Initial Stages

1. Make a working hypothesis.
2. Begin site research; that is, familiarize yourself with:

   • People and situations that you are thinking of using. Take time to get to know each other and trust each other’s motives.

   • Find out what’s typical in the world you are going to film.
   • Find out what’s unusual, unexpected, and particular.
   • Stay loose. Keep explanations to potential participants broad and tentative so you don’t paint yourself into a corner.

     A documentary is only as good as the thinking that goes into it, and this is where most people feel insecure. The key is a solid working hypothesis and periodic revision.

3. Do background research; that is:
   • Use the Internet to find useful references and ideas.
   • Study publications such as magazines, newspapers, professional journals, and even fiction. Any of these may offer useful ideas and observations.
   • See all other films on your subject, but maybe only after you have formulated your own approach.

   • Talk to experts. Documentarians routinely depend on the expertise of specialists, on those devoted to or involved in what you’re filming. Often they have an extensive network of contacts and their word on your authenticity can act like a passport. Be aware that experts rarely know what a lay audience needs.

     Since you are always a surrogate for a first-time audience, not being an expert in the film’s subject is a positive advantage. Experts seldom understand what a lay audience needs—that is your expertise.

4. Develop trust:
   • Communicate. Make yourself, and a broad version of your purposes, known to whomever you may want to film. Let them question you on your values and purposes and answer briefly but truthfully.

   • Learn. Parry some questions with questions of your own. Put yourself in the position of learning from them, the experts. Hang out with likely participants.

     Never commit yourself to anyone or anything in the early stages of research, however strongly you feel it’s a foregone conclusion. Things can still change.

5. Make reality checks to ensure that:
   • You have multiple perspectives on each person, fact, or facet, especially when there are ambiguities.
   • What you want to film is accessible.
   • People are amenable and cooperative.
   • Releases and permissions will be forthcoming.
   • The resources you will need are not beyond your means.

Advanced Working Hypothesis

The advanced working hypothesis in Project 2-DP-4 (Figure 21-1) is similar to the basic one in Project 2-DP-3 referred to earlier in the of (1) point of view and (2) point of view’s influence over style. This capitalizes on important discussions in Part 6: Advanced Documentary Aesthetics, and helps you more fully develop the foundation for your next film.

Quantitative Research

FIGURE 21-1 Prompts to help create an advanced working hypothesis.

(See definition in box.) Information of this kind can weigh a film down, but knowing the factual and numerical framework lets you assert, for instance, that many accountants take early retirement, or cite other causes and effects. If birthcomplications rise sharply after a county has dismissed all its midwives, but not in the counties that retained them, you can argue persuasively that midwives are useful and deserve to be reinstated.

You should fact-check what anybody alleges in your film before you rely on it. Cross-check important facts in at least two authoritative sources; you’ll be surprised how oft-quoted “historical facts” have acquired gravitas through exchange and repetition. If several figures are in circulation, use the least extreme. Your credibility rests on information that can’t be discredited. Be aware that the Internet is replete with dubious facts, incorrect spellings, and wild accusations of all kinds. Much posted there is a tendentious effort to persuade.

Qualitative Research

(See definition in box.) Most research for documentaries is qualitative and involves using your intuition and making subjective judgments for which, however, there are some safeguards. The more closely you work with partners, the more you can cross-check your ideas and impressions with other reliable minds. Pay careful attention to your teammates’ impressions and reservations, especially those from the other gender. You should also discreetly cross-check opinions and feelings among those knowledgeable. If, for instance, you are doing a town hall story and someone tells you in confidence that the mayor “is very authoritarian,” questions should reflexively pop up in your mind:

What agenda might the teller have? If you believed him and then found out later that the mayor fired him for incompetence, you’d look really dumb.

How reliable is the informant’s source? Was this assessment made first-hand from dealings with the mayor, or is it hearsay from television reporting that was itself recycled from newspaper articles?

Everything and everyone (including yourself) are biased simply because it’s human to be subjective. So prolong the conversation with your informant to flush out all the information you can. Tap his views on unrelated issues to see how perceptive and fair he seems across the board and what his attitudes to authority are in general. Talk to other knowledgeable people to see whether, without revealing your source, you can validate or invalidate something potentially important that you’ve been told.

Avoid leading questions (“Do you think the mayor is authoritarian?”) and instead ask open questions (for instance, “What kind of person is the mayor?”) that give no hint of what you expect. One person calls him “principled, firm, and a little humorless;” another says he’s “loyal to supporters, a bitaustere, and not the best listener.” A third thinks he’s “a rough diamond” and “has done quite a bit of good for the town.” A more rounded profile is emerging that is significant for what it omits: Nobody says the mayor is corrupt, a bad manager, or unpopular.

Trust

Unfortunately, documentarians have been known to abuse the trust placed in them by participants. A woman factory worker once spoke candidly and trustingly to a colleague about sexual morals among her female coworkers. When the film went out over the air, her fellow workers were outraged and beat her up the next day. The (male) director apparently knew this was a risk and gambled with her safety for the sake of a more sensational film.

Usually nothing comparable is at risk, and reading a standardized list of possible consequences to each potential participant would scare most people away from filming. You should, however, explain possible risks to anyone who deserves fair warning. Investigative filmmaking is a little different since the very existence of an investigation is enough warning to those of mature age and judgment.

When seeking (or not seeking) permission, outright subterfuge is sometimes justified. When someone has butchered defenseless people, you may be amply justified in using deception to get their testimony, as Claude Lanzmann did in Shoah (1985, France). He got the testimony of a Nazi officer from Treblinka camp by posing as a French historian wanting to “restore the balance of truth” to the historical record. In the light of what the man had done, most people, like Lanzmann, would have no scruples about deceiving him. Such clarity is rare; usually it’s not black-and-white issues we deal with but shades of gray.

Observation

Depending on circumstances, being an observer can be comfortable or uncomfortable. When you hang out with a local sports team and they accept your aims, you can watch what’s going on and concentrate on developing your awareness. However, show up at a union meeting as an unknown with aims that seem uncertain or deceptive, and you will be very unwelcome.

Wherever possible, gain access through someone trusted by the community; otherwise, be prepared to repeatedly explain yourself in broad terms until everybody seems satisfied. Do be sociable and communicative, as this lowers tension. Do join in if you are invited into group activities and be ready to make a fool of yourself as part of your entry test. Standing aside would make you seem judgmental and as though you are with-holding your opinions. Shared experience brings people together, although it will fool nobody that you are one of the group. I once made a sponsored film about a body-changing technique. The foundation asked me to take the full 12 sessions with a practitioner, which I did. It gave me the all-important patient’s view and led to an exceptional rapport.

Keeping Notes

Making audio or video recordings during your earliest research may put those you are meeting for the first time of mostly unrewarding watching and listening. Better is to note key phrases that people use to jog your memory. Afterwards, read over your notes, expand them where necessary to make them intelligible before your memory fades, and write out any important thoughts, impressions, and intuitions. These will be helpful if you want to pursue particular issues during an interview.

Writing is an important structuring activity that enables your mind to develop initial ideas further. Keep interpretative writing separate; should your notes ever be subpoenaed, you need only produce the notes that people saw you writing, not the more revealing and speculative writing you did in private afterwards.

Compromising Yourself

Loyalties and obligations develop between yourself and your participants and lead you into thickets of ethical dilemma. A single example: You are planning a film about the victims of a housing scam whom you get to know and like. You also gain the confidence of the perpetrators, wealthy property developers who offer you hospitality. Refusing might tip them off to your disapproval of their practices, so you go out, eat an expensive dinner, and laugh at their jokes. When you next visit their victims, you feel compromised from sleeping with the enemy. Even if you let this be known, it would be unwise to confide more than a sketchy idea of what you learned, or you will turn into a double agent.

Casting

Choose participants with the utmost care, since mistaken casting can conceivably land you with someone who evades, distorts, or even manipulates the process. The longer you delay recognizing this during a shoot, the more difficult it will be to extricate yourself. Guard against this by deferring casting decisions as long as possible before shooting. The longer you watch people in action, the less chance you will miscalculate. To avoid bad choices, beware of those who:

• Are overly anxious to participate and try too hard to interest you
• Have an ax to grind
• Think you are going to profit from using them and want money for their participation

At the other end of the spectrum is the anxious personality who:

• Fantasizes calamitous consequences from participating
• Is overly dependent on the good opinion of others
• Is fearful of appearing critical about anything or anybody

You choose people for their characteristics and for what they know. Documentaries must often present conflicting accounts, so you choose those whose presence is going to be persuasive.

Testimony and Witnesses

By flushing out conflicting accounts, the audience, like any jury, can assess people’s motives and decide what “really happened.” So:

In the investigative documentary we frequently see testimony by a range of witnesses to support or undermine key allegations. Testimony is strong when:

• It conveys compelling facts or information.
• It is primary evidence that consists of opinions and inferences based on their own firsthand perceptions.
• Witnesses use reliable principles or methods to interpret those facts.

Testimony is weak when:

• The witness has already heard the testimony of other witnesses.
• It involves hearsay.
• It involves specialization that exceeds the witness’ competency.

Witnesses:

• Should be open to challenge by others involved in the issue.
• May not get all the facts until just before shooting or during it and on-camera. This can be explosive but also ethically dubious.

Texts and archives as well as material from the camera and sound recorder provide their own kind of testimony. What they demonstrate can be enigmatic or misleading and not appear so. Each is an authored construct that should be open to question:

The images, sounds, and speech you collect will provide the evidence for your film’s actions, atmosphere, ideas, conditions, and appearances. The audience cannot ask for elaboration, so the filmmaker must anticipate when the jury needs context, confirmation, or interpretation.

Marshaling your Evidence

During research, group the evidence you have gathered under a series of headings. With a long and involved film, you may need to enter key information in a database. This allows you two important opportunities:

Try giving each item a credibility rating. If you can work in the upper half of that hierarchy, the proof will be strong and most convincing. When it comes time to film: