Friday 31 August 2012
Monday 27 August 2012
Conventions of Rockumentaries (Music Documentaries)
From a cinematographic point of view conventionally any documentary will use a lot of close ups, to try and make the film seem more real, and involve us more rather than making it feel like we're watching from afar. One of the main things that a documentary does well is to make us feel as if we are observing something which is happening from within the room/next to the characters. Documentaries - especially in interviews when using close ups - will use a point of view shot with only the interviewee in shot, not over the shoulder or a two shot in order to try and create the effect that the viewer is the one conducting the interview rather than anyone else. You will never see a master shot in documentaries because it would definitely loose a sense of realism because of it - also (especially in Rockumentaries) if you only see the characters alone then it makes the finished product look more confessional, and therefore more real, and like it is an insight into their thoughts and feelings. It will generally use a steady cam throughout in order to make the documentary seem more realistic - because realism is the key to a good documentary. Angles used will vary, because it has to make sense (as with any show) to the viewer whilst the framing will generally be more direct and much simpler - it will try to frame characters as they would be to the viewer in real life, rather than just showing half of them or showing them slightly out of focus.
Apart from for continuity, music documentaries will usually stay away from transitions or anything similar because they will reduce the realism in the film. The main part of editing for a documentary is to place clips in a legible, understandable order so that certain parts link together to form a cohesive narrative. This may mean splitting up the interviews so that someone's opinions are not known too early or cutting it so that it links to what another interviewee is saying at that time. This works especially well for rockumentaries because it makes it more confessional - which makes it much more effective if dealing with a band/artist that has in the past been involved in drugs or a band break up.
The Mise En Scene for rockumentaries is usually designed in order to reflect either the stereotype of the artist or go against the artist's stereotype in order to either challenge peoples views of the subject or to emphasize them. If a musician has a somewhat seedy image then the director may emphasize that by setting parts of the documentary in more sleazy places - like strip clubs or more run down areas. If however a director wants to challenge the stereotype and expectations then they may set the interview in more of an intellectual setting - like a library for example. Props can also be an important part of the Mise En Scene for a music documentary because something like a guitar in the background immediately sets the scene and also reaffirms what they are. Props can also be a good way to break stereotypes too - for example if a musician who is associated with drugs is seen with poetry books or novels then it is quite likely that the public who see it may think differently about them - whilst also giving their fans a better understanding of them. Lighting can be key in creating an effect in a biased documentary because of the way it can portray someone - paler blues pinks and purples will create a more sleazy effect whereas colder white lights, or just yellow will make them seem more truthful.
In a rockumentary the sound will generally be tracks that the band have already written - or may have been influenced by. Tracks that link parts together are very common because they mean that the documentary flows well and also make the documentary more interesting because a good soundtrack means that the film is much more watchable and appealing on another level. A documentary would almost never (unless designed to be a tearjerker) use a soundtrack that is designed to encourage emotion - because of course that goes further and further away from the realism of it all. A voiceover is very common because it allows the film to form a more understandable narrative even if it does decrease the realism. It also means that the film seems less biased because the voiceover tries to be as impartial as possible. The narrative may never reach a conclusive end - because it is generally just a film designed to inform and therefore will not really have a conclusion. the story-line will generally be developed simply through the interviews - and will lead to one main question or part of the character/band discussed in more detail - it may just be a more volatile part of them. It will then generally be a 'how do we make it better?' style ending question in order to leave the film with hope but also in order to give it a conclusion which the viewer is in a way part of.
The character the documentary tries to portray depends on how biased the maker is because of course everyone will have a different opinion about the subject. the documentary will try to either show a fair, unbiased view of the subject or will try to change peoples opinions to it by enlightening them.
Apart from for continuity, music documentaries will usually stay away from transitions or anything similar because they will reduce the realism in the film. The main part of editing for a documentary is to place clips in a legible, understandable order so that certain parts link together to form a cohesive narrative. This may mean splitting up the interviews so that someone's opinions are not known too early or cutting it so that it links to what another interviewee is saying at that time. This works especially well for rockumentaries because it makes it more confessional - which makes it much more effective if dealing with a band/artist that has in the past been involved in drugs or a band break up.
The Mise En Scene for rockumentaries is usually designed in order to reflect either the stereotype of the artist or go against the artist's stereotype in order to either challenge peoples views of the subject or to emphasize them. If a musician has a somewhat seedy image then the director may emphasize that by setting parts of the documentary in more sleazy places - like strip clubs or more run down areas. If however a director wants to challenge the stereotype and expectations then they may set the interview in more of an intellectual setting - like a library for example. Props can also be an important part of the Mise En Scene for a music documentary because something like a guitar in the background immediately sets the scene and also reaffirms what they are. Props can also be a good way to break stereotypes too - for example if a musician who is associated with drugs is seen with poetry books or novels then it is quite likely that the public who see it may think differently about them - whilst also giving their fans a better understanding of them. Lighting can be key in creating an effect in a biased documentary because of the way it can portray someone - paler blues pinks and purples will create a more sleazy effect whereas colder white lights, or just yellow will make them seem more truthful.
In a rockumentary the sound will generally be tracks that the band have already written - or may have been influenced by. Tracks that link parts together are very common because they mean that the documentary flows well and also make the documentary more interesting because a good soundtrack means that the film is much more watchable and appealing on another level. A documentary would almost never (unless designed to be a tearjerker) use a soundtrack that is designed to encourage emotion - because of course that goes further and further away from the realism of it all. A voiceover is very common because it allows the film to form a more understandable narrative even if it does decrease the realism. It also means that the film seems less biased because the voiceover tries to be as impartial as possible. The narrative may never reach a conclusive end - because it is generally just a film designed to inform and therefore will not really have a conclusion. the story-line will generally be developed simply through the interviews - and will lead to one main question or part of the character/band discussed in more detail - it may just be a more volatile part of them. It will then generally be a 'how do we make it better?' style ending question in order to leave the film with hope but also in order to give it a conclusion which the viewer is in a way part of.
The character the documentary tries to portray depends on how biased the maker is because of course everyone will have a different opinion about the subject. the documentary will try to either show a fair, unbiased view of the subject or will try to change peoples opinions to it by enlightening them.
Short Film/Documentary
My short film will be a 10-15 minute look at Hull's music scene, interviewing promoters, club owners and local bands as well as others. It will be shot in a similar style to The Libertines' 'There Are No Innocent Bystanders' by Roger Sargent. His kitchen sink style personal interviews combined with moments of pure intimacy from the band mean that you see another side to the band and also feel included in the film. I want to recreate this style in my film in order to make sure that the documentary remains interesting, and also to ensure that it is valid.
Another influence would be the Arena BBC series - set up in 1975 it runs music documentaries about various bands/artists. They are shown irregularly on BBC Four but are very in depth rather than being just an average pop profile like most channels would do (viz. 4Muisc/ T4) Here's a link to the BBC Four documentary 'Who Is Poly Styrene?' .
In this similar style there is also 'Who The F**k Is Pete Doherty', another film aired by the BBC at the height of his fame in around 2006/7 area. In a similar style to mine it features interviews with various artists close to him, like the poet Wolfman and members of Babyshambles.
Going back to photographer Roger Sargent, here is a recent short film he directed for the band Spector. The down to earth or kitchen sink style of little editing except continuity is something that I want to emulate.
In this similar style there is also 'Who The F**k Is Pete Doherty', another film aired by the BBC at the height of his fame in around 2006/7 area. In a similar style to mine it features interviews with various artists close to him, like the poet Wolfman and members of Babyshambles.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)