Reference Material - Being a Director
As a director, I had multiple inspirations, but through my research into the role enabled me to focus on two documentaries that I could draw directorial inspiration from. The two key inspirations for my directorial decisions were “Driven: The Billy Monger Story” and “Walk the Walk” by YouTube channel XO. These both allowed me to explore the visual style I wanted to create and how was the best way to approach them. While I did not think either documentary was perfect, it is good to reflect on both the good and the bad about every project as you can still learn from the negative points.
DRIVEN - THE BILLY MONGER STORY - https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p06qx4gt/driven-the-billy-monger-story
Not only was this a documentary about motorsport and someone who let nothing get in their way, but also one shot and filmed in a way very similar to what I was planning. This is a close correlation between the documentary and my planned work allowed me to really understand the decisions that were made as a director.
This documentary started in a different way to most I have seen. While most start with a flash forward to the main event, this documentary decides to show the viewer a lot of background history of Billy growing up and his progression through the motorsport ladder. This was mostly formed of archive footage. This background knowledge is very important as some viewers will not know Billy's story and this style of storytelling enables them to grasp a better understanding of him and his personality right at the start of the documentary without any dramatic opener.
As motorsport is a niche subject they needed to try and show a more relatable side which is why they focussed in on Billy. This research definitely made me second-guess how I should start my documentary. I was set on starting my show with a flash-forward, but after seeing this it did make me think of ways I could use flashbacks at the start. It worked in this documentary as they wanted to build up the tension to the accident, rather than starting with it. The viewer tuning in would have also known a little context about the accident before starting the documentary, hence the decision not to start with it. However, my documentary would not work as well using this method as to engage the viewer in my project right away. The viewers of my documentary would have not heard about my race before watching, so I know the best way to keep a viewers attention is through a dramatic opening sequence.
As a director, this show allowed me to question how I was going to film my “Diary Room” sequences where I discuss my past and open up to the viewer. Personally, I am not a fan of the way they are shot in the Billy Monger documentary. Looking directly at the camera breaks the illusion that what is being said is spontaneous and natural, rather these scenes made me as a viewer feel uncomfortable because they were directing their thoughts right at me. I think that if you want a contributor to come off natural you should have them looking off to the side of the camera, towards a producer. This style does have its positive aspects though, one of those being it is VERY personal and we have no choice to look at them as they are looking directly at us.
The reason most filmmakers avoid this technique for interviews with contributors is that it breaks the feeling of reality, it feels too scripted and pre-planned. Viewing this scene has not changed my opinion on how I could film my Diary Room sequences. I want to shoot the contributors looking towards a producer, so the viewer is left as "eavesdropping" on the conversation which feels much more natural.
The voiceover in this documentary really works well as it is done by Billy himself. In similar documentaries, like the Chris Hoy to Le Mans documentary I looked into, there is a voice of God which creates a disconnect between the viewer and the main contributor. Even though Billy's voiceover lacks a little enthusiasm, it works much better than a VOG as we connect to him as a personality much more as he is doing the voiceover. This reinforces my choice for myself to do the voiceover in my documentary. I had contemplated a VOG, but from the reference material that I have seen, it never works as well as if the presenter/contributor is doing it themselves. Through my research I now know I want my documentary to be voiced over by me. I will be sure to limit the amount of voiceover, however, as a narrative pushed along my voiceover of a contributor makes it seem as if he is a presenter, presenting a formal piece, rather than a documentary where anything could happen.
The vast amount of actuality sequences enable us to connect with Billy, as we live his life throughout the documentary. This perspective of his life enables us to go deeper into his attitude to everything, we learn about his situation through things he does. Some of the contexts are brought to us through voiceover and PTC, but a large part of it is through these sequences where he is just living his life. Watching this really helped me understand how I can bring a sense of jeopardy into my project. After watching this I have gone back to my script and changed it so that jeopardy is placed within actuality sequences which allows the narrative to be pushed in a much more natural way. An example is that I will get told my personal trainer “Alex, You will need to lift a 40kg weight otherwise I will not be strong enough to race". This scenario sets itself up for either an epic win or failure moment later on. I have a few of these moments littered throughout the documentary so the viewer can engage with my challenge and see what I am doing to overcome them, rather than just simply being told it through a voiceover. Adapting these scenes has enabled me to tell my story in a much more natural way which will allow the viewer to connect to the situations and see the sense of jeopardy throughout.
As Billy is playing the role of the contributor, but also to an extent the presenter, it means that he floats between being very formal and very relaxed when being asked a question from the producer behind the camera. I like the fact that Billy does everything, including the voiceover, but it is clear that he was not given a lot of time to perfect the voiceovers. The PTC and actuality sequences are really well presented and Billy comes off very well in these, but in the voiceovers, he did seem to struggle. This is definitely a case of Billy not having much experience and therefore not being able to come off the same way through commentary. I would have liked it as a viewer if the commentary engaged us as much as the rest of the show does. It is also worth noting that a lot of the PTC sequences are shot as either a C/U or a UC/U meaning we have a very close look at Billy's feelings.
This bold shot choice leaves the viewer no choice but to connect with his emotions. This was done to great effect as it is genuinely one of the few documentaries I have ever watched that I feel like I could live his pain along with him and his family. While our documentary is not covering an issue of personal hardship, the choice of shots is still very important. I will be choosing the shot that I think is right for each scene, but it will need some creativity and some quick reactions from the crew to capture these emotions. If they see a moment of particular emotions from me I would expect them to zoom in and get a shot which gives more impact, rather than staying on a wide shot if that may have been shown in the script. It is clear throughout all of my reference material that movement of the camera does not matter so much, as long as the right emotions are captured on screen.
Through each sequence, we are able to gain a deeper understanding of each of the 4 main contributors. (Mum, Dad, Sister and Billy) These miniature character profiles of each person allow the documentary to have further meaning than if it was just Billy by himself. I found myself particularly connected to Billy's mother as she showed a wide range of emotions through the documentary. When these emotions are shown it heightens the drama of the project and gives the end result more meaning. This allowed me to re-think my script and decide to add more personal moments between myself and my family in my script. I want the viewer to understand why this is important to me and one of the best ways I can show that is through my parent's emotions. I have already added a scene with my Dad at Brands Hatch where we revisit the location of my first ever motor race. This added a layer of family emotion but I knew I could have even more. After further adapting the script I now have another scene at the end of the documentary where my father and I are speaking after the race. We will be sharing our thoughts from the race and my experiences of living an experience we had both wanted for a while.
An interesting technique used throughout is the use of pauses after some of Billy's statements. At first, you may think this is bad editing but when you think about it, these pauses are moments of silence for the viewer to reflect on what has been said and indulge that information. As some of what Billy says is very powerful, you need those moments of silence to fully understand the situation, without them, the powerful moments could be lost in the rapid changes between scenes.
After realising the power that these moments of silence bring us, I know that I need to allow some time after specific scenes. Specific scenes include the Diary Room sequences which allow me to open up and the use of pauses to show contemplation will allow the viewer to feel my real emotions and connect to me on a more personal level. As I am new to the world of being a contributor, it would be easy for me to jump in with another question, but thankfully my research has enabled me to understand the power of these moments. I will be taking my time in these sequences which allow me to show my real emotions which will help ground the importance of this story to me.
The last big thing that I noticed about this documentary is its use of sound. They spent a lot of time in the edit making sure that the music especially is powerful and heightens the emotion trying to be evoked in each scene. They must have had an idea of the music of some scenes, like the triumphant moment when Billy gets a podium on his return, but only in the edit can you truly visualise the video along with the music you had in mind.
Sound design is very important to the success of a documentary in this genre. It takes a good film to a great film and so on. Once the recorded footage is available, I will be able to visualise what music should be used in each scene to create the tone I want. Then as a team, we can decide what we should go with. This is something that in the scripting process, I can write as simply "Music". But over time I can then decide which music and sounds to use to capture the overall feel I desire.
When shooting our documentary, I will be sure to keep telling my crew about specific scenes in this documentary, which will be a great reference about what they should film and how they should do it. My only main difference of opinion in the documentary is the way the main 4 interviews are shot. I think looking directly into the camera is powerful and allows the viewer no choice to look elsewhere, but I think these shots feel intrusive and we almost feel too-personal which I think negatively effects the documentary. If they were looking off camera it would enable the sense of these interviews being real and raw, rather than staring at the viewer which seems rather forced and different to the rest of the documentary. After viewing them, I would personally change them to off-camera sequences, I think it would allow the viewer to feel less intrusive and less awkward as a viewer. It was a little too intense, especially regarding the subject matter. This documentary has been a key piece of inspiration to me and as a director, the only thing I would have changed is those interviews. Apart from this, I will keep referring back to this documentary while we are creating ours.
WALK THE WALK - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-Fre3cezho
This documentary is interesting as it has multiple narratives and through reading comments and reading forums, people have both critiqued and praised the use of this technique. The documentary is about a fight between two boxers but it also has a narrative about the host/presenter Brian. The side narrative focuses on Brians life up to the moment of achieving one of his dreams (commentating on a boxing fight) which runs alongside the narrative of the fighters preparing for the fight.
It begins with a flash forward of the very end of the documentary. This means the viewer already knows what happens, which leaves less emphasis on what happens, but rather how we get there. I am going to use a fast forward to the race day in our own documentary will be a montage / high paced edit to excite the viewer, without giving away what happened. By doing this, it also tells the viewer right away what the documentary is about. A flash forward is a guaranteed way of letting the viewer know what the documentary focuses on, right at the very start while leaving a sense of mystery as we understand the story behind the man.
The use of archive footage is vital in grounding the documentary and telling the viewer why the subject matter is so important to the presenter. The particular use of this archive footage is to show the evolution of the presenter, from someone who struggled with whom they were, to then becoming the person they had always wanted. From this point onwards, we know that Brian has dedicated himself to achieving his dreams and learning from his past. It is important we get to see Brian and hear Brian this early on in the documentary so that as viewers, we are able to connect with him as a character very early on, meaning issues later in the documentary are more easily understandable from his point of view.
A directorial decision that is made early on in this documentary is that the presenter will be speaking to the person behind the camera, rather than at the camera directly. This is a way of making the conversation more natural as it seems the presenter is speaking to a producer rather than directly at the viewer. There are debates for which style is best for every documentary, but for this documentary, speaking to the person behind the camera relaxes the viewer into the story and doesn't allow the viewer to feel intimidated. I like the fact they have used multiple camera angles in this scene so it is not just the same shot for a long period. There could have been some movement from the main camera, however, because when you are filming, this style really highlights the lack of movement, as the rest of the documentary has a lot. It could have done with some handheld shots, possibly cutaways of hands, eyes etc, to fully capture the cinematic style and showing the emotions and feelings that the presenter has.
The use of intense cutaways is present throughout this documentary. The director ensures to capture a UC/U in most scenes which adds to the dramatic style seen throughout. The power of an extreme close up is that it gives the viewer a very distinct emotion when the shot is on screen. Whether this is a punch, a close up of the microphone, it evokes an emotion in the viewer and these shots are placed throughout meaning it keeps the viewer's attention. The use of extreme close-ups also enables the film to feel faster as when the whole shot is taken up by one thing it shows every single little movement. Some of the extreme close-ups drag on for too long in this documentary which can have the other effect and slow it down. Extreme close-ups are very dramatic and they should be used sparingly so that it does not saturate the documentary with similar shots. Too much of any shot makes it feel repetitive and boring. For our documentary, I will start it with a flash forward and a various amount of extreme close-ups so the viewer feels the intensity and drama. But after the opening scene, I will use extreme close-ups sparingly so that they are only used when an emotion needs to be shown. Overuse could cause the tone of the documentary to be wrong, which would be easy to do.
Very early on we also hear the voice of the man behind the camera, this fully breaks the 4th wall and enables the viewer to feel apart of the documentary. It was a good directorial decision to let the camera operator have an active voice in the documentary as it enables the presenter to be more natural and have conversations that they would normally have, which draws less attention to the camera.
This film relies on handheld shots which feel a lot more raw and natural, whereas tripod shots are much more staged and don't work for PTC’s of this nature. Being handheld also allows the camera to react to situations and when the documentary is focussed on an event which has the possibility of sudden movement. Being handheld is going to be vital in enabling the viewer to see the situations for what they really are. There will be a few select scenes in my documentary where a tripod is used to create action while maintaining professionalism, by being very close to the subject matter. This will be mixed with the use of handheld cinematography it will create a cinematic style which is visually pleasing and engages the viewer in every scene.
Some of the directorial decisions would have happened on the spot while shooting this documentary. I have realised through my research into creating this style of the documentary, you can never be 100% sure of what is going to happen. In one scene, Brian is in the car signing which really humanises him and allows us to make another emotional connection. It would have been in Laurence's notes as a director to humanise Brian and make the viewer feel like he is just "one of us", but it is hard to script those scenes. In this case, it was shot with an iPhone, but the sequence itself is not irrelevant. This sequence shows Brian being natural and who he really is which shows us that his persona throughout the documentary is not faked. It is inevitable that when a camera is filming for reactions to be heightened or changed. But when someone is filming without your knowledge it does enable a firm truth about the presenter and who they really are. These clips also enable the viewer to compare the person on camera to the one who doesn't know they are being filmed.
Something I did not expect was the directorial decision to cut between self-shot footage and recorded footage from the event. At first, I was against the use of TV Coverage as I felt it lowered the overall quality of the video. It felt pretty clear that the TV Coverage broke up the story and took away from the cinematic style that was brought to us in the rest of the film. Upon further reflection, I see why Laurence chose to use this as a director. This footage enables the viewer to gain a wider perspective of what is happening in the fight, rather than using all self-shot footage which to some could be seen as bias. I am still going to self-shoot a lot of our race footage, even though there seems to be a camera crew at every event. This would enable us to have more creative freedom that if we only used the footage shot by the series. By doing this it enables us to keep the tone consistent throughout.
In the middle of the fight, there is an intense scene where Brian (who is commentating) is speaking really fast and hyping up a situation. The director must have talked with the editor in the edit as this has sequence is very fast paced and starts to show shots from earlier on in the documentary to help heighten the drama. Mixing shots of waves and trains helped increase the drama and these supposedly random images are actually from Brian's previous storytelling sequences about his life earlier on in the documentary. This was a very clever directorial decision as the images of Brian's life are now mixing with the boxing fight, showing a dream coming together. The director would have worked closely with the editor to make sure this moment happened at the right part of the documentary. This is the moment where the viewer realises Brian has got his dream role of commentating and the passion really comes through in this intense scene.
The director does appear throughout as a voice and on screen. This shows the in-depth planning needed as a director to get the shots you want while being on screen. This will be like our documentary so I will need to know how and when to pass over control. It is interesting to know that the director actually directed this, but also knew he would be on screen. His role will not be as prominent as mine will be, but I can learn a lesson about planning a scene when I will actively be in it. I have already spoken to the group regarding the issue of directing and presenting. We have decided that I will direct, as usual in any scene where I am not on actively present. But for any sequence where I know, I will be involved, I will make sure to send a lot of reference material to the group so they know how I want that particular scene to be shot. This will be vital to the success of our project because I won't be able to make the directorial calls while I am in front of the camera. This is undoubtedly something the director of this project would have struggled with as in his previous work he was always behind the camera. But once he is in front of the camera more, he has to hand the responsibility he held to others.
I have mixed opinions on the ending, I like how he admits his mistakes as a commentator and talks about what he could do differently. He explains how he has changed because of the experience, all are things which should be included in an ending. I feel the director set this scene in the wrong location, to show the contrast of how far he has come, it should have been shot in Newcastle, his hometown. It would have worked better there, to bring the story back to where it all started. That is something I will be doing. While the main ending may be the race, I would like the documentaries closing thoughts to be at a motor racing track, as that is fitting with the documentary. Using the same room as previously used to tell stories growing up (The Diary Room) does set the tone for the scene. WALK THE WALK could have finished the story back where it started, it would have given the ending more credibility and meaning.
Both documentaries allowed me to question my script and helped me make the key decisions needed to make this documentary more personal. This inspiration has meant that my approach as a director is now much clearer than it was when I started this project, as it was hard to understand where the role would start and end. My directorial approach can be seen fully in my director's statement, which covers each scene of my documentary in more detail.
