Documentary

Documentary film-making today is an exciting field of creative innovation

where many of the key elements of the practice and their creative use – the
archival images, the voice-over, the reconstructed sequence – are currently up
for grabs. In reworking these narrational resources as tools for representing and
interrogating diverse political, economic, cultural, social, and historical
subjects, creative documentary film making – with its use of narrative,
figurative trope and discursive strategy – does important work.

In the recent years, the progressive diffusion of affordable technology, along

with a frustration with traditional media, the pressure of an audience eager for
information and political discussion, and the works of outstanding (and often
controversial) filmmakers such as Errol Morris or Michael Moore, have led
documentary film to go mainstream.

A proper definition of documentary (or a definition of essence) would

characterize exactly what it is that makes up this group of films, and
would spell it out in such a clear way that it would be easy to assess
whether a specific film belonged or did not belong to this group or
genre. Documentary is often defines as a “representation of reality” but
this phrase is utterly mistaken as a definition of documentary. Because a
film is not a mere representation, but a willed presentation of something
made by someone in a specific way and for someone.

Also the term "reality" is confusing: it may have the straightforward

positive connotations of facing reality and seeing things as they really
are, but often enough it is interpreted as just filming "normally" in an
"objective" way without being creative or manipulative. Just the facts....
But trying to make "a correspondence with actual facts" and "objective
and neutral reproduction" the core characteristics of documentary is
naïve in the sense that it has the same weaknesses as philosophical
positivism. To believe that reality is made up first by objective facts and
secondly by subjective or personal sentiment is to make you yourself
blind and deaf to the prevailing power structures and ideologies of this
world.

This however does not mean that it is all right to disregard facts or to tell
a lie in a non-fiction film. But it must be noted that the "truth" of a film
can be understood in other ways. A lot of facts or statements about facts
that can be verified may be present even in a fiction film. The whole
story may be pure fantasy, the characters fictitious and the behavior of
the actors may consist of incredible stunts – but still the film may be
striving for "truth" in another sense of the word: true emotions and
perhaps even to illustrate some more general truths about human life.

Lacking a good definition of its essence, it could be an idea to look at the

etymology and history of the term.

John Grierson first used the term “documentary” in relation to cinema in his
review of Robert Flaherty’s Moana, which was published in The New York Sun
on February 8, 1926. In the article, he simply affirmed that the movie had
documentary value because it was a visual account of the everyday life of a
Polynesian youth; however, some years later he provided the following
definition:

“The documentary is the branch of film production which goes to the

actual, and photographs it and edits it and shapes it. It attempts to give

form and pattern to the complex of direct observation.”

This statement, which dates 1946, already contained all the issues which would
prove crucial in the realization and reception of documentary films of all
periods, and which still lie at the basis of most critical discussion.
According to Grierson, the roots of documentary are in what can be called
“reality”. However, actuality is submitted to the creativity of the filmmaker,
who manipulates it through more or less deliberate processes of selection and
association, in order to go beyond the boundaries of direct observation, and to
give it a precise, often politically-oriented meaning.

In his commentary to Flaherty’s film Grierson moved the term “documentary”

from its modern meaning of factual and authentic record, or of primary,
evidentiary and official source of information, back to its Latin etymological
root docere, “to teach”. Thus, the educational purpose, which has been
fundamental in all Grierson’s activity, is intrinsically related to the notion of
documentary: through the application of refined rhetorical devices to images
drawn from the actual, documentary film imposes itself as an authoritative
voice, and at the same time it gives the illusion to serve as a window open on
the world.
(((((Grierson: John Grierson (1898–1972) was a well-known Scottish film critic,
theorist and producer who, while not primarily a film-maker himself, was a
central player in the establishment of the British documentary movement.

He was particularly active in the interwar period when social liberalism

attempted to negotiate a third way between planned economies and free
markets, and during the command economies of wartime and in many ways,
helped to forge the field of documentary as it came to be understood in the
postwar world as a technique of citizenship by helping to envision and then
justify its institutionalisation. Even more significantly, documentary, devised as
a technology for modernisation, was pressed into service for nation-building, for
bolstering a mediated public sphere and for conveying in a more compelling and
immediate manner the problems and concerns of ordinary people as they related
to state projects. It was closely connected to modern educational theories and,
depending on the context, was circulated in both theatrical and non-theatrical
settings. It ended up being a formative aspect of both classroom media and
television documentaries, mainstays of media in everyday life in many parts of
the world.

However, Grierson was no mere functionary. He synthesised a number of

philosophical and theoretical traditions, providing a sophisticated concept of
realism (as an expression of ideals) gleaned from Immanuel Kant and other
enlightenment thinkers that helped to organise the nascent form of
documentary. The representational strategy of types and the use of the story-
form were not, in other words, a result of technological immaturities. They were
in Grierson’s words ‘new forms’ that stemmed from a belief in the best way to
illustrate today’s social problems and tomorrow’s solutions. In short without
Grierson, today’s media culture and its discursive relationship to the public
sphere would in all likelihood not look the same. )))))))

It is precisely this connotation of persuasiveness that makes it necessary to

approach documentary film from a broader point of view, focusing not only on
its technical peculiarities, but also on issues related to its reception. Moreover,
the fuzzy borders of the genre and the problematic issues that it raises require to
be observed through a non- prescriptive, exclusively descriptive approach.

No single criterion seems to qualify or disqualify a given film. For

example, it is often considered that actors belong to fiction films and not
to a true documentary (unless, of course, they are portraying
themselves). On the other hand there are exceptions that we are ready to
accept, such as a TV-documentary using professional actors to re- enact
a crime scene in order to make us understand how something may have
happened. Indeed it would be immoral to have the real criminal perform
another knife-stabbing on the real victim – even though that could be
said to be more true or closer to the original event.

3
Possible modes or narrative strategies:

Expository: lecturing, overtly didactic, e.g. with a personal presenter or

an explanatory voice-over.

Observational: like a "fly on the wall," the camera, microphone and film
crew seem not to be disturbing the scene or even to be noticed by the
participants.

Participatory or interactive: the film crew takes part in the action or chain
of events.

Reflexive: the film exposes and discusses its own role as a film (e.g. the
ethics or conditions of filmmaking) alongside the treatment of the case
or subject.

Performative: the film crew creates many of the events and situations to
be filmed by their own intervention or through events carried out for the
sake of the film.

Poetic: the aesthetic aspects, the qualities of the form and the sensual
appeals are predominant.

Ways of being true. Documentaries seem to have a certain obligation

towards "truth." This may be understood, however, in different ways:

Correspondence: statements and details of film are not lies or fiction but in
accordance with actual or historical facts, events and persons.

Coherence: the film constitutes a well-argued, non-contradictory whole.

Pragmatic or conventionalist view: the film is in line with predominant

views and general, long termed discursive practice.
Relativism or constructivism: as you like, or how we make sense of things.

Illumination theory of truth: to become enlightened, to see and hear and

understand more, to become inspired and gain insight (perhaps
recollection).

More points to consider:

Intentions of the filmmaker: enthusiasm and commitment, the filmmaker

wants to explore, to probe and to show us some- thing important or
otherwise overlooked; devoted to a cause or to people, trying to make a
difference (not just making money, having fun or exposing herself).

Subject matter, themes or content: something of importance and relevance;

historical, social or natural phenomena; persons and places of
significance. (Note, however, that modern TV- audiences seem to find
significance in what critics may call rather trivial "everyday
documentaries" (in Danish "hver- dagsdokumentar.")

Expectations of the (general) audience: authenticity, insight, dis- closure,

something about real people and problems, learning something.

Target groups (implied): general public (public service), or segments with

a more specialized interest and knowledge on the subject in question.

Ethics: we expect truthfulness, not lies or distortion, even when the film
is committed to high ideals and values. Propaganda is over the line
(difficult to define too, my provocative suggestion is: "propaganda is a
documentary made by my enemy"). The documentary may be engaged
and enthusiastic, but should be open about its preferences, sympathies
and presuppositions. "Neutrality" or "objectivity" should be understood
as problematic, but a well-balanced view is welcomed. The film may
reflect its own intervening and perhaps ethically

problematic role in relation to participants and general context.

Carefulness, but also boldness in addressing tabooed subjects.

Communicative function: to inform, discuss, engage, enlighten, intervene,
explore, express, disturb and commit – more so than to merely entertain,
amuse, distract, conform or confirm (e.g. a religious or political
community).

Labeling: sponsors, critics, distributors, professionals, scholars, curators,

librarians, editors of TV- and film-programs would characterize this as a
documentary.

Popular, lay opinion, everyday language: films received and talked about in
accordance with the tradition, similar to other so- called documentaries
or non-fiction films.

Context of actual use: education, public service (as image or part of an

obligation for the distributor), debate forum, campaigns, discussions and
pastime entertainment (e.g. in the cabin on an airplane flight).

Style and form: often realism, perhaps with a reportage-like style,

interviews, a rough style, lighting and settings and sound appear natural
and not carefully controlled (contrary to smooth and slick lighting,
camera movements, montage and continuity of classic Hollywood style).
Often an argumentative, exploring or investigative attitude, often
thematic more than dramatic.

Relation to major genres and art: it is not fiction, it can be seen as belonging
to one of the main genres of rhetoric: judicial, epideictic or political. It
may be highly artistic and poetic, but seems more like art with a purpose
than art for art’s own sake. Epics, lyrics and drama seem to serve the
didactic aspect.

Recordings: on location, authentic settings and props, real time, real

sound, no actors or acting, but actual people (or animals, in nature
documentaries) being themselves. Drama and narrative appear not
imposed on the scenes, but emerging from the actual (pro-filmic) events.

Editing: the rhetorical structure appears to be more important than

ordinary dramatic continuity; the rate of manipulation and
rearrangement of picture and sound seems low. A voice- over
commentary or text-streaming is more likely than exten- sive use of non-
diegetic music. The mixing of heterogeneous material (e.g. recordings
from a different time or location) is accounted for.

Context of viewing or distribution: e.g. the Discovery Channel, educational

TV, TV-slots or festivals announced as documen- tary, educational
institutions, films shown within organizations and companies.

Importance and evaluation: In terms of context and communica- tive

qualities, the film makes a considerable contribution towards a better
world...

In his book Introduction to documentary (2001), Bill Nichols argues that the
documentary is a rhetorical form and cites several classical figures, such as
Cicero, Quintilian and Aristotle to justify this claim. Furthermore, he argues that
the voice of the documentary is the voice of oratory: the voice of the filmmaker
who adopts a position on aspects of the historical world and who is convincing
about his own merits. This position contradicts the aspects of the world that are
open to debate (i.e. those not based on scientific evidence, which depend on
understanding, interpretation, values and judgment). Nichols points out that this
mode of representation requires a way of speaking that is fundamentally
different to logic and narrative. This is rhetoric, although he once again
associates it with argument, and clearly separates it from scientific and literary
discourses, which are also always. There are six modes of representation in the
documentary described by Nichols:

1. The expository mode. This is associated with the classic documentary,

and based on illustrating an argument using images. It is a rhetorical
rather than an aesthetic mode, aimed directly at the viewer, using text
titles or phrases to guide the image and to emphasize the idea of
objectivity and logical argument. It emerged from the disappointment
generated by the poor entertainment quality of fiction films. Key
examples of this mode are the socio-ethnographic expeditions
(anthropology in documentary films, especially in the work of Robert
Flaherty) and the British documentary movement (social objectives in
documentary film, led by John Grierson and the documentarists of the
British school.

 Some examples of expository documentaries include: 

 1. The Dust Bowl (2012). Ken Burns’ historical account of this
disastrous drought during the Great Depression uses photos and
facts to supplement the causes and impact of one of the worst
droughts to plague North American farmland. 

2. The Blue Planet (2001). David Attenborough’s knowledgeable

and authoritative voice, along with his years of nature experience,
gives credence to his scientific narration in this documentary series
exploring the history and current environment of our planet’s
oceans. The film attempts to unravel some of the mystery behind
these giant bodies of water that cover two-thirds of the earth, along
with its inhabitants. Attenborough also draws attention to
mankind’s destruction of this natural habitat, and how our daily
activities impact marine life.
3. The poetic mode. Its origin is linked to the emergence of artistic avant-
gardes in cinema, and that is why it uses many of the devices typical of
other arts (fragmentation, subjective impressions, surrealism, etc.). It is a
mode that has reappeared at different times and which is experiencing a
resurgence in many contemporary documentaries. It aims to create a
specific mood and tone rather than to provide the viewer with
information, as is the case with the expository and observational modes.
This mode includes the avant-garde of the 1920s and 1930s (the aesthetic
objective in documentary film led by Walter Ruttman, Jean Vigo and
Joris Ivens) and the films verging on art and neo-realism (the artistic and
poetic purpose of the documentary language as embodied by the
contributions of Arne Sucksdorf and Bert Haanstra)

Examples of Poetic Documentaries

1. Rain (1929): Dutch filmmaker Joris Ivans' classic city symphony
uses disconnected shots to evoke how it feels to experience a
rainstorm in Amsterdam. 
2. Man of Aran (1934): Directed by documentary pioneer Robert
Flaherty, Man of Aran is a poetic vision of the daily life of people
living on the Aran Islands off the coast of Ireland. Flaherty was not
concerned with obeying the standard non-fiction documentary
restraints and fabricated scenes in order to romanticize life on the
island. Flaherty's fellow filmmaker John Grierson actually coined
the term "documentary" in 1926 to describe one of Flaherty's
earlier films, Moana. 
 3. Koyaanisqatsi (1982): Director Godfrey Reggio's wordless poetic
documentary juxtaposes slow motion and time-lapse footage of
cities and nature with a haunting score by Phillip Glass to show the
effects that cities and modern technology have on human life. 

The reflexive mode. The purpose of this mode is to raise the audience’s
awareness of the means of representation itself and the devices that have given
it authority. The film is not considered a window on the world, but is instead
considered a construct or representation of it, and it aims for the viewer to adopt
a position that is critical of any form of representation. Nichols considers this to
be the most self-critical and self- conscious mode. It arose from the desire to
make the conventions of representation more evident, and to put to the test the
impression of reality that the other modes usually transmitted without any
problem (in his first study in 1991, Nichols established four basic modes based
on the book The Social Documentary in Latin America by Julianne Burton).
This is the most introspective mode - it uses many of the resources found in
other types of documents, but it takes them to the limit, so that the viewer's
attention is focused on both the resource and the effect. This mode includes the
news documented in Russia in the early years of the twentieth century (the
ideological objective in documentary film, led by Dziga Vertov) and some more
contemporary authors such as Jill Godmilow and Raul Ruiz, among others.

Some examples of reflexive documentary include: 

1. Man With a Movie Camera (1929). Dziga Vertov’s reflexive

documentary made history with its actor-less presentation of
ordinary Soviet life. The documentary calls attention to the many
different aspects of filmmaking, like shots, cuts, and angles, which
become part of the narrative itself. This display of self-awareness
is designed to lead the audience to question the process and how it
influences their feelings about the film overall. 
2. Chronicle of a Summer (1961). This French film (Chronique d'un
été) by filmmaker and anthropologist Jean Rouch and sociologist
Edgar Morin, documents real-life individuals over a summer as
they discuss their viewpoints on happiness and French society
within the working class. At the beginning of the film, the
filmmakers discuss their planning process with their subject, which
makes viewers question which moments are truly organic, and
which are all part of a film’s construction. The audience is left to
 decide their own conclusions regarding the way documentary
footage is put together, and how honest it can be. 
3. Louis Theroux’s Weird Weekends (1998). This documentary
series showcases documentary filmmaker Louis Theroux traveling
to different places while chronicling his experiences encountering
“weird” events—interactions with subcultures or groups that some
viewers may not typically encounter in their everyday lives. The
series features interactions with religious extremists, infomercial
stars, survivalists, separatists, and swingers. Theroux spotlights
these subjects to challenge the audience’s preconceived notions of
these groups, presenting fuller context to how these people live
their lives by explaining their beliefs and behaviors.

3. The observational mode. This mode is represented by the French Cinema

Verite and the American Direct Cinema film movements, which despite
their major differences, both benefited from technological developments
(portable, lightweight and synchronous equipment) in the early 1960s.
Together with a more open and coherent set of filmic and narrative
theories, these enabled a different approach to the subject matter, and the
directors prioritized a spontaneous and direct observation of reality. It
arose as a result of disagreement with the moralizing aim of the
expository documentary. This mode allowed the director to record reality
without becoming involved in what people were doing when they were
not explicitly looking into the camera. Of particular interest in this
category are the Cinema Verite movement in France, the Direct Cinema
movement in the U.S.A. and Candid Eye in Canada (the sociological
focus of the documentary film, led by Jean Rouch, Edgar Morin and
Mario Ruspolli, among others).

7 Examples of Observational Documentaries

These seven films experimented with and helped to develop the
observational documentary mode:

1. High School (1968). Frederick Wiseman’s High School captures

the everyday lives of a group of students who attend high school in
Philadelphia. Shot in black and white, Wiseman’s documentary
offers audiences an uninterrupted look into the power dynamics
between administrators and students. Wiseman is often considered
the master of observational cinema. 
2. Public Housing (1997). Public Housing is one of Wiseman’s later
films, which follows the low-income residents of a public housing
development in the south side of Chicago, Illinois. The film
highlights the relationship between the residents and law
enforcement and social workers, as well as addiction’s impact on
some of the housing development’s most vulnerable residents. 

3. Primary (1960). Robert Drew organized a group of New York City

filmmakers with the sole goal of enhancing their “pictorial
journalism.” This group, called the Drew Associates, created some
of the first observational documentaries. Primary, Drew’s most
famous film, which he shot with filmmaker Richard Leacock, is
considered one of the most important films in the history of
documentary filmmaking. The film follows the 1960 Wisconson
primary election where John F. Kennedy faced off against Hubert
H. Humphrey for the Democratic Party nomination for president of
the United States. 
4. Salesmen (1969). Brothers Albert and David Maysles, also a part
of Drew & Associates, produced and directed this documentary in
an attempt to become the first directors to release a full-length non-
fiction film. Salesmen is an observational documentary that follows
the bitter rivalry between a group of door-to-door Bible salesmen.
The Maysles are known for occasionally dipping into a
participatory mode in their observational films, which often
include scenes where their subjects interact with the film crew. 
5. Grey Gardens (1975). Perhaps one of the most famous
observational documentaries of the seventies, Grey Gardens
follows two socialites who have fallen from grace (and money), as
they go about their everyday lives. Albert and David Maysles, who
directed and produced the documentary, also appear in it. 
6. Don’t Look Back (1967). D.A. Pennebaker, a part of the Drew
Associates, most often made films about the performing arts
industry. His most influential documentary film is Don’t Look
Back (1967), a film following Bob Dylan on his 1965 concert tour of
Britain.
7. Chronicle of a Summer (1961). Jean Rouch is known for making hybrid
films that combine elements of observational and reflexive modes. His
film Chronicle of a Summer (1961), which he directed with Edgar Morin,
is a famous example of this hybrid style, combining interviews with
cinéma vérité. 
 4. The participatory mode (in its interactive origins). This mode was mainly
used in ethnographic film and in social theories of participatory
investigation, and presents the relationship between the filmmaker and
the filmed subject. The director becomes an investigator and enters
unknown territory, participates in the lives of others, and gains direct and
in-depth experience and reflection from the film. This mode of
representation is present in films such as Celovek kinoapparatom (Vertov,
1929) and Chronique d'un été (Rouch and Morin, 1960). The
observational mode limited the director to the present and required a
disciplined detachment from events. The participatory documentary
makes the director's perspective clearer, involving him/her in the
discourse that is being produced. The directors wanted to make contact
with individuals in a more direct way, without returning to the classical
exhibitory format, and this led to interview styles and various
interventionist tactics, which enabled the producer to participate more
actively in the events. He could also become the narrator of the story, or
explain what happened by means of witnesses and/or experts. These
comments were often added to archive footage to facilitate
reconstructions and to prevent endless and omniscient commentary. The
outstanding figures were Jean Rouch, Emile de Antonio and Connie
Filed, among others.

3 Examples of Participatory Documentaries

Below are some of the most notable participatory documentaries, but
note that a single film can incorporate multiple documentary modes. For
example, the last three films on this list are also performative
documentaries because they incorporate the filmmaker's own personal
experiences into the film's overall message.

1. Chronicle of a Summer (1961): Directed by Jean Rouch and Edgar

Morin, this French documentary feature begins with an on-camera
debate between both directors about whether or not a person can
truly act sincere when being filmed. The directors then conduct
street interviews with real French citizens about what it means to
be happy. Chronicle of Summer is a hallmark example of the
cinéma vérité (or "direct cinema")  film movement, and the
term cinéma vérité was actually coined by Rouch himself. 
2. Sherman's March (1986): Documentary filmmaker Ross McElwee
initially set out to make a movie about General Sherman's march
during the American Civil War, but after experiencing a painful
breakup, he pivoted the film's subject matter to focus on his
 personal search for romance. The resultant film won the Grand
Jury Documentary Prize at the 1987 Sundance Film Festival. 
3. Roger & Me (1989): Michael Moore's directorial debut explores
the harmful economic impact of General Motors closing several
auto plants in his hometown of Flint, Michigan. Moore conducts
on-camera interviews throughout the film and frames the storyline
around his own personal experiences growing up in Flint.

5. The performance mode. The final mode introduced by Nichols, which

appeared relatively recently, calls into question the foundations of
traditional documentary film and raises doubts about the boundaries that
have traditionally been established by the genre of fiction. It focuses
interest on expressiveness, poetry and rhetoric, rather than on the desire
for realistic representation. The emphasis is shifted to the evocative
qualities of the text, rather than its representational capacity, and once
again focuses on more contemporary artistic avant-gardes. This new
mode of representation emerged from the previous modes and the
shortcomings or flaws in the classic modes, according to various authors.
An obvious example is the American director Michael Moore, among
others.

4 Examples of Performative Documentaries

Some examples of performative documentaries are: 

1. Tongues Untied (1989). Marlon Riggs’ film chronicles the life experiences of gay
African American men, exploring subjects like class, religion, and politics while using
footage from his real life. Riggs is the main subject of the film, and it is through his
personal lens that we are able to experience his life and share his truth. 
2. Aileen Wuornos: The Selling of a Serial Killer (1994). Nick Broomfield examines
the case of Aileen Wuornos, capturing footage of his interviews with the convicted
felon as he re-examines her charges and subsequent trial, attempting to prove that she
was not the villain she was made out to be. The audience hears a side of Wuornos’
story through the point of view of Broomfield, who comes to his own conclusions
regarding her murders and attempts to shed light on corruption and influence within
the justice system. 
3. Supersize Me (2004). Morgan Spurlock documents his experience of solely eating
McDonald’s fast food for 30 days, chronicling the body issues, health problems, and
the ensuing doctor’s visits he endures in an attempt to prove that the food sold at the
famous chain is unhealthy. Spurlock’s declining health calls into question the
conglomerate’s motivations and practices. 
4. Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004). This documentary features a blend of factual analysis with
powerful emotion, where filmmaker Michael Moore constructs a narrative using
outrage and horror to evoke a strong emotional response from his viewers. Moore
often appears on-screen giving “man on the street” style interviews to subjects,
 crafting his own interpretation of how the war in Iraq unfolded and America’s
response to it. 

In short, Nichols says that each mode uses the resources of narrative and realism
in a different way, and uses common ingredients to produce different kinds of
text with ethical issues, textual structures and standard expectations among the
viewers.

EVOLUTION

All movements have a formative point, and the impact of documentary

films started as soon as the first films were being made. They
revolutionized an industry in a formative stage, and many of them did
more than any filmmakers today ever could. They created not just films,
but filming techniques and technological advances that made a major
impact in their own right.

For all practical purposes, the entire film industry began with nonfiction
films. Even before the landmark 1902 film A Trip to the Moon, the
Lumiere brothers of Lyon, France, revolutionized photography and film
with their short movies between 1895 and 1900. Their films fall under
what can be characterize as foundational films, which set the standard
for what the genre would become. Their vignettes, which ranged in topic
from a train arriving at a station, to workers leaving a factory, to a
baby’s first steps, featured no actors. Some of the techniques that
Auguste and Louis set forth were of great use to Russian filmmaker
Dziga Vertov, who in 1929 made the revolutionary film Man with the
Movie Camera, about life in Russia. While the Lumiere films were
generally less than a minute long, Vertov’s film took more time to
establish a storyline through montage techniques. It was also careful to
point out that the film was a representation of reality, rather than actual
reality. By showing the actual editing process of the film, with editors
cutting film and splicing it together, the viewer is made to understand
that Vertov’s perspective is just that.

Vertov’s foundational film also led into the advent of propagandistic

films; in addition to portraying life in Russia, it also showed Vertov’s
support for the 1917 Russian Revolution. Another film that showed
support for a controversial form of government is 1935’s Triumph of the
Will, filmed by Leni Riefenstahl about the rallies associated with the rise
of the Third Reich.

A third type of historical documentary is the travelogue. Pioneered by

explorer- turned-filmmaker Robert Flaherty, it defines the sort of
documentary films that are designed to take us to another place, with
the goal of teaching the audience about another culture that he would
not otherwise be able to visit, given that travel was fairly rare, except for
the very wealthy, in the 1920s. With films such as Man of Aran, Moana,
and Nanook of the North, Flaherty defined this part of the genre with
his stories of natives and the practices that they engage in, educating the
viewer in the process.

All of these types of films, regardless of subject matter, use the same
sorts of strategies to engage the viewer, and these strategies became the
foundation of how the genre would be defined from then on.

Case studies

Robert Flaherty

American filmmaker Robert Flaherty, for all the controversy that his
films created upon and soon after their release, was named “The Father
of Documentary Film” for his work on his film Nanook of the North (1922),
which the Library of Congress numbered among the first 25 American films to
be chosen for preservation in the nation’s archives. Nanook of the North has
won a place in the hearts of many film lovers both for the freshness of its
images and the simplicity of its subject matter.

The result of a second attempt at an exploration to the Hudson Bay in

Canada, Flaherty created a story about an Inuit named Nanook and his
family. It was made under extreme circumstances, with film being
developed in the tundra, but resulted in one of the most technically
innovative films of its time.

A documentary, by nature of what it is, chronicles the lives of real

people, and does not feature actors in the roles (unless, of course, the
documentary is about an actor!). Flaherty raised a great deal of
controversy in this area, particularly with Nanook of the North, because
his most serious manipulation of the subject was to pay both his
technical assistants and his performers. Despite this case of concealed
identities, the film is still considered a documentary for the other
techniques that were used to make it.

There is another way to view Nanook of the North and this is to see it as the
record of a collaboration between a white man with a movie camera and one
Inuit man who has been given the name Nanook, the Bear. Viewed this way, the
staged episodes, the recreation of old-time methods of hunting, the semi-tame
young silver fox -- all have documentary value as visual records of this process
of collaboration. More than the props and supporting actors, it is the relationship
between Flaherty and Nanook that is the real subject of the film. Nanook, it
becomes clear, is the one who makes the film, Flaherty is a canvas on which
Nanook paints himself. There’s no faking when Nanook laughs at Flaherty’s
antics with the camera, clowns before a gramophone for Flaherty’s sake, grasps
a half-tamed young silver fox round the neck, sticks it into a hole in the ground
and on Flaherty’s command pulls it out again, holding it up for all to see, and
finally ties it up for another day’s shoot if needed. These are valuable records of
the process of collaboration between Flaherty and Nanook. The “Nanook” that
existed in the flesh as Allakariallak, who took to his sick bed and died two years
after Flaherty left Port Harrison, survives in the form of the celluloid Nanook, a
timeless figure outliving his collaborator.

Nanook of the North marked a critical moment in Flaherty’s life; a final throw
of the dice after a series of defeats; and it marked also a decisive aesthetic move
on his part. Hitherto he had attempted to capture the present day reality of the
people and places he filmed in Northern Canada, as others had been doing in
other parts of the world in the early years of film making; with this last attempt
he decided to invent situations and people them with men and women whom he
hired to act out roles, similar to what Edward Curtis had done fifteen years
earlier in relation to his photographs and plans for a film about the Kwakiutl
people of Vancouver Island. Flaherty kept to this formula in all the major films
he went on to make.

Grierson and the filmmakers of the British documentary movement welcomed

Flaherty as an ally in the fight against the commercial studios. He brought
prestige to their endeavours and they acknowledged him as a superb camera
artist. Whatever might be the limitations of his methods, his ability to capture
unforgettable images through the lens of a motion picture camera is Flaherty’s
enduring legacy. There will always be debate about his position in the
documentary tradition, but of his camera artistry there can be no doubt. What
we take away from Flaherty’s films are unique images – a boy climbing a palm
tree, Atlantic rollers smashing against rock- studded cliffs, a small row-boat
seen through a long-focus lens, half hidden by the ocean swell, as if in a
painting by Hokusai. His admirers often write of Flaherty’s films as poetry, but
in truth they are more like paintings, which shock us for the vision that
produced them. Rather than trying to fit him into this or that category of
filmmaking, it is better to accept that his films, in keeping with his willful
personality, were sui generis.

Robert Flaherty occupies a special place in the documentary pantheon.

Dziga Vertov was a Russian pioneer documentary film and newsreel

director. Along with Sergei Eisenstein, Vertov helped to create a
distinctive cinema that arose in the context of the changing era of the
Bolshevik revolution. Like Eisenstein, Vertov embraced this revolutionary
spirit in his films. His Man with Movie Camera was one of the truly
pioneering works of the early cinema.
Dziga Vertov essentially creates the grammar of cinema-verite with his Man
with a Movie Camera and nearly every documentary owes something to it.
Modern in this sense means that it is a documentary that was more than merely
pointing a camera and recording reality as it existed with no thematic or
subtextual dimension.

It is very simply a film about a man capturing life in the day of the lives of
people from Kiev, Kharkov, Moscow, and Odessa. It begins with people
waking up, and getting their days started. It also shows what the city
looks like while the people sleep, its emptiness. We see the machines in
factories not moving. Then, we see how people are the ones which
influence progress even though the machine is was creates the result.

Vertov shows us the dizzying pace of life as it has quickened with street
cars, machines and people all attempting to get from where they are to
where they are going. The director also reveals to the audience quite
simply how a camera is used in imagery throughout the film. It allows
the public to understand more readily just how these moving pictures
are made as the medium was very new at the time of release in 1929

This documentary at first merely seems to be an example of the point and shoot
mentality that keeps YouTube “celebrities” in play, but what is lacking on
YouTube is a little trick of moviemaking called associational editing. This
underlying foundation of associational editing is juxtaposition. Which is to say
that one image is juxtaposed against another, usually in a way that seems
completely natural, but which provides a texture or tapestry of meaning that in
retrospect makes it clear the editorial choices were consciously made. An
extreme example of associational editing would be the Surrealist
masterpiece Un Chien Andalou, in which images are juxtaposed to each other in
a way that seems anything but natural in order to create subconscious
connections that only become clear sometime afterward.

Dziga Vertov’s silent Soviet masterpiece A Man with a Movie Camera takes the
exact opposite approach while remaining utterly true to the conceptual
understanding of associational film editing. A Man with a Movie
Camera does engage images that seem naturally connected to each other in way
that makes the documentary nothing more nor less than a film editing course
compressed into one 68 minute lesson. By the time this documentary draws to a
close, those who have been paying attention to the ways in which the man with
the camera both composes individual shots and edits them together will have
learned most of what they will ever need to know in order to manipulate the
perception of reality and exploit both the intellectual and emotional engagement
of film audiences.

Dziga Vertov's influence on this film is far greater than the cinematic
experience he created in 1929. It goes much further as he, with this film,
invented techniques that are still used to this day. Such as double
exposure, fast motion, slow motion, freeze frames, Dutch angles,
extreme close-ups, split screen, jumps cuts, tracking shots, footage
played backwards, stop motion animations. His exploration of what the
camera could do opened the world up to the wonders of making films.

Vertov shows one of his intents--to reveal how the camera works to the
audience--by showing the camera and then relating it to something from
the everyday world that people understand in order to explain it to them.
For instance, when the camera's aperture is opening and closing he
shows us shutters on a window being opened and closed in order to
allow us to understand the apertures function in controlling how much
light comes into the camera.

Moreover, Vertov reveals how art watches life with the posters and
drawings in the beginning of the film peering over at people as they
sleep. The thematic here allows us to understand that this is what he is
attempting to accomplish with this film, to use an artistic tool in order to
peer into life, which then becomes art itself.
Cinema verité and direct cinema

Cinéma vérité – a form associated with developments in France – and direct

cinema – work associated with the United States – have, since their inceptions
in the early 1960s, constituted profound influences on documentary filmmaking.
Cinéma vérité, ‘film truth’, drew on Vertov’s description of a kino pravda, a
cinema or film dedicated to representing truth in ways not achieved in the
fictional cinema. It was first developed by French ethnologist and
filmmaker, Jean Rouch and brought to documentary filmmaking a natural
dialogue and authenticity of action. But unlike its direct counterpart, the
philosophy behind this technique was that the filmmaker actively
participates in the film as a subjective observer where necessary;
combining observational AND participatory filming in the same breath.
Essentially, there is an awareness of the camera that is filming the
scene, thus establishing a connection between the
cameraman/filmmaker and those who are being filmed. 

One of the earliest and most widely known of Rouch’s films using vérité
was Chronicle of a Summer(1960), which he did with fellow French
filmmaker Edgar Morin. By gathering a number of Parisians, including a
few supporters of a group with socialist ideologies, either through one-
on-one interviews or group discussions, the film addresses topics
ranging from happiness and love to colonialism and racism. True to the
active role of vérité filmmakers on-camera, the action of the characters in
the film seem to always be a response to an impulse by the leader of the
conversation or the interviewer. Both Rouch and Morin play with their
own roles within the film and are never detached or disengaged from the
process of filming. They even included responses from all of the
characters in the edited film after showing them the original; allowing for
the luxury of self-representation in all parties that resulted in a sense of
equality never achieved in direct cinema.

Direct cinema, on the other hand, a misnomer in terms of the fact that most
work in the category comprised journalistic reports produced for television,
aimed to reveal the truths of human existence residing behind the surface facts.
The Maysles brothers, Albert and David Maysles of the United States
were most well-known for developing direct cinema. Three of their most
popular works in the genre were Salesman (1969), Gimme Shelter (1970),
and Grey Gardens (1975). Rather than planning a scene they wanted to
shoot, the brothers would let the story unfold organically as the camera
rolled. They believed the documentarian was an objective observer, a
completely invisible passivist as opposed to a director or participant—a
noteworthy sentiment that sets the genre apart from cinema vérité.
The distinction between the French school and the North American one is now
well established in film criticism, being endorsed by Erik Barnouw in his
widely used textbook Documentary:A History of the Non-Fiction Film (1974)

At the very simplest, cinéma vérité refers to documentaries characterized by

self-reflexivity i.e. films in which the film-maker puts himself in the frame as a
guarantee of truthfulness/verite (also a reference to Heisenberg’s uncertainty
principle according to which the very presence of an observer modifies the
reality being observed) and also actively participates in the film by interrogating
or interviewing people. This is in contrast to the observational approach of
direct cinema whose proponents were animated by a desire to observe in as
unobtrusive a way as possible (ten Brink ed. 2007: 298), never intruding in “the
reality” being filmed and eschewing from using intrusive methods such as
interviews. In more graphic terms, the cinéma vérité approach can be described
as “fly-in-the-soup” (observational AND participatory) whereas the direct
cinema outlook is better defined as “fly-on-the-wall” – observational without
being participatory.  

Against such a description, another film historian, Richard Barsam, emphasized

the similarities of the two forms. Barsam noted that cinéma vérité and direct
cinema share objectives and characteristics: ‘Both cinéma vérité and direct
cinema are similar in that they are committed to the advantages produced by the
use of lightweight equipment; to a close relationship between shooting and
editing; and to producing a cinema that brought the filmmaker and the audience
closer to the subject.’ Barsam’s description of overlap and intersection between
cinéma vérité and direct cinema forces a reconsideration of the putative
differences between the forms.

One filmmaker that prefigures key elements of cinéma vérité and direct cinema
is Robert Flaherty whose interest in studying real people in their actual
surroundings was confirmed by his 1922 film Nanook of the North. His method
called “non-preconception”, which implies the absence of preformed opinions,
biases or attitudes concerning the subject to be filmed, and also his view of the
filmmaking process being a “ritual of discovery” (Flaherty 1960: 11), “an art of
observation and afterward of selection” (Griffith 1953: 165) are entirely in
keeping with the direct cinema perspective whose proponents aimed to shoot
first and find the story later in the editing room.

In comparison, both direct cinema and cinema vérité aim to uncover

truth in two different ways. The former hopes to unveil truth through the
camera’s observation of events and subjects; the latter uses any means
possible to seek out truth and is intrinsically an internal process being
gradually revealed. Nevertheless, documentary is rarely a matter of
pure, untouched observation, but within both methods lies an opportunity
for revelation—regardless of the degree of mediation by both the camera
and the filmmaker. As such, they are viewed equally as two alternative
methods of documentary filmmaking whose use of particular cinematic
philosophy and new technology had a huge influence on many
generations of filmmakers which is still felt today.

For all their differences, cinéma vérité and direct cinema represent two avant-
garde cinematic practices that attempt to eliminate the accumulated conventions
of traditional cinema with the aim of discovering a reality that is closer to the
truth of a situation. Their respective practitioners achieved this goal by
eschewing the authoritative devices of previous documentary e.g. narration,
archive, thesis-led structures. The two schools also followed opposing methods
and techniques (interventionism and self-reflexivity in the case of the former
and pure observation in the case of the latter) which account for the main
differences between them. Being neither documentary, as usually practiced, nor
fiction, although they often tell a story and employ devices typical of the fiction
film, cinéma vérité and direct cinema can be viewed as two alternative kinds of
cinema emerging in the 1960s whose use of new technology and specific
cinematic philosophy had a tremendous impact on subsequent generations of
filmmakers, their influence being still felt today.

ETHICS

Documentary theorists have, since the mid-1970s, discussed the ethics of

documentary film and documentary filmmaking. A development that triggered
scholarly considerations of ethics was the introduction of lightweight cameras
and sync sound, and thus of direct cinema, and cinema vérité, making it
possible to follow people around and film them continuously and
spontaneously. In this discourse, scholars have presupposed and ethically
evaluated a certain documentary practice. This practice was grounded in both
Robert Flaherty’s narrative documentaries such as Nanook of the North (1922)
and Man of Aran (1934), as well as in social documentaries produced by John
Grierson and his colleagues, such as Drifters (1946) and Housing Problems
(1935) and in more recent direct cinema projects, most notably Titicut Follies.
In the past few decades, technological advancement has continued to affect
film production profoundly, making production facilities available for everyone
and affording opportunities for self-casting on the internet. However, the
discussion of documentary filmmaking ethics has not yet included this
development. On the contrary: it relies on the traditional premise of an all-
powerful filmmaker who controls the process and possesses access to as well
as knowledge of production processes and facilities, and a lack of such
understanding, access, and knowledge on the side of the participant.

Two general areas are distinguishable in the discussion of ethics: one dealing
with questions of truth and reality, basically addressing the filmmaker-
audience relationship; and second dealing with questions of representation
and consequences, basically dealing with the filmmaker-participant
relationship. In both cases, militating against what filmmakers might prefer
personally to do is the obligation to complete a compelling and honest
documentary story within budget.

The ethical tensions in the first relationship focus on ways to maintain a

viewer’s faith in the accuracy and integrity of the work. Though a claim to truth
remains at the center of most documentary work, the nature of documentary has
expanded and the line between documentary and narrative blurred. Use of both
fiction and non-fiction elements in documentary film raises ethical questions
and obligates filmmakers to constantly make decisions on how much mediation
is possible. They have to make aesthetic choices concerning representation, how
they present the characters.

Significant manipulation of the situation in filming without regarding it is often

seen as a betrayal of viewer expectations. However documentarians often
invoke the “higher truth” or a “sociological truth” when faced with evidence of
or a decision for inaccuracy or manipulation.

This inadvertently invokes documentary pioneer John Grierson’s description of

documentary as a “creative treatment of actuality.” Grierson used this flexible
term to permit a wide range of actions and approaches ranging from re-
enactment to highly selective storytelling—indeed, even outright government
propaganda. His promotion of the term has been criticized, by scholar Brian
Winston, among others, for allowing ethical choices to go unexamined. For
Grierson, who incessantly strategized to garner government resources for
documentary film, the phrase had strategic advantages. For today’s
documentary filmmakers, it appears to grace a set of choices about narrative and
purpose in the documentary. It appears to justify the overall goal of
communicating the important themes, processes, or messages within the
(required) entertaining narrative frame, while still permitting the necessary
distortions to fit within that frame and the flexibility to deal with production
exigencies.

The ethical tensions in the second focus on how to maintain a humane working
relationship with someone whose story a filmmaker is telling.
Bill Nichols argues, in his book Introduction to Documentary, that we need to
speak about ethical issues as the photographic image contains a power that we
should not underestimate. The power of the image stresses the power relation
between the filmmaker and his or her subject. He emphasizes how an image
cannot tell us everything we want to know about what happened and that
“images can be altered both during and after the fact by both conventional and
digital techniques” (p. 29). He speaks about The Ethics of Representing Others
and the problematic view on the role of the participants because these are not
professional actors, but social actors, which means the employment is
underlying special circumstances. The social actors rarely get compensated, and
their values reside in the way “which their everyday behavior and personality
serve the needs of the filmmaker” (p. 31). Usually they sign a release, which
gives the filmmaker right to use the material in whatever way he or she chooses,
leaving the social actors with no rights if they should disapprove of the result.
The release serves as a legal form, but despite this, some participants may end
up feeling used. The filmmaker has to be concerned about his or her
responsibility for the effects of his or her actions on the lives of those filmed (p.
33). Is it, for example, their responsibility to tell those filmed that they risk
making a fool of themselves? (p. 36). The social actor, on the other hand, has to
be aware that he or she is not to act in a film but to be in a film and be
concerned about how they will be presented and if they are ready for the
consequences.

Jerry Rothwell (2008) explains in Filmmaker and Their Subjects, what he sees
as the key to success in the relationship mentioned above between the
filmmaker and, what Nichols refers to as, social actors. He explains how
success in that relationship “demands a responsibility for the consequences of
the filmmaking that go beyond the film itself” (p. 155). Because the
contemporary media is not constrained, filmed material has a much wider
audience and can travel deeply into the private realm. He also argues that it
often changes the social actor’s world which does not only include the near
future (op. cit.). But at the same time, he also stresses the conflicting fact that
the conventional legal and practical parameters of television documentary do
acquit the filmmaker of all consequences (op. cit.).

Matters are complicated with financial pressures, productivity and

deadlines, and social pressure. Dealing with ethical challenges needs to
be regulated with emphasis on these issues rather than relying on each
filmmaker’s independent moral compass. One of the ways to achieve
such an understanding would be to openly discuss these active ethical
challenges that filmmakers confront regularly and develop a common
understanding of how to balance the demands of external factors
(funding, production, deadlines) with the conservation of subjects and
preservation of facts.

Documentary filmmakers are lurking in murky waters when it comes to

ethical challenges. They are aware that boundaries need to be set and
that there should not be an abuse of power, yet there aren’t any clear
solutions to ethical challenges. These filmmakers are conveying a
message and they obviously need material that supports that message
so if they have the right material but not the right emotion, they may ask
to redo an interview that takes someone to their breaking point. This
scene creates a powerful impact for everyone involved, the subject and
the filmmaker in the moment and also to all of the viewers who witness
this scene. There are many people in the industry who are calling for
more parameters when dealing with ethical challenges.

Research

How to Research a Documentary Film Step 1: Pick the

Type and Length of Your Film 
Before you undertake research for your documentary, you must first decide what
documentary type you are making. For example, your documentary can be historical, or it can
be biographical.

Next, you must decide on the length of your documentary.

  A short documentary is generally defined as having a running time of 40 minutes or
less. This is often a wise choice for those embarking on their first documentary film
projects. 
 A feature-length documentary is generally defined as having a running time of over
40 minutes. This is better suited for seasoned filmmakers. 

How to Research a Documentary Film Step 2:

Conduct Archival Research
Now that you know the type of documentary you want to make, the subject, and
the length, you are ready to fully undertake research.

This often begins with archival research. Archives have a diverse range of
different research materials, including:

 Still photos, footage, newspapers, and online articles 

 Paintings, etchings, sketches 

 Letters, journals, and diaries 

 Governmental documents 

Once you have obtained relevant and interesting archival materials, investigate
for deeper sources. For example: with a newsreel, you should seek out the raw
footage and b-roll from which that reel was edited to uncover material that was
unused at the time but is nonetheless potentially useful to you.

How to Research a Documentary Film Step 3: Identify

Your On-Camera Subjects
Following your archival research, you now know roughly what kind of interview subjects
you will need. Identifying the documentary’s interview subjects or talking heads is a crucial
step. These individuals will be interviewed on camera during your film.

There are two types of on-camera subjects: 

 Academic experts who will provide the viewer with insight into the events, an
expert opinion that will inform the audience’s understanding of the events. These
sources are generally easily convinced to participate because they are eager to share
their expertise. Doing secondary research at an academic library will tell you who
the authorities in the time period are, and these people are all possible sources for
your film. 
 Primary source witnesses to the historical events described. If the documentary is a
time from which there are currently no survivors, this is obviously not an option. In
 these cases, primary, contemporary sources like observer accounts, diaries, letters,
and journals (all products of archival research) become all the more important.  

Ken Burns’s Tips For Researching For a Documentary

Film
 When it comes to archival research, Burns advises that more is more.
Think of archival research as making maple syrup—you need 40 gallons
of sap to make one gallon of syrup. 
 You should collect much more than you think you need—at least 40
times the material you ultimately plan to use in your film. Gather at your
fingertips all available variations in order to explore every artistic and
dramatic possibility. Only with a 40 or 50 to one ratio will you be able to
distill the essence of your story. 
 Search for archival material in places you wouldn’t initially think to
look. Ask about collections that no one else asks about. 
 Remember, you are a detective, so follow every lead as far as it will
go. Don’t limit yourself to easy-to-access material about well-known
historical figures. Dig for evidence of what life was like for ordinary
people as well. 
 Persistence is crucial to gathering so much material. Burns is
especially tenacious when approaching individuals who are reluctant to
share personal artifacts. He relates one example where he spent six months
wooing an individual to share material for his Jazz series until finally the
person was convinced. 
 Because it often takes a long time to find the perfect artifact, never
limit yourself to one discrete research stage. Keep investigating sources
throughout your process, even during post-production and film editing,
finishing, and even early showings at film festivals. You never know when
you might strike storytelling gold, something that is worth opening your
film back up to include. 
Whether you’re a budding documentarian or have dreams of changing
the world, navigating the world of documentary filmmaking requires plenty
of practice and a healthy dose of patience. No one knows this better
than legendary documentarian Ken Burns , whose 2017 film, The Vietnam War,
paints an intimate and revealing portrait of history. In Ken Burns’s
MasterClass on documentary filmmaking, the Academy Award nominee
provides valuable insight into his methodology and talent for distilling vast
research and complex truths into compelling narratives.

What Is a Documentary Proposal?

A documentary film proposal is a thorough description of all aspects of
your proposed film, including the project’s history, the intended
audience, the style and approach of your storytelling, biographies of your
chief collaborators, and a plan and budget for completing the work.

What Is the Purpose of a Documentary Proposal?

Making films requires money, and a documentary proposal is necessary for pitching your
film to investors to secure funding for production. Even if you don’t pay yourself, you still
need to budget for equipment, licensing, and salaries for your crew, which makes
fundraising essential. As with any film proposal , your documentary proposal is your most
important tool for raising those funds.

9 Parts of a Documentary Proposal

Below is a basic structure for creating a documentary proposal.

1. Abstract: The first page of your proposal should be the abstract, a one-page
summary that a reader can detach and share separately from the full proposal. Since
it is the very first page of your proposal, it will form a prospective investor’s first
impression of your project, so write it carefully. Abstracts are longer than
loglines but shorter than treatments. 
2. Table of contents: The second page should include a table of contents, providing a
big-picture overview and delineating each component included in your multi-page
proposal. 
3. Treatment: The treatment is a short narrative of what you envision will happen on-
screen during your film. Documentary film treatments can be several pages long and
should contain colorful descriptions and give specific details about potential
characters and anticipated story beats that will feature in your final film. Aim for a
vivid but realistic description that is between two and five pages long. 
4. Project history: Your project might be just a glimmer of an idea at this point, but
start tracking the germination and growth of that idea. This should include what
interested you in the topic, your personal connection to the subject matter or to the
characters, how long have you wanted to make this film, and so forth. 
5. Audience: Think about audience engagement and how they will experience the
story you want to tell. Who will be interested in watching your film? What other
films have been made about your topic, and what is new or fresh about your take on
the subject? 
6. Style and approach: Your film should have a point of view. Consider the visual
style of the cinematography. For example, notate whether your film will use
reenactments or rely heavily on photographs and found footage. In regard to
style, consider the editing : Will it consist of rapid pacing and surprising
juxtapositions, or savor moments of beauty and calm. Describe in one page or less
the key stylistic elements that will make your approach unique. 
7. Principal participants and advisors: Think about who you'll collaborate,
interview, and consult with to make this film. Include brief bios with basic
information about each of these participants. Try to limit this section to two pages.  
 8. Plan of work: What will be the different phases of your project, and how long will
they last? How do you plan to reach the finish line? Outline what you will
accomplish during pre-production, research, script-writing, hiring, shooting,
editing, music composition , and sound mixing. The resulting timeline for
completion should be one-to-two pages. 

9. Budget summary and breakdown: How much will each stage of your project cost?
In a spreadsheet, itemize each and every line item that will be needed. 

Once you have your proposal in hand, there are generally four categories of documentary
funders, or underwriters, that you can approach for a film grant: the government,
corporations, foundations, and individuals. When you eventually do get financial backing,
know that one funder will likely not be enough. Be prepared to patch together your budget
with a variety of sources. Think locally and get creative about who you approach by
identifying organizations and individuals who understand your topic, deal with it day-to-
day, or know its importance.

4 Tips for Writing a Documentary Proposal

Writing a documentary proposal is a time-consuming process, but since
it’s your ticket to funding for your project, it’s well worth the effort.

Tips for writing your documentary

treatment/proposal/synopsis:
 Use an active voice (don’t say “We may be doing this film”,
say “This film is..”). Make the reader believe this film IS
happening.

 Write colorfully – avoid generic descriptions like “unique” or

“magical”. Explain why something is magical or unique.

 Be specific – Don’t just give a general overview of your story.

Describe situations, people and characters in vivid detail to
make the story come alive.

An effective documentary treatment:

 Tells a great story through both narrative and visual
description
  Captures the personal and human element of the story

 Engages, inspires and leaves the reader feeling like “this story
MUST be told”

The idea behind a treatment or proposal is to have a written

document that fully describes the documentary project that can be
made available to potential investors, participants or supporters.
This is the first step in the process to lay out the vision for your
film. 

Expect your proposal and treatment to be constantly updating as

the project progresses.

The proposal/treatment is not only a great tool for the filmmaker to

brainstorm ideas and hash through potential themes and angles of
the story, it's a terrific document to share with collaborators and
potential funders. 

1. Be as thorough as possible. This isn't a time to be general.

Proposal writing is a time to include every detail, no matter how
minute. The proposal gives producers and funders everything they
need to know about the film in one document. 
2. Be realistic with your film budget. Along with a documentary
treatment, you also need to develop a realistic budget for your film.
This doesn’t need to be an overwhelming task: Start by simply
jotting down the big-picture elements on a single page. Ask
yourself what the essential line items will be, such as the number
of days you will need to shoot, the cost of renting camera and
sound equipment, and paying crew for that duration. How many
weeks of post-production will you require, and what are the rates
of your editor, sound mixer, and composer? 
3. Determine your fundraising strategy. Fundraising requires
perseverance more than anything else. Get a head start on
fundraising by writing a first draft of the content that will make up
your proposal. No two grant applications will request the same
information, so what you should do is create a “menu” of
 component parts that can be called upon as needed and adapted for
each particular use.
4. Stay confident in your project. Film is a competitive business,
and rejection is an inevitable part of the process. Keep doing what
you have to do. Ultimately, the hard work of convincing others to
fund your film will help you refine your passion and zero in on
how your story needs to be told.

When Do You Need A Documentary

Treatment/Proposal?
A proposal is used for grant applications, sponsorship applications,
pitches to broadcasters, potential fiscal sponsors or any number of
individuals who need to understand the scope of the project.

The proposal should lay out a compelling case for why this
documentary needs to be made using quotes, statistics and any
other evidence. It answers the question “why this documentary,
why now".

The length of a documentary proposal can be anywhere from 2-25

pages (or more) depending on the scope of the project.

The information you include in your proposal is factual and truthful.

For example, you do not want to say that the Discovery Channel has
endorsed your project if they have not.

Of course, you cannot predict absolutely everything about your

project, so the proposal is simply a forecast of how the project is
expected to unfold and who will be involved to the best of your
knowledge. 

Film Budgeting

Film budgeting usually occurs in two different phases.

The preliminary film budget is created to raise financing and it
isn’t generally detailed or extended. It often only provides the top
sheet (TS) which totals the accounts and contains potential costs
The second film budget occurs once financing is secured. The costs are
finalized and as a result is much more complex. The numbers are realistic
because they can now be based on actual quotes and hires.
The budget will be shaped by the filmmaker’s specific choices:
locations, size and prominence of cast, stunts, and the effects
needed both during and after principal photography. For
independent and guerrilla filmmakers, the key is to identify the
cornerstone elements of the film and build the budget around
those items. If a particular location must be used to tell the
story, a particular cast member becomes essential to the
financing, or a certain special effect defines the film, then that
element should be identified early and its costs determined.
Thereafter, the remainder of the budget can be structured to
keep the production in harmony with that item.
The budget process continues from the inception of the project
through the completion of the finished negative. Neither the
prints used to show the film theatrically nor the advertising and
promotional budget are included in the budget numbers used
for production. For studio films, print and advertising costs often
equal the production costs, and for an inexpensive film, they
may greatly exceed those costs.
The budgeting process is important for a number of reasons,
both internal and external. The screenplay may be the most
important filmmaking tool, but only the budget can set the
financial framework for all the decisions regarding the film. It
provides a material foundation on which every party involved in
the project relies.
An accurate and complete budget must be provided to the
investors, the lenders, the completion bond company, and the
unions. 
Once the filmmaker obtains a commitment, few significant
alterations can be made without their approval. A filmmaker
may not unilaterally decide to film for an extra two weeks to
capture the light, no matter how artistically compelling it may
be. Nor can she drop a name star to pay for those two weeks,
unless she has the permission of the lender and the completion
bond company. Even investors might get upset by such
changes, so the documents must be very explicit regarding
which budget decisions are subject to change and which are
not.

Film budget breakdowns

Like snowflakes, no two film budgets are alike. Most film budgets do share
these four categories

ATL (ABOVE-THE-LINE)

This category includes development costs, talent, and crew generally

involved in development phase. Writers, producers, the director and talent
are included in this category. 

Interview fees: Some people, including experts you need to interview, may expect to be paid
for their time. After all, they’re professionals, and if they’re sitting down talking to you it
means they’re not working on what brings in the bulk of their income. If you’re doing the
interview over a meal in the local café, be prepared to pay for their meal as well as yours, and
that’s on top of any fee they may charge.

Actors: Are you going to include re-enactments in your documentary? If the event took place
decades ago, even if the principles involved are still alive, it would make more sense to have
actors representing younger versions of them. Of course it goes without saying that if the real
person involved in the event is dead, you need an actor if you want to do a re-enactment. If
you’re using differentiation techniques such as having that scene in sepia or black and white,
your editor may charge you extra for that.

PRODUCTION BUDGET (BELOW-THE-LINE)

Production Budget contains the majority of the overall accounts. All pre-
production and production costs, equipment and BTL (below-the-line)
labor are accounted for in this category.

Permits and access fees: You may need to obtain permits to shoot in certain
locations, which can add up. You also may need to pay access fees to shoot in
certain places like government-run parks and memorials, and you may need extra
permission to shoot a video there. Access fees are sometimes no more than a
couple of bucks for parking, but again, they can add up and you should include
them in your budget.

Usage fees: If you need a photo or video clip from an editorial service such as Getty,
be ready to pay for it. The costs can range from hundreds of dollars on up for a
single item, and there may be restrictions on if and how you can use it outside the
documentary. Some items can be used within the documentary but can’t be used
for promotional purposes, for example.

POST-PRODUCTION (BELOW-THE-LINE)

The post production category includes everything related to the post

production process. All costs for the facilities, equipment, services and
labor, should be accounted for in this category.

Visual effects: The cost of computer-generated imagery effects and

other visual effect work in post-production depends largely on the
amount of work, the desired quality, and the effects company involved 

OTHER

This category is a catch-all, and includes costs related to the advertising and
distribution of the project. Fun things like publicity costs, festivals, and
attorneys.

Promotion and distribution: There’s a long gap between having the finished
documentary in your hands and getting an audience for it. Word of mouth is
unlikely to get you much farther than filling up the local art cinema, and even if the
response is positive it’s very likely the project will die there without serious
promotion. That means hiring a professional PR company, as well as putting in a
huge amount of time and energy doing your own social media campaigns. You
really need a website for the project as well, although if you already have an
established website for yourself that gets a lot of traffic, you can use that as a
vehicle to promote the documentary. You’ll also need to consider how much it will
cost to distribute your prized project across the country.

Legal costs: You’ll probably be doing a lot of interviews for a documentary.

Anyone who is on camera, even if you just use audio of their interview, has to sign
a waiver giving you full rights to use the material as you see fit. This includes
using it in promotional material. The good news is, you can find a lot of standard
waiver forms on line. You should still consider having a lawyer go over it. More
importantly, you need to ensure you have the rights to use everything you plan to
in your documentary. Photographs, video clips, audio clips, film clips. Everything.
If these are coming from personal sources, it means more waiver forms granting
you the right to use the material not just in the documentary, but in any
promotional materials you put out. If any of these elements are not coming from
private people who have full rights to give you permission to use them, then get
ready for usage fees and permit and access fees.
Entry fees: One of the best ways to generate attention for your project is to enter it into
various film festivals. But that, too, can cost money. Sometimes the fees are nominal, but
even so, they should be included in your overall budget.

Fringe: This doesn’t refer to any eccentric people you may have to work with on the project.
This is basically a set percentage, usually 10-15%, of many of the above categories that could
potentially have variable costs, such as travel, promotion, and legal costs.

These are just a few of the costs you can incur when doing documentaries. Whether you’re
funding the project yourself or plan to bring in backers, a thorough budget will save you a lot
of grief.