

• Moments of comedy and sadness that help us connect to the story. By having an audience feel a range of emotions they become more engaged with our story and contributors.

• Instantly cutting the music/sound from clips instead of gently fading them out completely ruins any atmosphere they had built up.

• We feel both attached and detached from the story at the same time. We want to care about the subject matter, but not enough is done to keep our attachments.

• Fairly decent narrative structure, it asks questions early on and does an ok job of answering them as we go.

• There’s only one camera angle that ever gets used, this combined with the lack of cutaways makes interviews feel very stale.

• The documentary was very stylistic and of its era.

Closing Thoughts

• The documentary tells a very straight forward story about the life of a racing driver.
• We feel emotionally connected to the documentary and its characters occasionally, but not often.
• It doesn’t do enough to hold our attention.
• It was good to look at for research, but there is very little we can take from this. Certainly not as much as Alex indicated.

Overall Relevance Score 4/10

Major Project: Research- "Walk The Walk (KSI VS Joe Weller)"

Major Project: Research- "Walk The Walk (KSI VS Joe Weller)"

As part of my continuing research, the next documentary we looked at was "Walk The Walk" The story of KSI's boxing match with Joe Weller.

Below are my notes on the film.

• Good introduction to story and characters, really sets up the film and aims of the film from the get go.

• Getting friends and colleagues to talk about the presenter and other characters really helps us connect with them.

• Following the presenter around during their PTC’s feels much more natural than the Joe Weller doc, it could be somthing that would prove useful in our film.

• Having the presenter and contributors talk about their inspirations is really effective.

• Having the presenter and contributors answer pre-set questions helps the story. It aids in the structure of teh narrative and ensures the audience gets only the information they need so we don't linger too long.

• Clips and videos from the presenters past helps us connect with them., i'd really like to try and do this in our film to set up Alex as a person

• Great cuts during the interview scenes, helps keep the narative flowing as=t a steady pace.

• The presenter visiting old places that hold meaning to them feels more effective than the last documentary. I'd pay close attention to this scene as we can use it as inspiration for our film.

• Similar to the Joe Weller documentary, the Narrative feels jumpy, we want to take the audience on a journey but we don't want to lose them on the way.

• The inclusion of close-ups of the presenter's hands, face, shoulders etc, during meaningful moments is very effective.

• Talking to various people right before the “major event” (a fight in this case) is very beneficial to the story.

• Great editing techniques during the “fight scene”; the use of fades/overlaps, cuts/cutaways and motion tracking helps to create tension and keep us hooked. (29:00)

• Key statements from contributors are “clipped” and used just at the right moments.

• There isn’t a clear overall story arc present in this documentary, we haven't learned or achieved much of anything. There was a lot of build up and very little pay off or catharsis of any kind.

Closing Thoughts

• Improves a lot over the Joe Weller documentary.
• Makes you care and feel more connected to its characters.
• More character development is present; explored through the cinematography, interviews, PTC’s etc.
• The overall story arc was virtually non-existent.
• The narrative was very jumpy.
• Poor editing throughout most of the documentary.
• The documentary didn’t answer any questions.

Overall Relevance Score: 6/10

Major Project: Research-Joe Weller "Walk The Walk"

Major Project: Research-Joe Weller "Fighter"

In order to prepare myself for this documentary, I knew it was important to do plenty of research, to help educate, inform and inspire the decisions I  made in this project. So as part of that I sat down with Alex and went through a large number of pre-exisitng documentaries, and I made notes on both the positive and negative aspects of them (focussing on what I could take/learn from them), to better shape our documentary.

Below are my notes on the Joe Weller Documentary "Fighter".

Black = general points

Blue = points relevant to presenting and emotional content

Red = negative points

Mrs Brown = Normal people with limited subject knowledge

  

• The film starts with clips from the middle of the documentary, which is a good way to introduce the story.
• The “diary room” or master interview that is seen throughout is a great way to ground the story. It also has effective lighting that sets the mood.
• Drone shots are used to establish some of the new locations that are mentioned/visited.
• There are cutaways for a lot of the narration, helping to keep the audience engaged.
• PTC’s are often filmed on location, creating a strong metaphor and keeping the pacing of the film effective and angaging.
• There are frequent changes in the pace of the narrative, I'd hope to avoid this as it messes with audience engagement.
• At one point all audio is cut apart from the presenters heavy breathing (highlighting their exhaustion).
• Pictures and  old clips/stock footage are used to connect us with the presenters past.
• The presenter introduces us to each contributor and gives us some context about them. This is key in any documentary.
• There’s a great little montage after the presenter says “I need to get FOCUSSED”. It's really inspiring for me as an editor, and is something that I'd like to work into our film to wow audiences.
• This documentary adopts a sort of “video diary” style which is a good way for as to see the presenters development.
• Some PTC’s drag on longer than they need to and could have been replaced with narration without losing any of the effect.
• Montages are used to show the passing of time (however they aren’t very well edited).
• The range of close-up’s used (especially during training sequences) help us connect with the presenter and understand the strain they are under. (However they could have been used more frequently).
• Often the presenter mentions something that could have been represented by a cut-away but wasn’t (and it was clear that they had the footage available).

• When we’re introduced to some of the contributors it would have been nice to have some B-Roll of them.

• We have great use of close up’s when the presenter is at a low point.

• Use of slow motion and dipped audio effectively emphasise the struggle the presenter is facing. (29:00)

• Some great montages around 35 minutes into the video. 

• Some of the PTC’s felt very flat, the presenter needed to be more enthusiastic and emmotive in order for us to care about them.

• It would have been better if they walked around the locations in some of the PTC’s rather than just sit in one spot (especially when they are reflecting on somewhere that has a lot of meaning to them).

Closing Thoughts

• Similar style to what we want in our documentary.
• There were a few good examples of montages, storytelling, and re-living moments.
• The narrative was all over the place, in terms of content and pacing.
• The use of narration was ineffective (didn’t make us care enough).
• The overall story arc was weak.

Overall Relevance Score 6/10