Documentary for the Small Screen

Paul Kriwaczek

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 1997
• eBook ISBN: 9781136044892
• Topic: Media & Performing Arts
• Subtopic: Film & Video

Film and video have grown to be as significant in our time as books, newspapers and magazines. Documentary film-making is fast becoming as important and useful a skill as the ability to write well. Like writing, it can be learned by anyone.

Film and video have grown to be as significant in our time as books, newspapers and magazines. Documentary film-making is fast becoming as important and useful a skill as the ability to write well. Like writing, it can be learned by anyone.

Documentary for the small screen is both for those who are new to documentary film-making but want to know how to create productions of a professional standard, as well as for those already working in the medium who wish to improve their skills by taking a closer look at the way they carry out their tasks. It is written in a logical, straightforward way, the first half taking the reader through an analysis of what documentary actually is, to constructing it through developing the story and assembling the appropriate building-blocks. In the second part, the pre-production stages of preparing proposals, costings and outlines, and researching the subject are all carefully examined, as are production planning and the shoot, followed by the post-production stages involved in editing and reviewing the completed film.

Paul Kriwaczek is an award winning documentary maker who has a wealth of experience to pass on, having worked for many years at BBC Television where he wrote, directed and produced documentary, drama, music and science programmes.

Part III

Producing a Television Documentary

Section A

Pre-production

Chapter 11

The Proposal

Almost every documentary begins with a proposal. Unless a filmmaker is lucky enough to be able to work entirely from his or her own financial resources, some commissioning body or other will have to be persuaded to underwrite the project. The task of the proposal is to get somebody to say: ‘yes I will fund this idea.’ To get that to happen the film-maker must first identify potential commissioning organizations and then present the concept in as clear, as attractive and as persuasive a way as possible.

Where?

A documentary maker with an idea to propose must first to decide where to send it. An independent film-maker, or one at the start of his or her career usually has two options: to go directly to a broadcaster or distributor, or to approach an established production company. The benefit of the first course is that it cuts out the middleman—and the middleman’s percentage of whatever profit there may be. Working in the second way, through an established production company, has two advantages. The first is that unless the film-maker has a company of his or her own with limited personal liability, if anything goes wrong, the film-maker is left financially responsible for the mess. The second advantage is that an established production company is likely to have good relations with a number of executive or commissioning producers among the broadcasters. One must remember that commissioning a film or video production involves the broadcaster in a financial risk. The money may be spent without the production living up to expectations. Many broadcasters try to minimize that risk by selecting producers and production companies with a known track record, with whom they have worked before and whose professionalism they trust. On the other hand, they are also always under pressure to develop new ideas and new talent.

If the film-maker decides to go it alone, he or she will need a knowledge of available television channels and funding bodies, as well as of who is responsible for commissioning their work. It is not very hard to get this information. Many film-makers will be aware of their locally accessible television or cable networks and production companies as well as other possible sources of finance. In some places handbooks published by a film-maker’s group or association will contain the necessary information.

Where such a source of addresses does not exist, a documentarist’s best way forward is to ask the advice of other colleagues and film-makers. Some film-makers are afraid to do so in case the person to whom they speak steals the idea. Bringing a subject to a production company’s attention may possibly stimulate the company to develop the idea itself. There is no copyright in ideas—just in the way they are realized. In truth, although this does sometimes happen, it is really rather rare. Most documentary makers are honest and few creative people would wish to spend their time and energy on a second-hand theme. After all, a bare idea is usually so general that it is something nearly everyone will already have thought of it at some time or another. The risk of plagiarism is far outweighed by the advantages of sharing knowledge and information resources.

Different countries and states work in different ways. In some, like Britain, funding for the whole process from start to finish is usually provided by the broadcasting organizations. It is they who will pay not only for shooting and editing the production, but also for the development from a preliminary idea into a fully fledged working treatment. In other countries, the documentarist will have to find support from other sources, as the broadcasters will only come in to provide finance for the actual production when all the preparatory work and research has been done, and a complete ‘dossier’ has been compiled. In a few places, such support is provided by the state, elsewhere private financial institutions play the funding role.

Very often the amount of money from any single source will not be sufficient to cover all costs. Today, more and more filmmakers are having to approach a number of different backers at the same time, putting together a package of complex financial deals. Many television documentaries are credited on the screen as ‘co-productions’, which once used to mean little more than co-finance arrangements, one leading partner taking editorial control of the work and the others simply coming in with a share of the money. These days co-production frequently implies an active involvement by all the named parties. The film-maker often has to perform a difficult balancing act to satisfy a number of collaborators, even in the form of collaboration known as ‘presale’, in which the right to show the film is purchased in advance at an advantageous price.

It can be especially hard if the co-production is an international one and the local culture of each different organization demands a different approach. British-American co-productions are one example of such a conflict. Though the culture of British television and that of the American Public Broadcasting Service are not so very dissimilar, other US channels, such as Discovery, A & E or Disney, have a very different outlook and favour very different styles. Collaboration between a producer in Britain and one in France or Germany involve a different kind of complication, even though the broadcasting culture may not be dissimilar. Co-productions involving countries which use different languages may even make it necessary to allow for the film to be shot in more than one language at the same time. If the film is in-vision presenter led, this may mean having more than one presenter standing by at each location; alternative interviews may need to be shot in more than one language, separate graphics—titles at least—may need to be prepared for each language. All this is within the realm of the possible, but it does increase costs which must be allowed for in the initial budget.

Where the film-maker is looking for partners to finance the production, it may be necessary to create different proposals for different funding bodies. Not, of course, to tell each a different story, but to make sure that the aspects of the story most relevant to each target organization are made quite clear. Some broadcasters are above all concerned with the factual content of the suggested film, often requiring detailed support and references from acknowledged experts in the production’s field, others are far more concerned with the artistic treatment proposed and wish to see it described in detail.

Who?

Having identified a suitable organization, the next task is to discover to whom in particular to send it. Here it will be necessary to identify the specific department or strand of programming for which the concept would make suitable fare. The only way of really getting to know the subjects and styles favoured by the different strands of output coming from a broadcaster or production company is study: watching the output carefully, and noting the names of the executive or series producers responsible. For example, it does even the best of ideas no favours if it demands the use of a presenter when the strand under consideration invariably restricts itself to voice-over commentary.

The prospective film-maker should take account not only of customary style of a commissioning organization but also of the range of subjects covered over time—and not just in the strand in question. If a documentary about the same subject as the film-maker wishes to propose has recently been shown, even elsewhere, it is extremely unlikely that another bite at the same cherry will be commissioned. Unfortunately the quality of what has already been broadcast is not an issue here. It doesn’t help to protest: ‘Yes, I know that you recently showed a film about X but it wasn’t very good, whereas mine will be.’

A film-maker with an idea to put forward will need to be familiar with other factors too: the kind of treatment the subjects are given in this strand of programming, the sort of budget allowed for—estimated if necessary from the perceived production values—and, last but not least, the length. It is not unknown for a naïve film-maker to send a proposal for a one-hour film to the editor of a strand of half-hour programmes.

Each commissioning producer or strand editor has his or her own likes and dislikes, favourite subjects, preferred formats. When writing the proposal it is obviously an advantage to know what they are. Mostly they are not mysterious or difficult to find out. A telephone call is often all that is needed to get a good idea of what the commissioning editor is looking for. Some broadcasters in the UK hold open days for their different sections, at which the person responsible for commissioning new programmes meets potential film-makers and makes clear the kind of production currently being favoured. These meetings are organized in the UK by PACT, the independent producers’ association. Similar meetings have been held elsewhere in Europe under the auspices of the European Union’s Media project. Going to open days and other such events is useful for the independent film-maker working alone, not only to find out more about what the market is looking for but also to meet other documentary makers and compare notes.

What?

The proposal will of course be written in such a way as to attract the commissioning editor who reads it. One must not forget that such individuals receive huge numbers of proposals every week. What does a commissioning editor want to know initially? In the experience of most documentary makers, the answer is three things above all:

1 What is it about?

2 Who is in it?

3 What will it show on the screen?

and in some cases, important though not over-ridingly so, a fourth:

4 How much will it cost?

In addition, some commissioning organizations may require further information in order to consider an idea for production. These details usually relate to their specific needs. Educational television broadcasters or producers, for example, are likely to want to be given a detailed account of the intended audience and the educational aims of the proposed film. Some broadcasters openly publish their proposal requirements, others depend on prospective film-makers speaking directly to the person responsible for commissioning work.

Note that the above list is hardly different from what would be in the billing—the published promotion for the programme in a newspaper or magazine tv listing. That is not surprising, given that the person commissioning the work will try to respond to the idea as an ordinary viewer, and is likely, therefore, to be attracted to precisely the same kind of production as are the general public. In addition the commissioning editor’s first task will be to ‘sell’ the film to whoever makes up the channel’s schedule. After that, the production will have to be promoted to the audience. A proposal which from the very beginning suggests to the broadcaster how it might best be pitched is likely to be received more warmly than one which depends on the commissioning producer’s imagination to see its potential. (However, documentary makers should be wary of making claims that are not achievable. It is one thing to claim that, say, Sean Connery or Robert Redford will be the presenter, quite another to convince the broadcaster or production company that the big star has agreed to take part and will appear at a price that the budget can afford.)

The proposal should be a concise account o...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Half Title Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• Preface
• I The Nature of Television Documentary
• 1 Introduction
• 2 What is a Television Documentary?
• 3 How do we Start?
• 4 Telling the Story
• II Constructing a Television Documentary
• Section A: Building the Story
• 5 The Building Blocks
• Section B: The Tools
• 6 The Lens
• 7 The Microphone
• Section C: Building the Form
• 8 The Frame
• 9 The Shot
• 10 The Sequence
• III Producing a Television Documentary
• Section A: Pre-production
• 11 The Proposal
• 12 Costing a Production
• 13 Outline, Treatment, Script
• 14 Research
• Section B: Production
• 15 Production Planning
• 16 The Shoot
• Section C: Post-production
• 17 Editing
• 18 The Review
• Index