Yesterday’s excellent discussion briefly touched on a topic that I’d like to explore further in the blog: the issue of time and documentary. Both Julia Lesage and Alex Gibney (in his interview with Gary Crowdus) mention in the assigned reading the question of documentaries presenting information, knowledge, and/or an argument in a limited amount of time. Lesage writes: “What is the relation of all this [torture epistephilia] to the documentary films about torture? Well, they are a short way to sift through all this information and come to an understanding of the situation in about ninety minutes. The viewer may gain only a provisional understanding but it’s a beginning” (p.14 of the PDF). Later, she notes, when discussing the limits on torture epistephilia: “Feature-length documentaries have to edit to an approximately ninety-minute length. So a director’s pursuit of knowledge cannot be replicated in the film" (p. 15). Meanwhile, when Crowdus expresses his desire to have American documentaries be in a longer format (for ex., 5 hours long), Gibney responds: “The frustrating thing is that you get to a certain point where you need to be able to tell the story, and you tell it properly at a certain length. Inevitably, during the editorial process, if you step away from the film for a while, and then come back and watch it, you see huge places where it just sags, and you start to lose viewers” (p.36).
Their statements lead me to ask you your opinions on this issue of time and documentary. Do you think that there is an “ideal” length for a documentary, so that the filmmaker is able to present the information and arguments (s)he wishes to convey but, simultaneously, does not lose viewers? Do you believe that filmmakers will always have to choose between these two possibilities - either the documentary sacrifices knowledge in order to stay within a 90-120 minute format and appeal to a wider audience, or the film is far more comprehensive in scope but risks a narrow spectatorship because of its length? Which approach should be endorsed and why? Is there a “happy” medium? How does a documentarian achieve it?
Is the true problem that filmmakers have not found the ideal length for a documentary or that the form has tried to compete with traditional box-office cinema? If filmmakers are reaching out to the same audience as a Hollywood feauture film (and who is that audience, the everyman? the armchair academic? the politico?), then they are justifiably constrained, just as a writer seeking magazine readership decides against an epic poem, in favor of 1500 paragraphed words.
ReplyDeleteIs there an "ideal" size for a photograph? 5x7 or 8x10 fit in photo albums I can buy at Wal-Mart, and are offered in CVS one-hour photo, but to create an artistic work that truly conveys all of the meaning a photographer wants, would they only display 5x7 or 8x10 prints?
A documentary that seeks to capture mass (albeit the small, determined mass) appeal is certainly constrained by the limitations of film-watching culture, yet that is still such a specific type of documentary film. A truly engaging, artistic piece, wide in scope, should not be constrained by the length requirements of the modern film viewer, Shoah being the prime example.
Gibney is one hundred percent correct. As a storyteller, a documentarian must recognize how to captivate an audience while conveying the information he/she needs to tell. If he/she cannot do that without staying true to the story, the information, and the audience's attention span, then he/she will have a film that is either too boring, too uninformative, or too short/long.
ReplyDeleteHowever, what is most important to realize is that 90-120 minutes is a restriction only limited to that of a feature-length film. If a filmmaker has a longer, more in-depth and detail-oriented story to tell, why then could he/she not separate it into two or three parts, as in a continuous story broken up into a trilogy? Or what about breaking it up into 12 22 minute TV episodes? A story should not be confined by time or medium. If a documentary needs more screen presence, then turn it into a web series.
A good filmmaker and/or film editor should be able to keep an audience interested regardless of the length of the film. In regards to what Lowell wrote, Ken Burns works a lot in long formats, and in the case of his "Civil War" series (for one example) he did extremely well with it. He made historical documentaries more popular with the general public then they ever had been before. It kicked off a whole series of Civil War feature films, and started a Civil War re-enactment craze that is still going strong today.
ReplyDeleteI also think a lot of depends on the subject matter and how much you want to explore it. I don't think you can cover something like WWII and the Holocaust in 90 minutes. At least not to the degree that will bring any full understanding and logical conclusions.
And then again... I also feel that some "subjects" can be beat to death by the end of 90 minutes!
As is already coming up in the previous posts, there are a lot of considerations that go into determining the length of a documentary film. A big consideration is audience. As John P pointed out, documentary filmmakers who want their films to be seen by "mainstream" audiences have to take into consideration the standards that those audiences are used to. If that's not the audience they are going for then they shouldn't feel limited to those standards but they need to be aware how it is going to change who does and doesn't see their film. As John R mentioned, and something I agree with, is that a good filmmaker or editor should be able to put together a story that keeps the audience engaged, regardless of length. That's the creative talent behind making a documentary film, finding ways to present information in a manner that intrigues and engages the audience. However, I think even films that are incredibly well made can be overlooked due to run times. When a person hears that a film is 3 or 4 hours long, he or she may be deterred from watching it right then and there, regardless of subject matter or the quality of the film itself. So these are all considerations that have to be taken into account when you're putting your film together. It's unfortunate that a longer run time can lose viewers, but it's just the way it is. It falls to the individual filmmaker to decide what can and can't be sacrificed when making a documentary.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, the documentary genre must be bound to the restrictions of time. Informational documentaries can feature dense subject matters, and elongating their run time to fit in all the information regarding a given topic would make the film even denser. To gain commercial success and appeal across a wide viewing audience, I believe the doc genre should adhere to the 90 minute format.
ReplyDeleteOne of the first reading assignments we had this year argued that documentaries and narrative films are not all that different. Both contain perspective, tell a story, can have a narrative story structure, etc. In the same manner, docs should adhere to the same time frame as their narrative counterparts.
Why the 90 minute format? I don't really know, but when I think about my personal viewing habits, I know that it's hard for me to stay interested in a film lasting much longer than that. Even with regards to TV, I know I enjoy half hour comedies or dramadies more than the hour-long drama format.
If documentaries are to present information to satiate the epistephilia of the viewing audience, then the best way to do that is keeping the documentary restrained to a the typical feature film time format, even if that means sacrificing information.
I have to agree with Katie on this one. Not only are documentaries and narrative films not all that different, I believe they're becoming even less different as we have seen in this class so far. If audiences perceive a documentary to be so similiar to other forms of narrative entertainment, they are naturaly going to have the same time limit expectations from them. One example that comes to my mind, although it is a narrative, so how many people I heard saying that the last Lord of the Rings installment was far too long, and that at several points they expected the film to be over, but it just kept going. Fortunately, many of the people that made it to the last Lord of the Rings installment were fans of the trilogy and continued to be entertained anyway. I can't imagine that being the case for a documentary, even one that played out like narrative.
ReplyDeleteAnd while the sole purpose of a documentary may not be strictly to entertain, but rather to inform, how do you get an audience if you don't entertain? It may be disappointing that our culture isn't so eager to learn that we'll sit down and watch a fully informative documentary for as long as it takes for the filmmaker to completely cover the topic at hand, but we won't. So in that case, isn't getting the audience and getting as much information across as possible the most important goal? If that small look at a huge topic gets a viewer really, really interested, I believe that they'll go seek out more information on their own.
This is a useful question, especially to those who are documentary creators. My approach, would be, and has been, to first consider the audience. Is the project intended for mass exposure or for a niche audience to appreciate? More concentrated audiences who take interest in something more obscure will be more likely to consume whatever media is directed towards that given subject. In those cases, the more the better. On the contrary, if the audience is a more general one, more care must be taken in order to appease a wider demographic and retain their interest.
ReplyDeleteMy experience tells me that documentary filmmakers often juggle two major priorities: to make the film they want to make, and to make the film that an audience will enjoy. Finding balance between the two differs from project to project, but in many ways gives the creator the means to make a suitable film for their intended audience.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe questionable thing for me in relation to the length of documentaries to be around the length of feature films, is that the result seems to be an emphasis on the emotional aspects of the issue over focusing on a more tedious analysis of facts. The reasons for this are fairly obvious, and I'm thankful that most documentaries don't feel the need to act like a high-paced reading of a text-book. However, there are some disconcerting aspects on principle I feel with the realization that most documentaries sacrifice informational qualities for view-ability.
ReplyDeleteThis concern is especially strong in me when thinking about documentaries like Taxi to the Dark Side, that’s focus is on such an important and in-depth political issue as torture. While it is described in the article by Lesage that there seems to be a “torture epistephilia” in the American public, or thirst for knowledge on torture, it seems peculiar to me that most are satisfied with documentaries that act more as cursory dramas on the issue then exploring the topic fully. While there is certainly nothing wrong with people watching Taxi to the Dark Side, nor do I have any issue with what it presents, it is worrisome to me that it probably becomes the end-all source for many on the topic. Mainly because in order to convey the message in the length allotted, the film seems to take on many of the tactics of the people it criticizes to achieve its goals. The film seems to focus its energies on its affect over viewers, favoring many emotionally charged points over more objective arguments, something I wish wasn’t necessary for any argument around torture. There’s something unsettling about this, and if it is justifiable I’m not really sure.
I agree 100% with what Lowell is saying here. There is an art to documentary filmmaking, and the filmmaker will make a documentary with a message to tell. It is their job to control the medium in a way that will allow them to accurately and effectively get their message across. The reception of the audience is a very large obstacle to overcome, and there are many ways to do that. Whatever you can do, you have to get that message out.
ReplyDeleteI think the artist needs to know their audience, or at least who they're shooting for. If you're trying to reach a broad audience, it's probably best to keep the focus pretty general. That way, you get people interested, and they might want to come back for more.
ReplyDeleteIf the director wants to reach those people who are already aware of the topic, then he/she should add more content to the specifics. I wouldn't be against the idea of making one doc that's very broad, and then maybe a second, longer one that really gets into it. I also like the idea of splitting the thing up into several pieces. Sure, make a miniseries out of it. It worked for Planet Earth, and its sequel Life. Try jamming that much content into 90 minutes!
But yeah, going over 3 hours for a movie would be seriously pushing it. I don't think anyone wants to spend that much time sitting in a theater.
I think these questions are really rooted in one thing: purpose. If someone wants to make a 5 hour long documentary ingrained in facts with substantiated evidence, that's great...but who will watch it? Probably a very select group of people.
ReplyDeleteThe truth is, a documentary will not appeal to a wide audience if it is that long. Even narrative features have a hard time keeping an audience that long. If it is shorter, it has a better shot at getting out tot he most people, which would benefit the filmmakers, as their message would be heard.
I think what Lowell said about format is absolutely right. If the director wanted a more in-depth project, the could have potentially made it a mini-series. With just a few episodes, you could have well over five hours or informations. And let's be honest, nobody will watch a five hour documentary about torture. It just won't happen.
ReplyDeleteBut I get that it is an issue, because often when there is so much complex stuff to talk about, the filmmaker doesn't want to lose us but also doesn't want to misrepresent the information. It's a line, I guess, that every documentary filmmaker must learn to to balance between.