Please follow us at www.thedocumentaryinsider.com

Hey there - workshops are starting this week, new blog posts are coming out all sorts of stuff, but please follow us at our new blog site:  www.thedocumentaryinsider.com

See you over there!

Best,

Stephanie.

Moving to www.thedocumentaryinsider.com

Hey there lovely readers - Please come find me over at http://thedocumentaryinsider.com, new site, new blog, new class starting soon - please come check it out - pass the word - sign up for class - make your documentary!

Documentaries Rule!

Thanks for reading & Filmmaking

Stephanie Hubbard
The Documentary Insider.

The Documentary Insider going to WESTDOC

Hey there Documentary Insiders -

I went to WestDoc last year, and this year I will be covering the conference for all my Documentary Insider Readers and workshop students!  I think there will be lots of cool relevant subjects there.  Last year, WestDoc is where I met Adam Chapnick - which resulted in one of my favorite posts of 2009.

So - another bonus to Documentary Insider readers, WestDoc is offering my readers a discount - just use the code CTW2010 to get a 10% discount on the conference if you sign up by Sept 1. 


Who should go?  Well, one of the nice things about WestDoc is that you get a chance to sit with executives from different channels to pitch your shows.  If you have a show idea - then that would be ideal.  Last year I went to one session that jerked loose the ideas that I'd developed a few years earlier - then met a guy at the WestDoc cocktail party from a production company hungry for ideas (I knew how to pitch him cause I'd just been to the earlier session) I ended up producing a demo with the guy and his company.  In the end the network didn't take it - but WestDoc man - it might be a good fit for where you are at right now - or it might be something you'll just want to read my articles about ; - )


BTW - I will be starting a 12 week Doc School in September. I will have one class in the evening (Wednesdays) and one class during a week day.  Each class is limited to six participants, so if you know anyone who'd like to get their doc started, sorted and wonderful by November - please pass the word along!   If you want to reserve a spot, the best way right now is to call (323)202-5645 or to email me at  huranghu@gmail.com


Thanks!


Stephanie Hubbard
Documentary Insider. 

The SPAGHETTI trap.

You know the saying:  Throw spaghetti at the wall, and see what sticks.  That in and of itself is not bad when you are making a doc.  But if it's your only approach, you will limit yourself.

I I do not believe you need every element locked down before you start shooting, but I do think the best is to really think about what you want to say, and who you want to say it to.  Are you following a character more or working to illustrate an issue?  The best documentaries do both, but in my experience, the filmmakers usually start with one or the other.

So here is my experience of the Spaghetti Trap:

It started with filmmakers whose approach began with an issue.  Their take on filmmaking was "Go shoot everything  you can or who ever you can about this subject"  Period.  Once they started on the hunt to get this one or that person to speak on camera, they were consumed by the hunt.  Once they started the shoot, driving around from state to state in a van, they were consumed by the shoot.

They showed up in my edit room with 130 hours of footage and no outline, no script, no real idea of what would hold all these ideas together.

I was able to eke out the semblance of an arc from tiny fragments they'd captured, almost by accident along the way - and though they'd captured amazing footage and interviews, and though they won awards with the finished film, they could have done better and gone farther with it if they'd had more of an ARC to their story.

Can you see the trap here?

If we could have gone back in time, they might have begun work with their editor (me perhaps) or someone else BEFORE they went shooting - why?  So they could really think about the key mechanism for tying this information together.  Are we going to follow one character on a quest for information?  Are we going to track one person through their recovery through the situation we are documenting with bits and bobs tangenting off to the side, but with a through arc created by that person?

The very act of considering the film as more than a list of interviews, would have raised their consciousness so that on the road, shooting, they would be able to stick around long enough to follow someone to capture an arc.  They could have included themselves as the characters on a quest.  Or do what ever they had decided wanted to do - from thinking about it BEFORE HAND. 

The point I am trying to make:  While your plan/script/structure can change as often as you need it to, building in the discipline of thinking about your film as a whole will give you a WHOLE lot more complete material for making your film operate at a much higher level.  You will truly optimize your shooing, and make your editor VERY HAPPY!

Stephanie Hubbard is an award winning producer and editor who teaches documentary at the Syracuse University Program in Los Angeles, and private workshops for filmmakers who want to make their best possible film. 

How to Organize Your Material

So, you are an assistant and you want to impress your new boss (the editor) with the material you've been asked to digitize.  Or, you might be an editor at the beginning of the biggest project you've had to date -

You're just starting out what could be a long project: How best to Organize it?

Well, let's go back a step, How to you label the materials as you bring them in?

I think it's always best to avoid wasting crucial information place holders with notations like:

Tape - 12

So Don't.  One option is to name it after the over all project - so a project about Bible Storyland might always be BSL - but even better - is the name of the person you are interviewing:  Pierce - 001

Why put extra numbers?

ALWAYS put 001, 002, 003 etc.  Why? Because otherwise, your single numbers get mixed up in your 20's and 30's etc.  so if you number 1,2,3,4,5, etc. when they are listed in the bin or on the drive it will be, 1, 10, 11, 12...2, 20, 21, and so on.  THUS the use of 001, 002 003, and everything ends up where it is supposed to be.

So let's presume you have everything properly labelled (no small feat)

You are looking at an empty bin in FCP - where to start?

Okay - you should have just five folders:

FOOTAGE, and within that, you might have two folders, INTERVIEWS and B-ROLL. And within those - particular interviews, particular b-roll divided by folder.  YOU CANNOT have too many folders at this level.

Though there will be shows that are strictly verite - you can use big categories:  MONTANA, FLORIDA to group the material.  You might use DATES:  SEPTEMBER etc.

But what should go along side FOOTAGE?

ARCHIVAL (if you have it)
PHOTOS (if you use them)
MUSIC
S F/X
(or just Audio and split those two up)
GRAPHICS
And what ever other categories you might accrue.
But must importantly - you have a folder JUST for SEQUENCES.

Sometimes, depending on the size of the project - folders within folders of Sequences - but at least one folder.

And there you have it - the beginning of a well organized bin....

Please, if you have other suggestions or thoughts, post them.

Best,

Stephanie Hubbard.

Content vs. Capability

I notice I have two very different kinds of workshop participants/students.

Profile #1: A person has a very specific idea about what they want to do their documentary about.  It may be about gay marriage, or a spiritual journey, a lost story of LA.  Some do know how to make docs, and want an outside point of view to help them get clarity on how to proceed, others don't know how to make docs yet, but they want to, and they are starting with this story.

Profile #2: A person who doesn't really have a strong idea about what they want to tell, but has a strong desire for the skill set.  Something in them wants to be able to make documentaries, and they come to me to learn the skills so they can apply them as they journey through life.

What is interesting to me:
In the case of #2's I can help them look for good subjects. They can begin to know what it is they are looking for - essentially a story with a strong transformation - or the hope of one.  Of course, there is the idea of choosing someone who might be a good subject, and I would refer them to my interview with Kirby Dick http://tinyurl.com/38t95a8.  


In the case of #1's I help them see where the transformation is within the story they want to tell.  My favorite example is of a filmmaker that came to me with years of verite footage shot depicting people who went through the experiences around the subject he wanted to portray.  He came into my office in our first class, and told me he only had to get about 12 interviews of experts to tell the story.  But when we broke it down, we found he already head the story in his verite footage - ready to be a powerful compelling story.   


I also find #1's who become #2's.  They find they love the process of making films, and go on to make more. 


I personally, love working with all my students and clients whether it be helping them find the story they've already started, or learning how to set up an interview, or how to capture verite footage for a film they don't even know they are going to make yet. 


I just started a new workshop this week, there are spots still available.  The time is 12:30 Wednesday afternoon.  There may also be an evening slot open.  If you are interested, please email me at huranghu@gmail.com

Thanks for reading!  Stephanie.  

Structure Makes Your Improvisation Work!

So, going to see a performance of Improv at IOWest is amazing.  I suggest going Tuesday nights at 9 to see USS Rock and Roll and Local 132.  There have been several times I've brought friends fresh to improv and they could not believe that every word was made up - had never existed before this performance, and will never exist again (unless, the performance was filmed of course)   It is an amazing feat, as improvisors move, speak, emote, seemingly plot, and express theme, broader meaning, the whole deal, with NO discussion - nothing more than eye contact.  These teams I'm recommending do a form called The Harold.  This is a form developed at IOWest (when it used to be Improv Olympic) by Del Close, the original IOer.

What is the Harold?  An opening, three "first scenes" a game, three "second scenes" where the characters or locations of the first scenes come back, another game, and the final coming together of all three plot lines as they affect each other in often hilariously and profound ways.    A couple of details, the second beats may often be the longest beats in the piece, time to develop characters, situations etc.  The third beats are where everyone's story gets wrapped up. ; - )

Well what have we here?  Yes, we have structure.  What else might we have?  How bout a want and a need.  The way to have powerful themes is to begin with a callow character who actually changes in the third act.  The way I teach my students now is that this transformation occurs when the want collides with the need, and the Hero has to relinquish her want or "die".  In improv, it may be as simple as, girl who wants friends and tries to get them by being mean, realizes she should be nice.  But once we meet her in the first act, we want to see her come back in the second "beat" and see the consequences of her meanness.  It's only in the third act, as we wrap up in improv that we see our hero transformed, see her realize that because she needs friends, she needs not to be mean any more.  Okay, that's a super basic example, but improv CAN be simpler than Doc, but also can be more more challenging and complex.

Okay - so how does this apply to me and my doc you may be asking?

First of all, what this means, no matter how organic your doc (cause improv is the epitomy of organic) you will make it better by having a structure.

Let me tell you.....I always used to think that you just start shooting right?  Well after years of working on trying to edit docs for people who "Just Started Shooting" I realized that they had spent their valuable time and resources - and often the time of others - and even if the filmmaker started with a GREAT idea, if they didn't fully develop the structure for their film BEFORE they start - if they didn't think about who could take us into this world and have a transformation - then - unless you are INCREDIBLY f-ing lucky - you won't get that.  Sure, some people are in the right place at the right time, but you're too smart and too good to leave it all to chance.

So, number 1, step out on stage with all the players knowing the structure.
number 2, choose characters with strong wants, and strong needs.  Know they will stick to those through the first two acts.
number three, make theme - or saying something about something, more than the immediate scenario at hand - a goal.

If you can take these three things and apply them to your documentary BEFORE you start shooting, or at a far distant least, AS you shoot, then you have a shot to have the main elements that make a great film.

 To review - you want:

1) a hero who has a transformation   and 2) a film that transcends it's subject, that is about more than it appeared to be at first.

(What do Want and Need have to do with Structure?  That will be the next post! )

These are there things that make great documentaries delightful, and if you know about them, and are looking for them, even PLANNING where they will emerge BEFORE you choose a subject, or start shooting, BEFORE you're done shooting and start editing.

Some examples: Times of Harvey Milk and Unknown White Male along with When We Were Kings are terrific examples of Want Need, Structure and Transformation, and that delightful moment when you realize that this documentary you are watching is about more than what you thought.

So, take your check list, think about what you are doing, and really have fun with it, and make your film with more than "just" a good idea.

These are all the things we work on in the Doc Workshops - so please feel free to send an email for more information about the next workshops.

Kisses from Anvil & Werner

I just had my students watch Grizzly Man because, for what I want to work on with them, it represents the collision of archival footage and poetry. (And I love the foxes.) And I've had them watch many great films.  But what prompted me to write this post was what I found in researching Werner Herzog:  He just taught a three day master class called Rogue Filmmaking two weeks ago, and eager for material I might share with my students I fell in love with what one of his students wrote about his class:

Attend if you love and feel an affinity for the following statements:
Forget successful, think compelling
Fascination drives film-making
Delving into the hearts of humans
Be ruthless with your material
Respect the natural authority of the people you collaborate with
You are not part of the culture of complaint
Your work is based on the soul, not the plot of the story
You are willing to earn money in a basic way
You are willing to determine the moral borderline of your film-making
Sense undoable projects
If you think that there are more important things in life than movies
If you read poetry and novels
If you know that there is only ONE taste...good taste.
If you NEVER WAVER
-Asimakis Pagidas (“Alfa P.”)


And despite it's roving subject and syntax, I wanted to share it because I think it captures the essence of filmmaking - of art making, of living.     Just these four are priceless: 
Be ruthless with your material
Respect the natural authority of the people you collaborate with
You are not part of the culture of complaint
Your work is based on the soul, not the plot of the story

Though I trust each reader to bring their own interpretation to these, I will grudgingly offer mine: 

Be ruthless with your material:  This is what an editor must do.  I have been with filmmakers who want to keep something in because of how they got it, or who they promised, but at the cost of the film.  No, that is not acceptable.  The film must stand on it's own.  Be ruthless with your material. 

Respect the natural authority of the people you collaborate with:  this is a good one.  If someone is good, let them be good.  It will make your film better, it will make you better.  

You are not part of the culture of complaint.  Reminds me of my Bar Method class.  When I started, I didn't get it, the teacher was making us do the most painful things, again and again - and no one was complaining.  Now I get it.  Again and again in my life, I get to leave behind the culture of complaint, and when I do, things seem really quiet for a while, then quiet is good - a good place to make work.   Finally: Your work is based on the soul, not the plot of the story:  Again and again, I learn it, I see it, I internalize it - plot is just a diversion away from the soul.  Stick to the transformation - the conflict between the want and the need, and you have a way into the soul.  Get into plot, who said what, where is the gun now, the other tape, the maguffin, and there is no soul.  But throw in a soul, in this case, an opera singer, and you've got my favorite French film of the 80's, Diva. 

In line with this, I was honored to go see the DGA documentary honorees on Friday. They included the directors of The Cove, The English Surgeon, Food Inc,. Beaches of Agnes, Garbage Dreams and Anvil! The Story of Anvil.   So during the moderated Q and A, the distinguished moderator asked Sacha Gervasi, the director of Anvil! how he handled his production plan, especially considering that he was a first time documentary film maker.  At first he answered by talking about his connection to the subject, his absolute LOVE of the guys in Anvil.  Then she asked again, "Yes, but this was the first time you'd ever directed a film, or a documentary,  what sort of provisions did you make for that?"  That's when Sacha looked out above our heads and said this, 
        
"You know, I was in agents offices, they were telling me I should write this or that, (He had just written "The Terminal" for Steven Spielberg) but I told them I wanted to make a documentary with my own money.  So I hired a good producer, got a good cinematographer, the best I could find, and we went to shoot for three years."  


He then went on to tell how Anvil! was shown at the Sundance Film festival in 2008 but didn't get distribution.  They just kept entering it into festivals, and kept sending the subject of the film to the festivals.  It was the following year, at a tiny film festival in Prague, where two MTV executives on vacation went to the basement of the pub where they were drinking to see the the film - and fall in love - that the film got distribution.    Sacha told this story, and I believe it so fits the sentiments of Herzog's student I wanted to share here. 


Oh, and the kisses:  So I went up to Sacha at the DGA reception later, thanked him, and told him I was an editor and that I liked his material very much, and that I would like to work with him.  We shared a few more words, or an understanding or a moment.  He took me seriously, and said thank you, and gave me a kiss on the cheek as if we knew each other.  


It was later reported to me by one of my university students that Sacha then said, "The best part about being in this business is the ladies...." 


So whether or not I get a call to edit "Anvil II, The Comeback" I want to dedicate this blog to the spirit of all of the filmmakers out there - whether they are struggling to make a film as they work a 9 to 5 job, as they face down fears of unemployment, if they come from being a poor German teenager, or are challenged by  the demands of a family, or choose documentary as they walk away from a Hollywood screenwriting career,     let us all leave behind the culture of complaint, and enter that magical poetic world of truth and love that documentary filmmaking is all about. 


Namaste, 


Stephanie. 

The Art of Improv and the Documentary Part I

Happy Solstice Dear Reader,

Some of you may know that I, Stephanie Hubbard, the "Documentary Insider", also actively study and perform comedy improv at one of the best schools in the country, iowest, formerly known as improv olympic.

This morning, I started thinking about the two art forms, Improv and Documentary and why I'm so involved with both.

And the most obvious thing is that they both rely fully on improvising: being able to create art on the fly, as it happens, being alert and involved, reacting in the moment - or rather the millisecond.

So, how might we apply principles of improv to documentary filmmaking?

1) Even though, in the art form of comedy improv, "Nobody knows what anyone will say," we do learn and agree on the form we will do. This typically involves structure. What is the structure? In the most successful long forms, (Here I will refer to "The Harold" a long form of improv developed at the Improv Olympic under the beloved Del Close, recognized as the father of improv by many) First, there is an OPENING, which will inspire, and in so doing actually encompass all that follows it. (A great opening in an documentary should both be at the beginning AND encompass all that is to follow.) Then there are three different SCENES. They are unrelated but inspired by the opening, and are typically two person scenes. The most important thing in these scenes is to establish RELATIONSHIP, who are these people to each other - from this comes all else. Then there is a GROUP GAME - typically inspired by the opening. Then we have second beats of each of the SCENES in the first beats - in these second beats you can have more people interacting with the characters established in the first beats. In improv we follow CHARACTER, not plot. These beats can be longer, developing aspects of the characters. Then we have one more GROUP GAME, then SCENES - or Third Beats, that have each of the story lines merge - it turns out that the woman in 2A is actually married to the mail man in 1C and so on. This is also the time that the characters TRANSFORM according to our point of view about the themes that have emerged from within the Harold.

Each scene is developed by the improvisors listening to each other and responding in the moment, but each improvisor is working according to the structure of the piece, moving towards transformation, and a conclusion.

Now how does this apply to Documentary? Well, just as we can really listen to our subjects and to the issues and themes arising from what it is we want to say in our documentary, we might benefit from having a structural road map we are following. And the road map we choose for a Documentary, might be strikingly similar - we have first act - that establishes our characters and their relationships. Our act two is longer, has more ins and outs, more characters perhaps, then we have our act three, or transformation act - also, we have a time when we know it will all come together to say more about the whole than we expected. This is because on some physiological level, the audience is satisfied by transformation and by elevating the conversation to more than they expected. And by doing this in your documentary, you will create a more powerful film.

Stay tuned, tomorrow - the importance of Not Judging, Being in the Moment, and Listening, all key elements of successful improv & successful documentary filmmaking.

To see the sort of improv shows I'm talking about, check out the schedule at www.iowest.com

List of Documentaries to View for Filmmakers

I chose some of these docs just because I LOVED them - and all of them I think should be seen by anyone planning to make a doc. Why? Listen, whether you are spending your time and money or someone else's, there is no cheaper way to spark your imagination than to learn and see what others have done. Also, it gives you a shared language to communicate with your collaborators - your dp, your editor, your graphics person. Watching these can also open up the way you can bring to light an issue - from "Manufacturing Consent" to "Titicut Follies" or "Roger and Me", it's a clear illustration that there are many ways to bring consciousness to an issue.

But what about plain old fun? "American Movie", "Wild Parrots of Telegraph Hill" and "Spellbound" take us inside parts of our culture we can be glad we know about because they are fun and wonderful. As for making art, "The Gleaners and I", "Rivers and Tides" and "Visions of Light" won't disappoint. For Characters, "Gray Gardens", and "Keep the River on Your Right" are great choices. But for sheer chutzpah in filmmaking - check out "Grizzly Man", "Tarnation", and the only narrative film on the list, "Le Jetee" (easily found on YouTube)

Then there are my standards - films I use in class all the time to talk about structure and different approaches to doc story telling, "Times of Harvey Milk", "Unknown White Male", and "When We Were Kings". Now I'm about to watch "King of Kong", and I have an inkling I might be adding one more..... Enjoy! Stephanie.

Oh, and of course "Man on a Wire".

“The Farmer’s Wife” (1998) Directed by David Sutherland

http://www.amazon.com/Farmers-Wife-Juanita-Buschkoetter/dp/B000CPHABK/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1260167997&sr=1-1

“Rivers and Tides” (2004) Directed by Thomas Riedelsheimer

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_0_6?url=search-alias%3Ddvd&field-keywords=rivers+and+tides&sprefix=Rivers

“Grizzly Man” (2005) Directed by Werner Herzog

http://www.amazon.com/Grizzly-Man-Franc-G-Fallico/dp/B000BMY2NS/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1260211627&sr=1-1

“Salesman” (1968) Directed by Albert Maysles & Charlotte Zwerin

http://www.amazon.com/Salesman-Criterion-Collection-Paul-Brennan/dp/B00005KHJY/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1260168361&sr=1-1

“Murderball” (2005) Directed by Dana Adam Shapiro & Henry Alex Rubin

http://www.amazon.com/Salesman-Criterion-Collection-Paul-Brennan/dp/B00005KHJY/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1260168361&sr=1-1

“The Up Series” Seven Up, 7 Plus Seven, 21 Up, 28 Up, 35 Up, 42 Up, 49 Up

Director Micheal Apted

http://www.amazon.com/Up-Seven-Plus-21-28/dp/B000SAGGLO/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1260169382&sr=8-1

“Keep the River on Your Right – A Modern Cannibal’s Tale” (2002) Directed by David Shapiro and Laurie Gwen Shapiro.

http://www.amazon.com/Keep-River-Your-Right-Cannibal/dp/B00006CXH4/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1260169516&sr=1-1

Le Jetee Sans Soleil (Criterion Collection) (1963) Director Chris Marker

http://www.amazon.com/Jetee-Sans-Soleil-Criterion-Collection/dp/B000OPPADS/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1260169638&sr=1-1

Hoop Dreams (1994) Directed by Steve James

http://www.amazon.com/Hoop-Dreams-Criterion-Collection/dp/B0007WFYBG/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

A Question of Color (1993) Cathe Sandler

http://newsreel.org/nav/title.asp?tc=CN0073

Belfast, Maine (1999 ) Titicut Follies (1967) Directed by Frederick Wiseman

http://www.zipporah.com/

Roger and Me (1989) Directed by Micheal Moore

http://www.amazon.com/Roger-Me-James-Bond-IV/dp/B00009YXAS/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1260171938&sr=8-1

Night and Fog (1955) Directed by Alain Resnais

http://www.amazon.com/Night-Enhanced-1955-Michel-Bouquet/dp/B001NFSP08/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1260172126&sr=1-2

Manufacturing Consent (1993) Directed by Peter Wintonick

http://www.amazon.com/Manufacturing-Consent-Noam-Chomsky-Media/dp/B00005Y726/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1260172191&sr=1-1

Gray Gardens (1976) Directed by Albert Maysles and Ellen Hovde

http://www.amazon.com/Gardens-Edith-Little-Bouvier-Beale/dp/B00005KHJX/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1260172464&sr=1-4

The Gleaners and I (2002) Directed by Agnes Varda

http://www.amazon.com/Gleaners-I-Bodan-Litnanski/dp/B00005Y727/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1260170107&sr=1-2

Tarnation (2003) Directed by Jonathan Caouette

http://www.amazon.com/Tarnation-Greg-Ayres/dp/B0007Y8ABK/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1260170168&sr=1-1

When We Were Kings (1997) Leon Gast

http://www.amazon.com/When-Were-Kings-Muhammad-Ali/dp/B00007ELEK/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1260170255&sr=1-1

Thin Blue Line (1988) Directed by Errol Morris

http://www.amazon.com/Thin-Blue-Line-Randall-Adams/dp/B00094AS72/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1260170294&sr=1-2

Cheap Fast and Out of Control (1997) Errol Morris

http://www.amazon.com/Fast-Cheap-Control-Dave-Hoover/dp/B00003CX9Z/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1260170362&sr=1-7

American Movie (1999) Director Chris Smith

http://www.amazon.com/American-Movie-Mark-Borchardt/dp/0767846869/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1260209865&sr=1-1

Iraq in Fragments (2005) Director James Longley

http://www.amazon.com/Iraq-Fragments-James-Longley/dp/B000R4SKEM/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1260209916&sr=1-1

The Wild Parrots of Telegraph Hill (2005) Director Judy Irving

http://www.amazon.com/Parrots-Telegraph-Special-Two-Disc-Collectors/dp/B001DXS4GA/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

“Still a Brother: Inside the Negro Middle Class” (1968) William Greaves

Spell Bound (2002) Director Jeffrey Blitz

http://www.amazon.com/Spellbound-Angela-Arenivar/dp/B0000WN13Q/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1260170423&sr=1-2

Jesus Camp (2006) Directed by Heidi Ewing & Rachel Grady

http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Camp-Becky-Fischer/dp/B000KLQUV2/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1260170821&sr=1-1

Stronger, Bigger, Faster (2008) Directed by Christopher Bell

http://www.amazon.com/Bigger-Stronger-Faster-Christopher-Bell/dp/B001B7CNW4/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1260170466&sr=1-1

Visions of Light (1993) Directed by Todd McCarthy and Stuart Samuels

http://www.amazon.com/Visions-Light-Cinematography-Néstor-Almendros/dp/630583685X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1260171854&sr=1-1

“Pressure” (1976) directed by Horace Ove, (Seems to be only in PAL)

http://www.amazon.com/Pressure-Baldwins-Nigger-NON-USA-FORMAT/dp/B001IF1PWI/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1260171751&sr=8-2

“Unknown White Male: A True Story” 2005

Director Rupert Murray Distributed by Imagine Entertainment

http://www.amazon.com/White-Male-True-Story/dp/B000GBEWIY/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1260115368&sr=1-1-spell

“Times of Harvey Milk” 1984

Director Rob Epstein Distributed by Cinecom International & New Yorker Films

http://www.amazon.com/Times-Harvey-Milk-1984/dp/B0001Y4LDW/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1260116070&sr=1-1-spell

What does a person really need to know to make a movie?

I'm preparing to teach a documentary class for students for my alma mater here in Los Angeles, and have been faced with a tough question: What is more important in learning how to make a documentary - focussing on what you want to do, and making it internally coherent and workable/fundable or looking at what experienced artists working in the realm of documentary have done?

When I was at University, I never took a documentary class, but even in my narrative classes it didn't really seem that we did either. We would be sent out in teams with very little (none) technical training. The person who already knew how to run camera would end up running camera the person who already knew how to edit would edit etc. There seemed to be very little room for either experimentation or failure. I found that the atmosphere of university, knowing my work would be presented for all to see put me in the mind set of perfection.

Of course our society tends to take this thing, Film Directing, which is one of the last great arts that requires the sort of apprenticeship and time to develop that our society doesn't seem to allow - and kind of imbues it with a sort of, "Either you are or you aren't" thing.

Thus you have a bunch of 19 year olds, who are film directors by virtue of the fact they say they are, and a lot of other people, no longer students, trying to look perfect at the beginning of their career, who once maybe pronounced their director nature, but now realize that doesn't work, and are now really learning, and making mistakes on their own dime. After they dedicated person has experimented and failed, finally, they really learn the ropes and are able to make a really remarkable film.

I believe the number one thing I can teach to a person to make them a documentary filmmaker is to do what will spare them the years of heartbreak and oodles of money. And that thing is: To actually THINK about what you are going to do, and how you are going to do it. And then make it better, and better and better.

I feel like I say this a lot, but I keep being confronted by people making films, even directing films who haven't really thought too much about what they really want to say or how they want to say it. They are drawn into the technical aspects - the shooting, the chase for the right interview, the research, the money, the travel.

It almost seems like the largest challenge to being an excellent documentary filmmaker is that there is always a distraction that will make you feel productive. And while it may actually have a positive impact on your film - there is NO replacement for sitting still, and really writing about what you want to say and how you want to say it, and ideally, working through your structure in a way that leads to a satisfying transformation.

Sitting down and working through your subject matter is necessary to find the really big ideas that give the viewer that absolute satisfaction when they realize you've taken them on a much bigger journey than they expected, and finally, really imagining your tone and your style, finding the poetry of your shots and if you use it, the poetry of your voice over, your edits, and your texture. Then you are free to experiment, because you know where you are going. If you have hiccups or failures, it's not fatal, because you actually have structure, and a plan, so you can identify your issues right away.

Other wise the whole thing becomes a chase to the goal of not having wasted all your time and money on a film that you can't sell.

Watching other people's work can serve as windows into ways to do things, but doesn't substitute for doing your work yourself.

And of course it's that work that we do in the Documentary Insider Workshop.

I must have learned something back in grad school, because it served as the benchmark between my life as a sales person and my life earning a living making film, but it was after making films for over ten years, and closely observing people spending millions of dollars on their projects that I internalized what needs to happen to make a film so good, it hurts. And what I went through in the last twelve years, is exactly what I teach, and that is how to do the work of an artist. All of which we do in class.

I'm continuing to teach privately at my office in Los Angeles, and if you are interested in working with me remotely we can do that too. If you are making a documentary, start your artistic investigation now, in my workshop, and start cutting down on the years, and mistakes you will have to make to get to where you want to be.

Best,

Stephanie.

email me at huranghu@gmail.com if you'd like to sign up for the private workshop.

A Conversation with Documentarian Kirby Dick

The academy award nominated film maker gives his thoughts on:

How to choose subjects for your documentary

Whether or not to make a Fundraising Trailer

And the "secret" that he thinks is indispensible advice to all documentary filmmakers, especially new ones.

I first met Kirby when his first feature film was coming out, “Sick: the Life and Death of Bob Flanagen, Supermasochist”. I was honored to go to the premiere, and even to help a little with promotional items. (Nails. If you’ve seen the film you’ll know why)

A few years later, I interviewed him for the Los Angeles Film Festival screening of “Twist of Faith” his HBO film about a firemen, Tony, who had decided to come out about being sexually molested by his priest as a teenager.

Every time I meet Kirby, he is forthcoming and friendly. Even after being nominated for an academy award he continues to be a luminous light in the world of contemporary documentary.

Here’s what he had to say when I asked him how he chooses his characters for his documentaries:

Kirby: That is a very good question. Your subject is one of the top two or three most important elements of a documentary. First of all, it’s good if the potential subject likes the camera. It’s good if they play to the camera and if they like to be filmed.

Certainly I’ve had situations where someone seems fine, but once you start shooting, they become reluctant in front of the camera. So if you start with someone who is naturally an extrovert that really helps.

Of course it is important to choose a subject that relates to what you want to say. As a filmmaker, you want a character whose story is iconic – that has a story that captures all the permutations of the issue you are exploring.

It’s also very important to have someone who is sympathetic as a person – because audiences identify with main character very intensely. Though often you can calibrate this in the edit room. When I started looking at the footage of Tony Comes, the primary subject in “Twist of Faith”, I noticed that he cried a lot. He was very sensitive and he was going through a lot, even so, I was worried that he might be perceived as a cry baby. I addressed this in the film by cutting just before he started crying, so that we could feel the emotion but didn’t see the crying. So when in the film he actually did cry it was much more powerful. It’s almost always effective, if at some point during the film, your main character does break down, but their emotional arc needs to be calibrated otherwise – at least in this case – people might otherwise turn away from him.

Documentary Insider: I have a student who is considering several people within the world of her documentary. What is the best way for her to determine who would be best to make her main character?

KD: She should go shoot them all.

It’s a good idea to just shoot any one who could be a main character because you never know what story is going to develop into something that becomes the spine of the film. For example, you might have one potential subject more charismatic than the other, but the other one’s mother dies, or they break up with their partner. Ultimately these could be things that are going to make them a better character

So, this is how I would proceed: first of all just go shoot all these people. Shoot them in situations, for a day or a half day. You learn a lot from them by shooting them in a half day. You’ll impress them just by showing up with a camera, and it can even be your own little consumer camera. And they’ll start to tell you things on camera. And what ever they won’t tell you on camera they will tell you immediately afterwards, so you’ll learn things about them which will help inform which character to follow.

You might even end up using some of that footage in the film.

And then, of course you’ll be able to review the footage, and show it to others to get their input and help you make the decision.

If they are out of state, then you get on the phone talk with them, get a feel if they are eager. In the case of Tony, he really wanted to do the film. When I met him he asked me if I paid subjects. I told him no, and he said, “That’s good because I don’t want anyone to think I did this for financial reasons.” So I knew we had the right guy.

DI: What about approaching the “Villain” or antagonist of the story. Any suggestions?

KD: Don’t assume the antagonist won’t talk. Even though they might be suspicious or not want to do it, often they will want to talk if they can get their point of view in the film. I’ve even found that they often don’t mind being attacked because it builds their credibility with their own base.

One way to approach them is to let them know you want to tell two sides of the story. Surprisingly people seem more open if you are a student or recently graduated – always try – I’ve often been surprised at who says yes.

DI: What is the best way to approach a potential subject?

KD: What works best is to be sincere and very knowledgeable.

Be willing to deal with any reticence and be clear that they don’t have to answer any questions they don’t want to.

DI: Do you try to let potential subject know all the hardships of being a subject up front – or do you let them discover that for themselves?

KD: Well, ease into it. Of course don’t lie, but the fact is most subjects have no idea what they are getting into –but typically, as an extrovert they enjoy it.

It’s very exciting to be the subject of the documentary, being followed around. Suddenly everything they do is of interest. Being the subject of a documentary is a very special experience. Sometimes when it’s over, there can be a feeling of “Where’s my crew?”

Sometimes, when you encounter a problem with your subject, like exhaustion, it’s on you the filmmaker to help them pull through for the film, to let them know, “We only want to make this film as good as possible.” Or “We want to get this film into Sundance.” (laughs) that works a lot.

Of course, have the release signed before you start shooting. not after. Other wise, it can be very awkward.

DI: Do you have any other suggestions?

KD: Yes. Start shooting before you have money. Don’t wait for grants and funding – go out with a friend - get a camera and radio mikes and just start.

There are a lot of reasons for this:

1) You get footage to raise money.

2) You learn if you actually want to make this film.

3) You get the story started earlier so you get a longer arc and the film has more drama. That’s helpful even if you only get to shoot your subject once every three months, because a lot of very important things can happen to them during that time.

And 4) After you’ve shot, do some initial editing of the material. This will inform you how to approach future shoots and you’ll be better prepared.

Okay, and one other BIG thing:

Go through a screening process in the editing stage. So many people just do not do this, and it’s so helpful: When you get your film to a second or third rough cut you should start to have screenings. Invite people over, give them snacks. Then they watch the film, and afterwards tell them you'd like them to respond to any and every element of the film. Begin by letting people speak. If they turn to you and ask your intention, defer that by asking if others in the group share the commentator’s opinion. You don’t want people’s response to your intention – you want their response to what they’ve seen.

After about 45 minutes, I start asking questions I’ve prepared in advance –whether they like the music, if they like certain minor characters. Do they understand a specific comment made by someone in the film – and as I go through this list it opens up further discussion.

We did this 14 times with “Twist of Faith” and I just did it 8 times with “Outrage”.

You can use as few as 2 people but it’s better to use 5 or more – bu generally no more than 15. And I have different people for each screening.

By doing this I can find out if a major character is working. If everyone in a room says they really don’t like a particular character I would probably try to remove that character for the next screening and see how the film played. It’s possible to save yourself 10’s of thousands of dollars on editing time, and make a better film this way. The less experienced you are the more important it is to do it. I do it on every film.

Also, start editing very early in the process, while you’re shooting - you’ll see how well you are covering the subject matter in your shooting. I always start cutting while I’m shooting.

DI: I see a lot of people making trailers to raise money. What’s your opinion on this?

KD: In general unless you know how to make a trailer – you should probably just start cutting the film.

I usually discourage people from making fund raising trailers. Particularly if they are inexperienced filmmakers they won’t get money based on trailer.

So that’s my last suggestion: Just start cutting your film. Start shooting it, and cutting it. And don’t be discouraged. Making documentaries is hard. Don’t give up easily.

DI: Thanks so much Kirby for your time and wonderful wisdom.

KD: No problem, my pleasure.

Distribution and Your Part of the Long Tail

As we make our films, we can start to feel our audience (at least we should) but then when we finish, suddenly we are subject to an audience of one – the distributor who thinks they can take our film and sell it. Of course now (depending on our model), we'll ideally want a theatrical release, but we (I suspect) imagine that if we don’t get that – AT LEAST there will be some long tail for us – some long term niche that we will fit in and hopefully get some recompense/audience for all the hard work we put in. Right?

To do this, we have a vague idea that we can make a deal with iTunes or Netflix. Right?

But if you've depended on this, (up until a few months ago) you'd be up for a disappointment: Distributors take your rights, and a percentage of your revenue for years. So the distributors will take between 15% and 50% on top of iTunes 30%. And depending on your deal, that could be for the length of your long tail. Hard Tail’s Journey into Night – right?

Well a guy named Adam Chapnick heard this persistent complaint from filmmakers that he was working with in his marketing and distribution consultancy (called DocWorkers http://www.docworkers.com/) and he decided to do something about it.

So, he self funded a company called Distribber www.distribber.com

Here is the idea: you submit your film and your trailer to Distribber – it has to be 70 minutes or over for now, though Adam is working on getting shorter films included too. If he thinks it’s viable, he’ll submit it to iTunes. If your film gets accepted by iTunes – Distribber takes a flat fee, (currently $1295) and for a $79 yearly fee pays you 100% of your revenue from iTunes. If iTunes doesn’t accept your film, no sweat, no fees no nothing.

Most films on the service sell for the $9.99 rate set by iTunes. That means from the beginning you get your whole $6.99 after iTunes 30%. Distribber gives you back your long tail. (that means in 186 sales, you make back the initial fee)

I thought this all sounded very intriguing – so I set up an interview with Adam to find out a bit more. Here’s what he had to say:

Hey there Adam.
Hey Stephanie.

Stephanie: So, what are you looking for in the selection process?

Adam: We have a sense of what iTunes wants – and they have a sense of what they want. We give them as much information as possible so that they can say yes or no. We give them a link to each film’s trailer. Also, there is a field in the submission form where the filmmaker can list their film’s selling points. The filmmaker will say things like “we won Sundance and won five other festivals” or tell us, that it is about certain relevant subject matter – or that it it aired on PBS – anything that helps us pitch the project.

S: Are you submitting these into a black hole then?

A: Oh, no, we have relationships with the folks at iTunes - and on top of that, I really want to be available to all the filmmakers, they all have my number, and call me if they have any questions. My number is (323)304-5039 and my email is adam@distribber.com.

S: So let’s say I have a film that gets in – now what?

A:Well, we have to check that all your rights and licenses are in order, and that’s pretty well covered because we require that films come in with E&O insurance.

S: So how is it going?

A: Well our offer is very attractive. Filmmakers love it – the more money you make the better deal that it is. My whole goal is to make this something that is not murky.

We are making it clear and simple, and I am willing to talk to everyone all the time.

Filmmakers tend to be very wary, and weary, of distribution deals, and one of the hesitations I hear most often is based on the fact that filmmakers really don’t believe our deal, but it’s real, and it’s working great for the first 13 films, which are just coming online to sell right now.

S: Wow – that’s great, but what do you say to the filmmaker of a worthy film that gets turned down by iTunes?

A: Well we are actually doing a lot to address that.

1. we are working to initiate an appeal process with iTunes. And
2. I am working to set up deals with NetFlix, Hulu, all of them so that Distribber can be a flat rate a la carte service, super easy to sign up for all the different companies in one place each for a flat rate.

S: So sounds like you're in this for the long haul.

A: (laughing) Oh, of course. Every one is so wary of the process of distribution, I see this as a long term trust building exercise, and I am up for it. In the short term, we are working to get the approval process to happen more quickly.

S: Can you tell me any of your titles?

A: Oh, sure – our first two were “Runners High” and “New York Doll” – both well received great documentaries with good audiences. We’ve attracted a lot of films that fit their profile, but we are also getting smaller films and placing them too. It’s been really exciting.

S: Well thank you so much Adam, it’s been a pleasure hearing about your business based on the Long Tail.

A: Well Thank you Stephanie, thanks for doing this.

S: You’re welcome.

Notes for Beginners

I was just in another forum where I was asked to give advice for beginning documentarians.

For some of you this will be a review - but hopefully helpful non the less.

As a veteran, award winning editor, I've seen too many independent (read - self financed and beginning) filmmakers shoot and shoot and shoot and not give much thought to their story beyond the initial idea.

In response, I've started a workshop and we really hash out a lot in there that has really been helpful to my students.

We think about WHAT do I really want to say or explore with my film -

We ask HOW do I want to say it -

Because sure, you can interview 25 people about junk food, or you can follow yourself around while you eat only junk food for a month.

The HOW is often the most elegant part of creating a really good doc.

Also we pay attention to the ongoing conflict between what the main character Wants and Needs - and how this evolves into a satisfying transformation.

We also identify the different aspects and wider themes that come up in our story - because really - my favorite documentaries are always Trojan Horses for bigger issues and questions than I realized I was going to get into when I started watching - that is the true gift you give your viewers - so why not start thinking about it before you're done shooting so you can have that material when you start editing?

My students have all gotten a lot out of going through this process - both in how their final films will end up, but also in terms of saving $ by shooting what speaks to what they want to say and how they want to say it.

Stephanie Hubbard www.stephaniehubbard.com

How to decide where to put the camera?

Knowing what you want to say and how you want to say it.  That's the basics for Directing. 

Of course, there's much more - having a great idea, pitching it to people, getting them to believe in you -- but when it comes down to the actual DIRECTING part - actually being clear on what we want to say - we can be a little in the dark. 

But that's okay, because darkness can be a place where we discover what it is we want to say. 

We can get real quiet and start asking the questions which will reveal the answers - and once we have those answers, then we can direct with assurance - even as we are open to spontaneous happenings and all a matter of things that pop up when making a doc, writing a novel, or screenplay. 

But it's not alway easy to ask those questions.  Too often we have an idea, and then we start applying for grants, so instead of asking questions according to an artistic, organic process, we are filling out forms, trying to win grants, or making  a "work in Progress" to win grants.

Instead - and this is my opinion - I think it's important to let all the grant forms go, and allow yourself to ask the really creative questions as part of an artistic process.   Really start to imagine the world of your story, and what happens there.  Your story, your characters, they will tell you with startling clarity - but first you have to listen to them and really let them tell you. 

I was scheduled to start working in private session with a filmmaker not long ago.  She was a veteran documentary editor, but was working on the first doc she was directing also.  The day before we were to meet, she called me, ready to cancel, 

"I'm doing a writing pass on it," She was working on it for an application,  "and I'm not sure if now is the best time to get opinions of it."  As a long time editor, I knew exactly what she was talking about.  She had to let her own ideas come through.  But I knew I could help her.

"My job is not to give you opinions on your film," I told her.  "My job is to help you find out what it is you really want to say."  Fortunately, she came as scheduled, and we started work, and when we did exercises, she started to reveal the characters in her story.   But it wasn't until I reflected those revelations back to her that she could really start to see her story clearly herself. 

Every artist needs someone to bounce off of.  Make sure you have that built into your process, and it will help you again and again.  

     Happy filmmaking - 

     Classes starting in September Wednesday Afternoons - 1-4. continuing Tuesday night 7-10. 

    

   Peace, 

Stephanie. 

Resistance

It is hard sometimes to show up. Documentaries can be hard. They are expensive, they are dealing with the unknown and the unknowable. They force you to depend on the the unexpected. Who knows what will happen when you start shooting? Or worse, when you stop shooting?

Have you ever noticed, when narrative filmmakers use improvisation in their films (my favorites are Michael Leigh and Ken Loach) that every story about their film is all about their process. But their process is just what documentary filmmakers set out to do every shoot day - sometimes doing it for years.

But that is why it is so God Damned exciting to see a really terrific documentary. And that is what keeps us in the fight, shooting, and hanging in there with our subjects.

Sometimes, we need to acknowledge that it ain't easy, and then tomorrow start again.

I just want to acknowledge all the filmmakers out there tonight toiling away on bringing to light their wondrous stories to share with us.

Thanks to each of you for being of so much service by bringing your stories to light.

Peace,

Stephanie.