|

Deep blue

Byrichard

It’s fun to watch documentaries when you know that they spent at least two to three years in the making. I like the documentary because it’s an opera rather than a documentary. There is a minimum of comment and a maximum of shots. There are some sequences where you see things happening in front of the camera and it switches to a second camera. That’s because for sequences like the penguins jumping out of the water they filmed it with one film camera and one pole.

Doesn’t that make you wish you were studying a media BA. where part of your studies is television. Every field of studies has it’s advantages.

One person I know is studying James Bond films, another is doing Disney cartoons. I’m doing underwater documentaries between France and England. Another is doing something related to social elements and zombies. One is doing special effects

It’s a broad range and that should make it more interesting to those that have to read through all this content.

|

Some impressive timelapses

Byrichard

I’m back in Switzerland now and I’ve been around for a little over a day now. I can’t be bothered going out so I’m watching one of the discovery earth documentaries and there’s a really interesting series of plant time-lapses that have been included. They’re used to illustrate what happens when a tree falls down and how the plants struggle with speed to take advantage of the increase in light.

Dissertations, documentaries and such

Byrichard

I’ve been reading about documentary makers and it’s interesting. Today I read about several of them, took notes, and explored the ideas that they demonstrate. The one that has confused me is Kossanovksy and his ideas of Dogma. I’m wondering how you do a documentary without having interviews or cutaways. Does he mean that we should not use them gratuitously or in some other manner? I need to do more search on this particular aspect.

Once more I’ve watched Control Room, the documentary about al Jazeera. I found it interesting.

|

Nick Broomfield

Byrichard

Yesterday I bought a series of six of Broomfield’s documentaries and I watched one of them today. Chicken Ranch is interesting because Broomfield lets the camera appear in shot, through mirrors and more. He also allows himself to appear, although only fleetingly, at least in this documentary.

He makes observational documentaries and allows the viewer to come to his own conclusions. This is a style of documentary where the action happens in front of the camera, with no use of voice over. Intertitles are enough, similarly to people like Vertov.

They are interesting documentaries because you can see that they have not been scripted. they document life, becoming more biographical and reflective of reality.

They do not strive to tell you what to think but rather encourage you to see and intuit from them.

How many documentaries do you watch that breath, that do not tell you what to think? Most attempt to say “he believes that” whilst “they believe that”. This is a more mature form of documentary making, one where the characters are the story.

I still have another five documentaries to watch and we’ll see what else I learn through watching them.

I found another documentary book today. It’s got many interviews with a variety of directors and I really hope that they help me understand the question that I want to ask and research without it being too broad.