Against The Clock diary: choosing a style

How I was going to make my film? And 'make' in the sense of what style I’d shoot it. There are a number of ways to skin a story.

The most basic, is to shoot the action with a narrator voiceover. Most news reports use this technique (although not exclusively): you see some stuff and a journalist explains what’s going on over the top. It’s quick, simple and overcomes any editorial problems you might have – such as not having enough footage. But it’s fairly prescriptive, a bit old-fashioned and a technique cheap Channel 5 docs use. I didn’t want that.

The other way is with a presenter. If you have a good one, they can transform a film. Jonathan Meades is a great filmmaker who consistently manipulates the format of on-screen presenter to great effect – although his recent films have been more conservative in their style. It would be easy to dismiss his insightful studies on culture and topography as having limited appeal, but he regularly pulls in viewing figures of three million: roughly the same as Match of the Day. There’s a whole YouTube channel dedicated to his work and a great boxset too.

Jonathan Meades on branding

Louis Theroux is another good proponent of this technique. Some find his small-child-walking-in-on-his-parents-having-sex interview technique grating, but I think he’s pretty good, and not afraid to look the fool either.

Louis Theroux: ‘So you’re a former Nazi Lowrider in love with a Jewish man?’

The advantage of having a presenter is it’s their job is to look after the interview. That might sound obvious, but it’s surprising how much you miss when you’ve got to worry about the sound, light and whether the manager of the Tesco Metro in shot is going to cross the road and hassle you. Should your subject say something controversial, your presenter is there to jump on it. Louis Theroux does this extremely well – in fact you could say it’s his MO.

I’m a good interviewer, but I didn’t have the confidence to present. I’d have a go now. But at the time I had everything else to worry. So I settled on a Direct Cinema style.

Direct Cinema could be best described as fly-on-the-wall. The action unfolds before you and the narrative is carried in the way the film is edited. As I’m editing now, it’s clear my film is not a true Direct Cinema doc, like the work of Frederick Wiseman.

The characters in Wiseman’s films do not talk to the camera, they are unaware the camera is there. This is an extremely hard style to pull off because you have to film an enormous amount of footage to construct a story. I didn’t have the experience or the time to do this, so I decided early on that I would have Nigel talk to the camera.

Wiseman’s method is also extremely difficult to do because people are now media literate: if there’s a camera trained on someone, they moderate their behaviour. And it seems to be that documentary’s appeal, and to an extent, measurement of success, is how well a filmmaker breaks away this façade. Here’s an example of when it’s done well with the most media literate bunch of people about: Metallica. 

Some Kind of Monster: Defences up

Some Kind of Monster: Defences down

There is a problem with this approach. Your focus as a filmmaker can become clouded. You start thinking your job is to ‘find the true story’ – the story your subject is unwilling to reveal. But there may not be a conspiracy to uncover – and it’s worth remembering that if there is, it ‘s quite likely to be beyond your imagination should you find it. But arriving at a shoot with a preconceived idea is the wrong way to make a doc. You ask leading questions; you edit with an agenda.

My idea was to simply follow Nigel around and ask him questions. I decided to do shoot in a loose Direct Cinema style and have my subject (Nigel), tell the story with VO and sound bites.

Posted via email from antigob