NARRATION GOOD, DRAMATIC RE-CREATIONS BAD?!


The question ending my last rant led me to this question. Does the 'dramatic re-creation' have a rightful place in documentary filmmaking? Or am I being as high and mighty as the nay-sayers of voice-over narration? Interestingly enough, the very same subject came up at the Berlin Film Festival this week. According to an indieWire.com report, Standard Operating Procedure producer/director Errol Morris was put on the spot for his use of actors and dramatic re-creations in his docuentary films:

Morris also faced some criticism today from a journalist who questioned his trademark re-creations and fictional footage. "With due respect I think this is nonsense talk," he told the reporter at the press conference, "There's this idea that truth is guaranteed by somehow the style of presentation, that if I run around with a handheld camera and I shoot with available light that is somehow more truthful." Continuing, Morris noted, "Truth is a quest...something that I have never lost sight of and never will."

"Truth is the process of thinking about the world, investigating the world and rying to figure out what is real and what is not."

Morris has a point here. All of us want the truth to be revealed, otherwise we wouldn't be doing what we do.

But truth be told, doesn't re-creation put an automatic air of incredulity on the film? I'm not talking POV shots that give a certain 'feel' to what the experience was, but outright play acting in dramatic style that is being sold as non-fiction.

I have to disagree with him on this point. If you want to bring attention to a subject and can't come up with a better way to fit it into a documentary without a casting call and wardrobe, then why not write a screenplay and produce that film?

Heck, it might even be easier to raise production money for that venture!

IS NARRATION IN DOCUMENTARIES REALLY A CRUTCH?

The argument goes around and around. I can't tell you how many articles I've read debating this issue. The 'purists' feel that no 'true' documentary is worth its salt if voice-over narration is used for exposition. However, these same 'purists' will also argue that expository text 'cards' are perfectly fine.

What's the difference?

From where I sit, if someone has to write a card that fills in information not given by the characters, it's narration. It may not be spoken, but it's narration nonetheless.

There are not very many documentaries that don't include some text appearing on screen at some point during the film. It's been a while since I've seen one. Gimme Shelter comes to mind, but it's been so long since I've seen it, I can't be sure that's accurate either.

Come on, folks. We're all working towards the same goal: enlightening the world through good, non-fiction, visual narrative storytelling. Lighten up on the 'high and mighty' attitude.

At the end of the day, as long as the film accomplishes its goal, does it really matter?

KUDOS TO THE WRITERS GUILD OF AMERICA!

After 3 months of picketing the 'producers' (aka the Studios & Networks - they were not picketing me!), it appears a fair and equitable contract is about to become a reality.

Good for them!

Somebody had to do it. That the big guys were going to cut out the future distribution venues from revenue sharing with the writers was bogus. Eventually, the internet will be a viable profit model. And when it does, they need to share with the people who create the content that drives the profits.

Now we need to take it to the next step. Getting the 'producers' to share with the Producers. When we TV Producers take projects to the 'producers', the networks keep all (or most) of whatever profit comes from our intellectual property. We get paid for the grunt work, but not the real payoff - after market sales in DVDs and foreign sales.

How are we to stay afloat and come up with the next big idea if we don't have some time to create them? Producers need some downtime to create and prepare proposals while still being able to pay the rent. Having a larger piece of the earnings from our own creations would help that along.

The British have managed to figure it out and are now in the midst of a 'Golden Age'. The British Invasion of American TV is in full swing and American producers are falling by the wayside.

We need to make the playing field even. Or face extinction as an industry.

WGA STRIKE NO LAUGHING MATTER

Except, of course, if you're Comedy Central's Daily Show and Colbert Report. In a joint statement with the network, Jon Stewart, and Steven Colbert, the two late night talkers are going back on air in January "with or without" their WGA writers.

Very funny.

After spending the better part of the last 6 years poking fun of the GOP and Bush administration for trampling on the rights of Americans, these two clowns turn around and trample on the rights of their own employees. Those rights being the ability to earn a living from the very writing Stewart and Colbert are making money from.

That's not funny, that's sick!

The fact that both shows have a strong web life is particularly hurtful as this is a key issue with striking writers. Since the studios and networks don't want to share web and podcast revenues with the writers it hurts Stewart's and Colbert's writers even more.

I guess Colbert really is more of the 'righty' he portrays as a character than we thought. And Stewart's 'lefty' leanings don't stray too far from the wallet either.

Shame on both of them if they go back to work without their writers.