The search for knowledge is the basis of my life. Whether it's research, field study, theoretical - I am all about seeking new information and new takes on the subjects.
I am also a screenwriter who works on fictional feature works and episodics, but is expanding with our other production company that handles documentaries and docuseries. It has me pondering why some documentaries are like eating Chinese food, an hour later, I cannot recall what I saw or why I sat throught it. Then, again, there are others that I watch repeatedly and get completely immersed.
Here's some of the problems I see with certain documentaries that keep them from being exceptionally informative and worth owning or rewatching.
Narration
There are a few kinds of narration for documentaries.
*Low-budget ones, often the producer or director, even the writer, will narrate. This can create that vacant stare and daydreaming mode among the viewers. It rattles on. It has no emphysis or refinement. It is impossible to identify with the narrator and, because it is their project, we enter as viewers assuming that they aren't going to be objective. The exception for this one is if the documentary maker is also a practiced public figure, perhaps a trusted doctor or spiritualist.
*With a great budget and intellectually sexy subject matter, it might have an a-lister narrating. If they get someone like Morgan Freeman narrating, there is instant comfort and trust. The viewer sits in front of the TV or computer caught up in the storytelling.
This higher budget with an a-lister can go wrong if a politically vocal or angry actor is narrating as they can cause instant distrust. Someone full of their own bloated ego, like Robert DeNiro or Whoopie Goldberg, would cut off a large audience. When a star can shut their trap about their indignant political posturing and smarter-than-thou talking down to the unwashed masses, then they can have an unlimited audience. Josh Gates is a good example of a narrator who does not carry any political agenda and never talks down to the public.
*Others, use trained professional narrators with perfect Midwestern dialects. We know the types, like the narrator for Ancient Aliens. There are documentaries of Bigfoot and UFOs and such that I can rewatch over and over again because the narrator is expressive, but neutral. I don't feel like I'm sitting at the feet of a verbose movie star or sitting through a fifth grade teacher's history lecture.
*Today , there are many that use AI voices - you see this a lot on YouTube videos. Thera are videos on YouTube that I immediately ignore or stop listening to because the first giveaway is a thumbnail that looks sensational with AI generated images of news reporters or disfigured pictures of celebrities. Then, as you listen to them, the AI generated voices are not only missing a soul, but misprounce words. This reminds me of when you put on a video of dogs playing outdoors to leave on for your dog while you're at work. The dog regards the fake world presented to him with utter disdain.
Effects
Artistic renderings and animations, AI recreations, charts and graphs. All of these are included in most documenatries. Ideally, these are sprinkled throughout the film. As well, graphs and charts are kept at a minimum. Letting AI take over and not monitoring the content is a dangerous territory. I watched a documentary about Georgia after moving here, hoping to learn about its beauty. As they spoke of the mountains and beauty or exact locations, AI pulled up mountains in Switzerland and amazing locations that were not Georgia. This discredits all information in the film. CGI and AI creations can be fascinating views of things that we may not be able to film like alien planets and cryptids in the forests and sea, but overly dramatized scenes feel like the documentary makers are trying to control your take away after viewing.
Perhaps the filmmakers want you to see something as dark and scary, threatening because they think Bigfoot is evil, or maybe they exaggerate the surface of the moon to make it seem like an alien rest stop. You know you're being led to their conclusion. So far as the animations, with any artistic endeavor, a nature-based documentary using high tech looking imagery is not within its brand, it feels confusing.
Witness Interviews
Witness interviews are important to documentaries - very important. Let's look at it this way: Do you want to hear the doctor talk about the health complication or do you want to hear the patient describe what it's like? There is the source of knowledge and then the aspect that has practical knowledge. Often times, a witness talking about and recreating a visual for you, including the emotions, will have the audience riveted.
One of my biggest complaints about documentaries is when they have a "talking head" facing the camera and explaining something to the audience for long periods of time. Mentally, we check out. There's telling and then there's showing.
Scoring
That soundtrack in the background, the Foley (sound effects) really sets a tone but it also manipulates the interest of the audience. When notes rise up or become vibratory, we lean forward.
What doesn't work is having a loud scoring while the viewer is supposed to be hearing the Bigfoot walking through the forest. It is also annoying when it's music set in a loop.
There's nothing like having an audience leave the viewing with an ear worm that annoys for hours and hours on end. The volume of the scoring is vital.
The silent moments are important. When someone whispers, we think they have something important to say and we lean in. The same goes with scoring. Those silent moments suspend us fully alert.
Treatment of the subject
Audiences that enjoy documentaries are not dummies. We certainly know when a documentary plans to push us through a narrow spectrum to come to their conclusion.
Audiences that enjoy documentaries are not dummies. We certainly know when a documentary plans to push us through a narrow spectrum to come to their conclusion.
I run into this with research in general.
Some filmmakers enter a study with a conclusion and they only present or even contort the evidence to support that belief. That isn't being educated. It's being indoctrinated.
If you study a subject with humility and no conclusions, the evidence you accure will eventually give you a conclusion, sometimes one that totally surprises you.
There are documentary makers who really want you to feel evil for eating animal flesh or perhaps a lemming for getting a vaccine. These politically-motivated documentaries are pretty obvious by their titles and their descriptions. They tell you the conclusion they are giving evidence for throughout their documentary.
Educational benefits
There are (hopefully) tons of research done for the documentary. Ideally, sources can be cited. One thing documentaries often do wrong is to not educate basic information. Let's say it's a documentary about quantum physics, it behooves the filmmaker to explain what quantum physics is. Ideally, they give lots of information with many possible conclusions and allows the viewer to go out and seek more info.
There are (hopefully) tons of research done for the documentary. Ideally, sources can be cited. One thing documentaries often do wrong is to not educate basic information. Let's say it's a documentary about quantum physics, it behooves the filmmaker to explain what quantum physics is. Ideally, they give lots of information with many possible conclusions and allows the viewer to go out and seek more info.
B-Roll
B-roll is all that gorgeous footage of a location in nature, or perhaps a city with people rushing on sidewalks, or farmlands with rows of crops. These are worked into the documentary for setting and perspective of the subject matter. Good B-roll is relevant and artistically shot, maybe a drone capture or a perspective that gives mood through lighting and cloud cover or color and activity. This grounds the viewer in a world that is being discussed and a location to enter mentally. Bad B-roll is either poor quality, inappropriate for the narration, or too lengthy to where the audience forgets the subject matter and gets involved in a field of cattle for four minutes.
B-roll is all that gorgeous footage of a location in nature, or perhaps a city with people rushing on sidewalks, or farmlands with rows of crops. These are worked into the documentary for setting and perspective of the subject matter. Good B-roll is relevant and artistically shot, maybe a drone capture or a perspective that gives mood through lighting and cloud cover or color and activity. This grounds the viewer in a world that is being discussed and a location to enter mentally. Bad B-roll is either poor quality, inappropriate for the narration, or too lengthy to where the audience forgets the subject matter and gets involved in a field of cattle for four minutes.
When a documentary reels you in with a dynamic and curious opening, with visuals, music, and narration that set the tone for interest and mystery - they gotcha!
I cannot wait to start on the documentaries and docuseries. I promise they will be subjects that GHT readers will adore!