Facing Fencing: reflecting on an unfinished character study

Like all intensely focused individuals, Tim has a very pronounced abnormality and because of this I was immediately sold on him being the focus of the character study.

Fencing is a short documentary and reflective wiki that I co-created with my colleague, Thomas Wiltshire, for our final year BA (Hons) documentary project. The project was orchestrated between October 2012 to April 2013. For more detailed overview see Fencing: an examination of the sport and an exploration of the documentary medium.

The fencing character study was a practical exercise designed to get us in the swing of documentary making - essentially, the character study was our practice documentary.

The character study was filmed and edited in January, 2013. 

The character study was something that neither Tom nor myself could devote a great deal of our time and attention towards. Both of our final year schedules were pretty busy and most of our time and attention was directed towards the planning of the main Fencing documentary.

The focus of the character study is Tim Miles, a coach and member of the Bath Sword Club. 

What follows is the original reflection and deconstruction I posted on the project wiki.

The post includes:

• the two rough cuts I did manage to complete
• details on the planning 
• details on the process of filming and what we learnt from that first practice shoot
• an overview of my thinking behind my editing approach
• a brief description of what the completed character study would have been like 
• what we learnt from the overall experience

If you want to understand the challenges and logistics behind formulating (pre-production), orchestrating (production) and re-formulating (post-production) a documentary subject, then reading the following reflection about our practice project is a pretty good place to start...

The Fencing Character Study

The editing of the character study was undertaken by Pete, as Tom did not have any time to devote to it. 

The video below is what Pete was able to edit and is really testament to the brief amount of time he was able to devote to it. 

This edit is still incomplete and is missing a final segment that would have focused on Tim fencing and what he ultimately gets out of fencing. With this final segment, the next cut of the character study would have been around 3 minutes in length. 

The next step would have been to trim it down to about 2 minutes 30 seconds. Then the colour correction would have done with the final sound fixes and titles implemented. 

However, both Pete and Tom have now abandoned the character study in favour of concentrating on the main documentary.

Subject and Planning

I think Tom had more enthusiasm for the character study exercise than I did. To me the character study exercise was just a hindrance I didn't want to deal with. For this reason, I said to Tom that we should absolutely try to connect the character study with our main documentary idea, because then it would at least be a productive venture. 

To this end Tom suggested that Tim, one of the coaches and the chap which the above video is about, would be a good subject for a character study.

My thinking was to film the character study before Christmas and, to this end, I nearly suggested another idea for the study. As Tom was taking a while to get back to me about Tim, the idea I had was to do a character study on the chap who runs the new East Wing cafe that has opened on Newton Park campus. 

I know the guy who runs it, it's on campus and it would also have helped my colleague Matt Coot out because he has been trying to do a video on the cafe all year and hasn't yet managed to get footage of it. I figured this would have been a safe bet for a character study, but I decided to wait for Tom's reply on Tim because, ultimately, it would serve us better to go down that route. 

Ultimately, Tom did get back to me and said we could do it in the beginning of January.

Tom singled out Tim because Tim is someone who has been fencing his whole life and who takes fencing extremely seriously. As with the rest of the documentary, with the character study I was very much the outsider but as soon as I met Tim I could see that he was everything Tom had told me he was. 

Like all intensely focused individuals, Tim has a very pronounced abnormality and because of this I was immediately sold on him being the focus of the character study.

Following on from this, Tom and myself worked out a rough structure for the character study (essentially, this is still retained in the rough cuts) and then drew up a number of questions that would allow us to draw from Tim the information we needed to fulfill the agreed structure.

Filming

The filming of the character study was fairly straight forward and was achieved without any problems. For myself and Tom it was simply a case of following our plan and shot list

Character Study shot list 

• Tim Interview 
• One on one coaching with Tim Footage of coaching 
• The children warming up with Tim
• Tim fencing
• General footage of the Bath Sword Club 

Tim had agreed to come in twenty minutes earlier to film his interview which we managed to do in about ten minutes. Then, when Tim's student arrived, we filmed the one-on-one coaching and then did the final filming of Tim fencing, as Tom had to see to his usual fencing duties.

We did encounter a brief problem with the sound where we thought we were picking up interference on the radio mic. It was in fact nothing more than the rain on the roof of the sports hall. 

However, it did necessitate me to ask Tim to re-answer the third question again and I'm glad we were able to ask him again because he gave us a much more detailed second answer. We didn't need a more detailed answer but it did give us a little bit more material to play with in the edit and material to use if we found ourselves at a loose end.

Editing

I took on the task of editing because, due to other upcoming assignments, Tom had no time to devote to the task. However, as I had minimal time to devote to it I made it clear to Tom that my edit was never going to be perfect.

With my edit I’ve followed our agreed structure as much as I could and when we were discussing the structure Tom even went so far as to talk about the actual arrangements of shots and the cuts between them. 

However, I knew it would have been impossible to follow it to this level of detail and the footage we had shot would not allow me to anyway. By this, I mean it’s all very well wanting to start the video with a long tracking shot but if the only tracking shot you have suddenly and quite obviously dips at multiple points throughout the shot then I’m going to want to edit around those dips and probably disregard the whole shot all together.

When we were filming the character study we very quickly abandoned the tripod just because it was easier to follow the action with the camera hand held. However, we both needed to have a bit more practice with handheld because we let ourselves down at points in the footage. That said, it was just as well that the character study shoot was also a practice shoot for the documentary.

The thinking behind this comes from my and Tom’s POV on fencing. 

When we were talking about how we were going to edit the study I suggested that we each produce our own cuts. Tom wasn't so keen on this idea because he really wanted to get the character study done as quickly as possible. However, I felt it we had produced our own cuts they would have been very good indicators of each of our POVs on fencing. 

To this end I think the first 30 seconds are very indicative of my POV of the outsider. If Tom had edited it he would have instantly established the presence of fencing; whereas I’ve gone the other way and gradually introduced the concept, I’m editing it for people who are ignorant towards fencing.

The first shot is of the warm-up but unless you’ve seen a fencing warm-up before you don’t know it’s a fencing warm- up so as soon as you see the feet moving in unison and the members standing in a bizarre position you ask: what is this?

Already, in the first shot, I’ve got the spectator asking a question, so they’re going to keep watching because they want to know the answer. I also selected this as the opening shot because I wanted something I could stay with for a while without cutting away (and because the first thing you see is feet and I’ve always loved the opening to Strangers on a Train). 

As I could stay with the shot for a while I could introduce the testimony of Tim over it opposed to cutting to him sat down in front of the camera which would have been the wrong way to start it. It’s better to pick a much more interesting shot bring Tim in over it and THEN cut to him sat down and establish his presence as an interviewee.

Also, what I loved about Tim’s testimony about why he does fencing is initially he doesn’t actually mention the word ‘fencing’. Therefore his testimony acted as a perfect backbone for the visual opening/introduction I was creating, so I went along with it. 

For me, the ignorant person, I had to start with this information: what do you do fencing or why should I, the spectator, who has no interest in fencing, spend some of my time watching a video about fencing? 

However, Tim starts talking about dancing so I cut to Tim doing a sort of star jump like exercise, here I visual elaborate on what is being said and make the connection that fencing share many attributes with dancing.

This shot was the only piece of footage that I captured from the character study shoot that I was happy with because I felt like I had actually captured something worth capturing. Tom later commented that it was good that I caught this because he Tim never smiles!

However, in addition to elaborating on what is being said I’m also visual saying what Tim is essentially saying that fencing shares many attributes with dancing so to make this visual connection I cut to Tim as full fencing iconography...

... and pulling his hood down which allows me to set up his presence in the later shot, as soon as that hood comes down he could be anyone!

Then I cut back to man himself saying the punch line: the reason why an ignorant viewer should watch a video about fencing and why someone would want do fencing: “Give a small boy a sword and invite him to hit his friend - what you going to do? You’re not going to turn it down.

Naturally, then you have to follow this up so you cut into Tim going full pelt and as he does so we zoom out to reveal the full ferocity of his action and of the other fencers in the background. 

I’ve gradually introduced the different elements of it: the footwork, the posture, the elegance, the iconography, the ferocity and the reason why anyone could be tempted to do it. 

In the first 30 seconds I’ve introduced the concept, I’ve made it clear this is about Tim and I’ve got the spectator even more intrigued. That was the ‘way in’ I assembled and I figure it's a pretty good ‘way in’ for any ignorant audience member.

Once I had established this ‘way in’ for the audience and ‘way in’ for myself I found the rest of the study pretty much edited itself. 

The only part I haven’t done is the final segment and there are two reasons for this: 

1. Lack of time.
2. Lack of a final definitive point by Tim.

From 0:46 – 2:10 we’ve already established that one of the things Tim gets out of fencing is the pleasure to pass his knowledge on but, ultimately, what is the single absolute thing he gets out of fencing? 

Essentially, Tim did answer this question. The problem was he gave us a very general answer and didn’t really define in simple terms what it is he gets from fencing. 

When we were interviewing him we should have pushed him further. Unfortunately, this didn’t occur to me until after I had watched the footage back. 

If I did have a final definitive statement from Tim it would have given me a backbone around witch to create a fitting ending.

I have no doubt that I could have assembled a similar and, perhaps, less satisfying ending from the material I had. I even toyed with using some of the other footage we had shot from the later shoots. 

Ultimately, I refrained myself because I wanted to stick with the footage that had been specifically filmed with a character study in mind. I wanted to remain pure to the task and maintain the challenge of the task. 

My ending would have brought together all of the best bits of Tim’s fencing to demonstrate his ferocity and skill. Then joining this footage together with some of Tim’s general replies I would have attempted to demonstrate ultimately what he has attained from fencing.

However, I ran out of time, so the character study remains unfinished. If I had finished editing the final segment of the study I would have then gone back and trimmed it down. Then I would have colour corrected it, finalised the sound and added titles.

Music is an option, but I would rather have had the music from the start and used it to influence my edit. 

Really, I just was more interested in presenting an ‘unfiltered’ realist presentation of the fencing and music would have detracted from this. 

On the other hand, if you were going for a more formalistic approach, as I’m sure Tom would have done, music would work with it. 

Again, it would have been great if Tom had produced an edit because it would clearly demonstrate his formalist approach in comparison to my realist approach.

Perhaps, if I can clear some time up later on in the year I will have another crack at finishing the character study.

Below is the initial rough cut that was screened in the character study documentary session.

Key Things Learnt 

• Be more careful with our handheld camera operating.
• Encourage interviewees to generate a final definitive point on the subject they have been questioned. 
• Keep the/an ending in mind so that your subject is leading towards something and, therefore, being narrowed down. 
• Be more selective towards the general footage we shoot.

Why see how we took this practice exercise and initial research and factored it into the planning of the main documentary...

Focusing Fencing: the preproduction of Fencing

Documentary: from problematic to paradoxical - a reflection on fencing, filmmaking, duality and deceit

My argument against the documentary has always been a simple one: why try to be a representation of actuality when a fictional presentation can reveal far deeper truths about reality?

Originally titled Pete's Reflection on Short Form Documentary Making 2012-13, this is a reflective essay and critical analysis I wrote for my BA (Hons) final year documentary project.

Fencing is a short documentary and reflective wiki that I co-created with my colleague, Thomas Wiltshire, for our final year BA (Hons) documentary project. The project was orchestrated between October 2012 to April 2013. For a more detailed overview see Fencing: an examination of the sport and an exploration of the documentary medium.

Fencing - a short documentary about the sport.

This post is still mostly the same as the original version I wrote for my final year; the only major difference here is that I have given it a slight polish, I have broken the text up considerably more so and I have remedied my excessive use of exclamation marks!

While it does act as a reflection on the making of Fencing, it is much more broadly concerned with what a documentary is, what role the documentary medium plays in our reflexive assessments of ourselves and how this "factual" medium can reveal something far grander about the cognition underpinning our day-to-day humanity.

It is very much something to do with film and something more besides...

D for dud - what's the point of a documentary?

My relationship with the documentary medium has always been a problematic one; I have always been somewhat mistrustful of documentaries and their validity as a representation of actuality.

I believe the documentary is redundant!

Or is it?

Philosopher and social critic Slavoj Žižek has commented:

“In order to understand today’s world, we need cinema. Literally, it is only in cinema that we get that crucial dimension which we are not able to confront in our real reality. If you are looking for what is in reality, more real than reality itself, look into the cinematic fiction” (2006).

This is a logic I have always felt to be true and my argument against the documentary has always been a simple one:

why try to be a representation of actuality when a fictional presentation can reveal far deeper truths about reality?

This was something I wanted to explore as part of my final year BA (Hons) Short Form Documentary Making module and, certainly, this is what I was trying to achieve in my documentary premise idea, The Importance of Lying:

"I believe lying is an integral component of the human make-up; I think anyone who believes they don't lie is lying to themselves. It would be interesting to explore the role lying plays in day-to-day life, why we do it, why we need to do it, do we need to do it and how humans are still able to establish a form of trust which transcends beyond the very basic forms of a lie or a truth."

Pumping Iron is a ground-breaking documentary due to its purpose of debunking the ignorant perceptions surrounding body-building. I think it is fair to say Pumping Iron was in my unconscious while making the Fencing documentary.

Pumping Iron trailer (2:45). 

You can purchase the Special Edition of Pumping Iron from Amazon.

While I did enjoy Pumping Iron as a factual piece of entertainment, I found the sequel/making-of documentary Raw Iron to be much more interesting and revealing! 

Raw Iron - The Making of Pumping Iron (74:20).

As Pumping Iron is quite openly a docu-drama there are elements of it that are fictional, or highly manipulated from their original occurrences in reality. Raw Iron discusses these fictional elements of Pumping Iron and explores the reasoning behind their inclusion. 

The filmmakers argue that they manipulated/fabricated certain elements because it made for a stronger narrative in the documentary. 

Therefore, by making the primary figures into archetypal characters: the underdog, the bully, the hero, etc., it made for a much clearer and stronger narrative (see the video above: 09:41-10:37). The filmmakers even discuss one scene they staged long after they had finished filming the initial footage!

Overall, while I can appreciate Pumping Iron’s strong narrative, the effect of the factual elements saturated with the fictional embellishments makes for a largely shallow and untrustworthy experience. 

Certainly, this is something that all documentaries are guilty of, even the fully ‘factual’ ones: 

“An edited documentary film is already manipulated; for many of us, staged dramatization, however beautifully shot, leads to an additional loss of credibility” (Kalow, 2011:30). 

Initially, my view was: 

If you’re going to make a fictional presentation, then the documentary medium is redundant. 

In fact, you shouldn’t even bother trying to create a factual account of actuality because that is an impossible task for any reproductive medium. 

Rather, it is better to focus on creating a fictional account which, as Žižek has commented, can present ways of exploring that crucial dimension of reality, the essence of reality, more real than reality itself, that we can feel but never directly witness, except in cinematic fiction. 

Ultimately, this academic year has been instrumental in showing me that different forms of visual storytelling can embody and explore different ways of seeing, thinking and being. 

Once you begin to dissect documentaries on a theoretical and practical basis their complexities and potentials become apparent, as has been the case for me while making Fencing.

The duality of Fencing: a debate of relevancy and honesty

The concept for a documentary about fencing was Tom’s, my role in further developing the idea was in providing an external point of view to Tom’s interior point of view in regards to fencing. 

My Creative Identity Summary, as stimulated by Michael Rabiger's Creative Identity Profiler, see Directing the Documentary by Michael Rabiger.

• The themes that arise from my self study are visual silence, repulsion against the shackles of boredom, the compartmentalisation of a person, narcissistic appraisal, old in young, young in old, suspicion of structures/institutions/traditions, the paradoxical self, a hatred of complacency, the central drive of anger, a yearning for knowledge and an appreciation of the intellect. 

• The changes for which I want to work are an illumination of the intellect and an understanding of the subtext.

• The kinds of subject for which I feel the most passionately are one’s that offer self-reflexive viewpoints and that expose the underlying pulse of a situation or establishment. Conflicting ideologies/institutions/temperaments is another area that offers me much intrigue; as does the subject of juxtapositioning completely different ideas to create a result that represents something greater than the original constituent parts, and which forces the spectator to question their own assumptions and beliefs.

• Other important goals I have in mind are to maintain the visual imperative of telling something that should be told visually and not to be fearful of using a lie to represent the truth. If a film lies then it is only presenting a truth of reality - everyone lies!

In keeping with my creative identity, I encouraged the challenging of the exterior ignorant perception of fencing as only being a sport for the elite. 

Therefore, you could argue that we reached a state of equilibrium in our collaborative process, because our viewpoints on fencing balanced each other out: 

• Tom was highly informative and passionate 

• I was highly analytical and detached.

In addition to our opposing POVs, our artistic styles differed as well:

• Tom was more formalistically inclined.

• I was more inclined towards to realism.

This is not to say that I did not have formalist tendencies and Tom did not have realists ones; rather Tom’s majority was towards formalism and mine was towards realism.

Tom setting up one of his formalistic shots (top) with the finished product (bottom).

My realist inclinations can be seen in my ‘fly-in-flight’ filming style (‘in-flight’ as I was moving around). As I was the outsider, I filmed with an observational eye allowing everything to run its course in actuality. 

This filming approach was drawn from my dissatisfaction with the ‘fictionalisation’ of documentaries, my POV of the outsider and from my wish to create a visually strong presentation:

“Shoot “observationally,” that is, record people and events in their natural setting, as if you were a fly on the wall. Allow events to unfold, observing and capturing reality. Your subjects don’t need to narrate for the camera because you can always add explanatory narration later, during the editing process. Good observational technique reveals character and story, bringing deep visual interest to your documentary” (Kalow, 2011:13).

While Tom’s style was equally visually strong, his was more in-amongst the action and knowledgeable about the various nuances of fencing. Generally, his footage is comprised of medium to close-up shots that know what to look for in fencing; whereas mine are medium to long shots unbiasedly recording anything that is seemingly revealing. 

Regardless of our filming approaches, both Tom and myself were very much aware of the influence that capturing and framing an image in a particular way can have on its eventual presentation: 

“The camera does not see as the eye sees, even though it records visual information. Your eyes can naturally and effortlessly dart from place to place, follow the action, and focus in on the telling detail… Any movements, such as zooms or pans, should serve to advance or deepen your story. Always remember to settle on a shot for ten to fifteen seconds. If you shoot a lot of activity or a performance, position yourself close to the action” (Kalow, 2011:8).

Overall, I believe that our opposing styles worked to further balance our working relationship in regards to the qualities that each of us could bring to the table and, ultimately, has made for a rich and varied documentary presentation on the perceived stereotype of fencing and its true diversity in actuality.

Below I have created a detailed reflective commentary on the final cut together with my original edit of the 2nd half and a few other points besides. 

My reflective commentary on Fencing (13:49).

As I said in the reflective commentary, our differing POVs are very much embedded within the narrative itself. I think this point is crucial in understanding what I have gained from my studies of filmmaking this academic year. 

The construction of a film from its various elements and artistic inputs informs the type of impression the film will provide and the attributes of its consciousness:

“Since its invention film has been compared to the mind, whether through analogy with human perception, dreams or the subconscious. The shock of seeing a world ‘freed’ by man’s imagination caused many early writers to see a profound link between the mind of the filmgoer and the film itself, leading them to understand film as a mirror of mindful intent. In a sense film offers us our first experience of an other experience (the experience of the film camera as it were). Film seems to be a double phenomenology, a double intention: our perception of the film, and the film’s perception of its world. Thus our understanding of our world can be informed and changed by this other way of experiencing a world, this other view of a similar world” (Frampton, 2007:15).

In short, psychology is essential to successful filmmaking! I believe this is why our documentary works so well because the logic of the psychology was there right from the beginning. 

Aside from Tom and myself working very well together, we picked a subject and premise that we were both ideally suited to tell:

• Tom is a fencer. He is highly knowledgeable and passionate about fencing. He had access to the Bath Sword Club. 

• I am not a fencer and I am not very knowledgeable about fencing. In fact, I bought into the ignorant stereotype. However, I am very analytical and tend to ask a lot of questions. 

These two basic viewpoints/starting points were enough to present a documentary about an honest portrayal of fencing in which its dominant stereotype is challenged. As such, we went into filming having crafted a strong narrative structure that exemplified the aim above. 

Throughout filming, in addition to filming together, we actively exploited our differing filming styles by filming on our own. As the filming took place over the space of a month we kept questioning each other and discussing our eventual aims – we actively kept our POVs in debate with one another.

Ultimately, like the preproduction period, the filming period proved to be another research period in which we could more directly contextualise our subject matter. 

Furthermore, with our postproduction period, we were able to bring out our individual POVs by initially editing both halves of the documentary in isolation and then unifying those two approaches when we brought the two halves together to create what would become the final cut (see Figuring Fencing: the postproduction of Fencing - EDITING LOG). 

Therefore, throughout this whole process, we have encouraged each other to keep working on our own psychological terms; while also combining those two psychological approaches to inform what has always been the essential aim of the documentary – debunking the myth of the fencing elite and exposing the true diversity.

Duality is an integral theme that permeates throughout the documentary: it finds expression through our two POVs, it is present in the visual design of the documentary and it exemplifies the basic premise.

The side by side shots in the documentary are examples of dualism in the film form.

As such, this integral dualistic theme was something I felt was essential to convey in the trailer. As Tom had taken on the duty of assembling the final cut of the documentary, I took on the duty of creating the trailer. 

Fencing trailer.

Below I have created a detailed reflective commentary on my thinking behind the construction of the trailer. Included are the two rough cuts together with the final cut and a few other points besides.

My reflective commentary for the Fencing trailer.

My cerebral editing style, which I mention in the reflective commentaries, has much more so become apparent to me as a result of making the documentary and having to actively exploit my POV.

As I said in the documentary commentary and again in the trailer commentary, the arrangement and pace of audio-visual information has a huge impact on the construction of a film’s consciousness and how the psychology of that consciousness is experienced by the spectator:

“When it works, film editing – which could just as easily be called “film construction” – identifies and exploits underlying patterns of sound and image that are not obvious on the surface. Putting a film together is, in an ideal sense, the orchestrating of all those patterns, just like different musical themes are orchestrated in a symphony. It is all pretty mysterious. It’s right at the heart of the whole exercise.” (Murch in Ondaatje, 2002:10).

Certainly, I think Murch’s statement has a lot to say about Žižek’s exclamation that cinematic fiction presents an understanding of reality, more real than reality itself. 

Successful filmmakers identity patterns and underlying currents of subtext in the collective consciousness that they are then able to exemplify and exploit in their work. This process is something akin to epiphany and, certainly, something I believe Tom and myself have done throughout the construction of the documentary. 

While I would say that my editing style is cerebral in a suggestive quality, I would describe Tom’s as being more on the nose and directly cognitive; however, these two approaches again work to bring out the dualistic quality of our POVs and the essential narrative aim of the documentary.

Tom's use of keyframing is one embodiment of a dualistic cognitive process happening within the documentary.

By embellishing the narrative with our psychologies and allowing our POVs to debate with each other, we have been able to give the documentary a dualistic consciousness of its own. A dualistic consciousness that complements the viewer’s consciousness as they watch and consider the subject of fencing as the documentary itself does. 

The visual style of the documentary, particularly in its dualism, gives the impression that an active cognitive debate is happening within the documentary itself, as indeed it is:

“Documentary is really a screen version of human consciousness doing its living work” (Rabiger, 2004)

I believe that the whole process of creating Fencing has greatly improved my psychological thinking in regards to filmmaking and the way in which I, as a filmmaker, want to manipulate the spectator. 

Certainly, if you view my reflection on editing the Fencing Character Study and/or my contributions in the documentary's Editing Log you will see that I often discuss the psychology behind what I am doing and why I am arranging the audio-visual elements in a particular way – the ways of seeing, thinking and being I am trying to encourage in the spectator. 

It's all about creating a truth from a lie and a lie from the truth.

The documentary paradox: the truth of the lie and the lie of the truth

While the majority of people are oblivious to it, everyone is documenting their lives and chronicling their life story as a result of their participation on social media, blogging and various other digital online platforms. We now live in an age where the concept of documenting is more alive than ever.

This assembling of a life story in the cyberspace archive will go on to inform how we are defined, long after we are gone. John Berger elaborates on this, albeit long before these platforms were even a concept:

“Adults and children sometimes have boards in their bedrooms or living-rooms on which they pin pieces of paper: letters, snapshots, reproductions of paintings, newspaper cuttings, original drawings, postcards… they have been chosen in a highly personal way to match and express the experiences of the room’s inhabitant. Logically, these boards should replace museums” (1972:23).

These 'online boards' we create about ourselves are supplying the narratives of our lives; each new status update, tweet, photo post, blog written, comment made, meme spread or video shared act as individual beats in those narratives. 

However, above and beyond creating a legacy, these 'online narrative boards' are playing an active role in our everyday lives. Our narrative boards have their own state of conscious identity and existence parallel to our cognitive and corporeal ones – they are our digital alter egos.

Impressions of ourselves are being stored online and expanding our narrative selves - our digital alter-egos.

Therefore, it is not just a narrative created solely by ourselves, but an interactive one which grows by contributions and manipulations by countless friends and followers. Our boards are creating fictionalised versions of ourselves based on our experiences and interactions in actuality. 

In addition to this, the rise of content sharing platforms and consumer filmmaking products has encouraged the user-generated production of documentaries. Documenting is now a fundamental part of our everyday lives and, as a result, the documentary medium is experiencing a renaissance. 

Therefore, the concepts of documenting and the documentary are more important than ever before.

However, if we consider the documentary as the purveyor of truth, in light of it also being a: "creative treatment of actuality" (Grierson in Rabiger, 2004), where does this leave the documentary medium as a reliable representation of reality?

In F for Fake Orson Welles dissects the reproductive medium and compares filmmakers and all artists to charlatans (2:56).

The fact of the matter – documentaries lie! 

It is impossible for a documentary or any reproduction of reality to present a completely unfiltered and unbiased representation of actuality: 

“Tell it by the fireside, or In a marketplace, or in a movie. Almost any story is almost certainly some kind of lie.” (Welles, 1973). 

However, as this academic year has shown me, this is not a disadvantage, but the redeeming feature of the documentary medium. 

Documentaries present more than truth - through the indirect – a lie – they present a deeper and a more fundamental truth about human consciousness – we need lies to give truths their values.

Lies are an essential component of humanity. 

As much as there is a paradox at the heart of every human being, there is a paradox at the heart of reality and in our knowledge of that reality. 

It is only through documentaries and other cinematic fiction and their cognitive abilities to closely mimic our own cognitive functions that we are able to glimpse and even to understand this underlying paradox, this underlying truth that can only ever be accessed via a lie: 

“Life is cognitive, not narrative. We need narration to understand it, but we live it cognitively” (Reygadas, 2013). 

Cinematic fiction takes the cognition of reality and contextualises it in a narrative – the narrative translates the hidden truth (complexity) of actuality for us: 

“it is only in cinema that we get that crucial dimension which we are not able to confront in our real reality. If you are looking for what is in reality, more real than reality itself, look into the cinematic fiction” (Žižek, 2006).

To this end, the documentary medium is by no means redundant; it is just another mode of cinematic fiction through which we can paradoxically experience falsehoods that allow us to understand the truth: 

“As a charlatan [filmmaker], of course, it was my job to make it real, not that reality has anything to do with it… what we professional liars wish to serve is truth; I’m afraid the pompous word for that is art. Picasso himself said it, ‘art,’ he said, ‘is a lie – a lie that makes us realise the truth.’” (Welles, 1973).

Unlike the state of the real world and our online narratives/alter-egos which are becoming just as confusing and paradoxical as our cognitive and corporeal happenstances in the physical realm, documentary, as a mode of cinematic fiction, offers us a simplified and contextualised narrative/point of view of actuality: 

“In order to understand today’s world, we need cinema” (Žižek, 2006), we need lies to help us realise the truth of our actuality. Therefore, documentaries are essential because they allow us to better understand the world.

From my point of view the incentive for Fencing was in providing a context through which I and like-minded spectators could come to understand the larger diversity of the sport of fencing; while disposing of the elite stereotype - the initial and dominant image I believed was the case with fencing. 

Furthermore, being the co-author of Fencing, it is interesting to note that the Fencing documentary only holds truth for me. Indeed, I find it hard to see how the Fencing documentary, as a revelation of truth against a lie, can possibly be a lie? 

However - I, as the co-author - therein lies the answer to my question!

My theoretical and practical understandings of filmmaking have greatly improved as a result of this academic year.

Co-creating Fencing with Tom has been an enjoyable and enriching experience; the past six months have proven to be a smooth process devoid of any significant problems (there were a few minor teething technical problems). 

I think this has a lot to say about our working relationship and our highly articulate individual attributes. Our collaborative process was largely a case of one person finishing the other person’s sentence.

In regards to the technical quality of Fencing, Tom and myself were blessed because we already had a significant amount of videography experience prior to embarking on this project. This prior knowledge definitely had an impact on the artistic and stylistic choices we made and, without question, our technical knowledge has grown and been refined as a result of undertaking the Fencing project.

In addition to my increased technical knowledge, my theoretical understanding of the documentary medium, and filmmaking as a whole, has been greatly nourished as a result of this module’s teaching and the process of creating the Fencing documentary. 

Regardless of my prior views of the medium, the act of documenting has always been something close to my heart and something I have always enjoyed doing - my administrative role on the Fencing wiki should be testament to that.

However, now that I have been able to apply myself to videography documentary making on a more advanced level, I have acquired a definite taste for it. 

As a result of my participation in the Short Form Documentary Making module, a transformation has occurred - my relationship with the documentary medium is no longer problematic, it is paradoxical!

If you would like a more detailed and analytical explanation of my creative identity and how I defined it before completely this project, have a look at...

My POV: for the fencing documentary and in general

References 

Berger, J. (1972) Ways of Seeing. London: Penguin.

Frampton, D. (2006) Filmosophy. London: Wallflower Press.

F for Fake (1973); directed by Orson Welles. 89 minutes. France, Iran and West Germany: Janus Films, SACI and Speciality Films.

Kalow, N. (2011) Visual Storytelling: The Digital Video Documentary. Center for Documentary Studies at Duke University.

Ondaatje, M. (2002). The Conversations: Walter Murch and the Art of Editing Film. London: Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.

Pumping Iron (1977); directed by George Butler & Robert Fiore. 85 minutes. USA: Rollie Robinson, White Mountain Films and Cinema 5 Distributing.

Rabiger, M. (2004). Directing the Documentary. Waltham: Focal Press.

Raw Iron (2002); directed by Dave McVeigh and Scoot McVeigh. 42 minutes. USA: Incue. 

The Film Programme (21/03/2013); hosted by Francine Stock. 28 minutes. UK: BBC Radio 4, British Broadcasting Corporation. 

The Pervert’s Guide to Cinema (2006) DVD; directed by Sophie Fiennes, hosted by Slavoj Žižek. 150 minutes. UK, Australia and Netherlands: Amoeba Film, Kasander Film Company, Lone Star Productions, Mischief Films and Microcinema International (2006).


Why not jump back to the start and have a look at the overview of the project and all the other blog posts that are a part of it...

Fencing: an examination of the sport and an exploration of the documentary medium

Ways of Being: The film dissertation to end all film dissertations

Ways of Being: The Spectator and the Spectacle is my award-winning first class graduate theoretical dissertation. 

The masters length paper was praised for its boldness, progressive thinking and received the highest mark that has ever been awarded to a Film and Screen Studies dissertation at Bath Spa University.

The paper was also awarded the first Media Futures Research Award for Excellence in Film and Screen Studies research.

I am pretty pleased with how it turned out.

"This is an outstanding undergraduate dissertation: brave and superbly executed. It's grasp of theory is superb and Peter deploys it in a brilliant fashion. This is certainly one of the best FL dissertations I have read for many a year."  

- Dr Terence Rodgers,

Head of Department: Film and Media Production

The paper is devoted to filmmaker and innovator Douglas Trumbull, for his innovating efforts, inspiring persistence and words of wisdom.

You can also download a pdf copy of Ways of Being from my Academia profile.

The paper is a consideration of the epistemological, ontological and metaphysical downfalls of film theory’s understandings of the spectator and the spectacle; with particular emphasis directed towards the neurobiological implications of the spectator’s body.  

The thesis argues that these shortcomings are representative of wider ranging issues of complacency engulfing the film industry and film exhibition as a whole. Furthermore, the fundamental disruptions of the digital upgrade of cinema, and the expanding means through which film content can be experienced, are explored in relation to the pressing need for film theory to reassess itself.  

Drawing on a plethora of empirical and non-empirical research, the dissertation is a highly progressive expression of how film experience has always been about transcendence and, as a result of its digital re-birth and diversifications, it is now becoming even more so. 

Additionally, you can view the Literature Review and Proposal Presentation I also orchestrated in preparation for the writing of Ways of Being. 

EYES of a Storyteller - the blog/portfolio for the EYES project that was orchestrated alongside Ways of Being.

This project also had a huge influence - and vice versa - on my graduate practical dissertation: EYES, a web series concept proposal package, that is a reflexive expression of contemporary networking attitudes and their implications on our ways of being.

On top of my other final year projects, getting the paper up to the standard I wanted was a tall and exhausting order.

"This is a well researched, conceptually sound and cogently argued dissertation which is striking in its originality of argumentation and in its nuanced reading of a wide range of film and critical material. 

It draws on a plethora of examples from traditions of visual culture from prehistoric cave art to contemporary film, the IMAX experience and future practices of audio‐visual consumption in order to examine traditional and contemporary theories of spectatorship and the spectator’s relation with the spectacle.  

The introduction clearly sets out the structure and methodology of the dissertation and provides a useful overview of the technological shifts which have resulted in a reconfiguration of the relationship between the viewer and the viewed. 

This is clearly an ambitious project. 

It makes a passionate case for the revival of grand theory in studies of Spectatorship in particular and Film Studies in general and sustains this case through argumentation of an exceedingly high order. 

It acknowledges the need to expand the scope of such studies beyond film, in its reference to a wide range of media texts as much as to critical literature, all of which are directed towards an understanding of spectatorship from points of view as diverse as the sensory, experiential, philosophical, spiritual, metaphysical and neurological." 

- Dr Suman Ghosh, Senior Lecturer in Film and Screen Studies.

  

As a result of my enthusiasm for the project, I unearthed so much data that the first draft I assembled warranted a request for a larger word count submission. As such, the primary content I eventually submitted totalled just fewer than 15,000 words, with the Appendix and other supplementary material bringing the overall word count to over 30,000 words! 

One of two hard copies I submitted on 06/06/2013.

The copy of Ways of Being that is included here is a refined draft that I produced between July and September 2013. 

The research content and argumentation has not been altered or added to in anyway; rather, the refined draft includes additional polishing, proofing and initial page material. Key among this new initial page material is the marking feedback I received and a new Foreword section in which I reflect on and deconstruct my process of assembling the paper.

If you would like to view the original submitted paper, then you can do so by viewing it on or downloading it from my Academia profile.

In October, 2013, I was invited back to the university to give an hour-and-a-half talk for the following year's students. The talk dealt with how to deliver a first class thesis and how to use your degree as a whole for springboarding you into your ideal career focus. The talk went down very well with the students.

"A dissertation was my chance to do something different, to say something really uniquely personal on film that would deal with where I was as a person in the here and now. Even if I did not consciously know what that really unique personal thing was, deep down I just wanted to write the film dissertation to end all film dissertations!" 

- Ways of Being, 2013:21

As the name suggests, Ways of Being is the primary progenitor and the prelude for Ways 2 Interface, my transdisciplinary research project and study log that is continuing the research I started in the paper; in addition to chronicling my ongoing studies. Furthermore, I am using Something to do with Film to continue my personal exploration of all things film, in the here and the now.

The Miracle of Crowdfunding: Uncomfortable is the new comfortable: new rules for a new age bigger picture (04/06/2014)

"Faced with a challenge today, it makes sense to ask: what would Google do?" 

- Jeff Jarvis, What Would Google Do?

Artistic and financial success - ANY success - requires an understanding and exploitation of the bigger picture of today...

This applies just as much to filmmaking as it does to any other enterprising endeavour in today's world!

These reformulations and paradigm shifts are what I have spent the last 10 months researching in order to gain an understanding of how to go about exploiting these new rules of practice in my own endeavours.

I captured the above photo from one of the lectures of a course I am currently enrolled on:

Understanding Media by Understanding Google

As the name suggests, it dissects the Google business model in order to dissect the larger media reality of today. 

The course draws heavily on the book:

What Would Google Do? 

Filmmaking success requires embracing and engaging the business, marketing, distribution and networking infrastructures that operate beyond the central and comfortable filmmaking/content creation infrastructure.

This bigger engagement is exactly what I want to exercise throughout this documentary project and in the projects that are connected to it.

What would google do?

Google would embrace the combined knowledge, engagement and loyalty of its initial searching users to build an empire of resources that is now highly relevant to pretty much every person who uses the online arena... and very much encourages this wide plethora of users to keep contributing to its ongoing innovating efforts.

We have to think outside the box. 

Anyone can make a film and many people do... and, good or bad, that's it, that's all they have - a film. 

But how do make a film relevant to the audience you would ideally want to engage with, so that your film will have a life beyond the process of creating it? 

Furthermore, how do you insure that your film is a highly beneficial component of your ongoing career?

On Tuesday, I came across a book in the library that is very much the filmmaking equivalent of What Would Google Do?

I had a flick through it and I can see that it is just the stuff! I have invested in a copy so that I can annotate it.

Google started out as a simple indexing search engine... and now it has become a highly pervasive presence that is tapping into every area of our everyday lives - Google is the ultimate example of how to go about operating outside of your comfort zone.

Making a film is not enough, we have to embrace the bigger picture that now operates around it.

We have to get comfortable with being uncomfortable.