Pre Production - Research Into Directors of Autobiographical Documentaries

This blog is going to focus on the directors of autobiographical documentaries. I want to understand why they made the decisions they did when creating their film. I will also compare their work to other productions they have directed to see if they continue with a specific visual style.

"WALK THE WALK" By Laurence McKenna
I want to research Laurence McKenna because he has created a number of documentaries for the YouTube platform which have been directed to create thought-provoking pieces which are accessible to a large audience. YouTube is a platform which has recently enabled people to have a voice and share stories which would not have been possible before the creation of social media sites. As it is now much easier to broadcast your documentary, it means more and more people are able to show their talents. The reason I chose to research Laurence, in particular, is because I have seen a few of his latest documentaries, and the way stories are told and filmed got me thinking of different techniques I could introduce into my own work.

I will focus on "WALK THE WALK" by the Youtube channel XO and which was directed my Laurence McKenna. This documentary has multiple narratives and through reading comments and forums people have both criticised and praised the use of multiple narratives. The documentary is about a fight between two boxers but also has a narrative about the host/presenter Brian. This second narrative focuses on Brian’s life up to the moment of achieving one of his dreams (commentating on a boxing match) which runs alongside the narrative of the preparation for the fight and the fight itself.

The first thing I noticed was that, as soon as the documentary starts, there is a flash forward to the very end of the documentary. This means the viewer already knows the result, which leaves less emphasis on what happens, but rather more on how it happened. This documentary was released several weeks after the actual fight meaning most people knew the outcome. Therefore, making the documentary and creating hype and build up to a result we all knew, would be pointless. We were actually going to use a fast forward to the race day in our own documentary, but to a slightly different effect. We do not want to show the result, instead of having a montage / high paced edit to excite the viewer, without giving away what happened. By doing this in the McKenna documentary, it immediately establishes a context for the viewer. It would be easy to start with Brian talking about his life but the viewer may not understand what the point of the documentary is. A flash forward is a guaranteed way of letting the viewer know where the focus is from the outset.

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 who they were, to become the person they had always wanted to be. 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 and hear Brian early in the film so that, as viewers, we are able to connect with him as a character. Later in the documentary, we are more easily able to understand his point of view. The opening monologue along with the archive footage enables the viewer to grasp an understanding of the presenter. As the director, Laurence would have to carefully pick out archive footage to match the story that is being told. While planning my own documentary, I am finding it hard to link the visuals to what I think is going to be said. This means you need to have an open mind as a director as something could be said in the documentary, and you need to then work with the editors and camera crew to make sure we get a cover shot or archive footage of that moment.

A directorial decision that is made early on in the McKenna 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 and also breaks the 4th wall. It is a matter for debate which style is best for each documentary, but for this one, I think speaking to the person behind the camera eases the viewer into the story and it doesn't feel like the story is being told to them directly. When I watch this documentary I feel like I can relate to Brian and it almost feels like we have known each other our whole lives. That feeling is created by asking the presenter to "just talk" about ideas you want to highlight, instead of speaking to the camera with a script. Looking at this from a directors standpoint, 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. I feel that there could have been some movement because when you are filming in a style where the presenter is speaking to someone behind the camera, it makes two static cameras seem too staged. What is being used here is a very strange hybrid of a "staged" interview along with an "off the cuff” chat. It could have benefitted from some handheld shots, possibly cutaways of hands, eyes etc, to fully capture the cinematic style of breaking the fourth wall and showing the emotions and feelings that the presenter has. I like the final cut of the scene, but I find it hard to connect with Brian when he has been put into a location to share his thoughts. He normally speaks better when the topic is being discussed in an unstructured way at a random location or as a voiceover. However, I fully understand why the director has used a standard location for this element as it allows the viewer to understand what is going to be talked about once we come back to this room later on in the documentary. As soon as the viewer sees this room and these shots they know that a part of his life story is going to be told.

Something that Laurence does very well throughout this documentary is to use very intense cutaway shots. This is something I would have liked to have been in the PTC scene we have just talked about. 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 mic (see left) or someone's eyes, 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. I think, however, that some of the extreme close-ups drag on for too long in this documentary which can have the reverse effect and slow it down. This could be because they did not have enough other cover shots or because they actually wanted that scene to be slow. Extreme close-ups are very dramatic and I feel they should be used sparingly so that it does not saturate the documentary. Too much of any shot makes it feel repetitive and boring. For our documentary, I want to start it with a flash forward and various extreme close-ups so the viewer feels the intensity and drama. But after the opening scene in my project, I want extreme close-ups to be used 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 a part of the documentary. I think it was a good directorial decision by Laurence 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, even without the camera. This scene is shot handheld, as is the majority of the documentary and that is something that Laurence as a director would have discussed right at the start. Handheld shots feel a lot more raw and natural, whereas tripod shots are much more staged and generally don't work for PTC's on the move in documentaries anyway. Being handheld also allows the camera to react to situations and when the documentary is focussed on an event which has sudden movement, being handheld is very important in enabling the viewer to see what has happened. This is one of the reasons I decided to focus on this documentary as it carries a lot of traits I will use in my project. 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 by being very close to the subject matter, but mixed with the use of handheld cinematography it will create the style I want.

Throughout the documentary, Brian hardly ever looks directly at the camera. This would have been a directorial decision that was stuck to throughout the process. I like that the majority of the film is shot like this, but I feel that it would have been good to have a couple of scenes where he directly addressed the camera so that the viewer realises this is a serious topic/discussion and not quite as simple as it may seem from the documentary. I learned from this documentary that I want to shoot the majority of my documentary handheld, not speaking directly to the camera. But, I feel there will be a few scenes where a fixed camera would be used as I talk directly into the camera to reinforce a point or heighten the drama, almost as a way of unsettling the viewer.

Some parts of Laurence's directorial decisions would have happened on the spot. I have realised through my research into creating this style of documentary that you can never be completely sure of what is going to happen. So sometimes, as in this documentary, shots are created on the spot without any thought. In this scene, Brian is in the car singing which really humanises him. It would have probably 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 looks like the shot is filmed with an iPhone, but the sequence itself is not irrelevant. It shows Brian being natural and who he really is. It is inevitable that when you are aware of being filmed your reactions will be more self-conscious. Clips filmed without your knowledge allow the viewer to better judge your character.

One thing I have been interested in doing in my documentary from the start is showing some "behind the scenes" moments in the actual piece. This is also done in WALK THE WALK as is shown when they are micing up one of the fighters. This could have easily been removed, but I think Laurence as the director either needed this footage to bridge an OOV voice or wanted to include the process of creating a documentary in the actual documentary. The process of making a documentary often seems to feature in the end result. This is probably because unplanned events influence the way they are made. I personally really enjoy "behind the scenes" snippets because it makes the production feel a lot more authentic and shows the stages that the whole crew had to go through in creating it. It can also help transition from scene to scene. While planning my documentary I have struggled with transitions between certain scenes and this could be an option for a few of them. However, I think it is apparent that if you overuse a technique or style the impact is lost. By doing it sparingly the effect is greater.

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 the rest of the film was using. However, upon further reflection and watching the documentary multiple times, I see why Laurence chose this style. It enables the viewer to gain a wider perspective of what is happening in the fight, rather than using all self-shot footage from the camera operators making the documentary. It enables the documentary to change perspective and the viewer to see a completely unbiased view of events. I am still undecided whether this is the best idea for our documentary. There seems to be a camera crew at every event, but we are unsure if we can obtain the license to use it in the documentary and with 40 cars on the track, specific coverage for my team would be sparse. This may be a route we take after the filming is complete and we can see if we are allowed to use the TV coverage in our documentary.

In the middle of the fight there is an intense scene where Brian, the commentator is speaking really fast and hyping up a situation. The director must have talked with the editor in the edit as this sequence is very fast paced and starts to show shots from earlier on in the documentary. Mixing shots of waves and trains helped heighten the drama and these supposedly random images are actually from Brian's storytelling moments 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. This is the moment in the story where the multiple narratives join together in one intense moment of commentary. The director would have worked closely with the editor to make sure this moment happened at the right part of the documentary. It was timed well and this is the first moment in the fight where Brian is speaking very passionately in the commentary. 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.

There is an interesting use of masking in the edit. This would have been a directorial decision as once again by doing this it makes the scene more dramatic. It also enables the viewer to see the man behind the voice and his emotions and how invested he is in the fight. It would be hard to tell if Brian was just shouting or actually very passionate unless we have the shot of him. These are blended well together to create a sequence which ramps up the intensity and definitely makes the viewer more engaged in the fight.

Laurence 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. Our documentary will use the same technique so I will need to know when to pass over control. It is interesting to note that Laurence directed but also knew he would be on screen. His role was not as prominent as mine will be, but I feel I can learn a lesson about planning a scene when I will also 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, any scene where I am not on screen. For any sequence where I know I will be involved, I will send reference material to the group so they know how I want the scene to be shot. This will be vital to the success of our project because I won't be able to make the call when I am in front of the camera. This may be something Laurence struggled with as in his previous work he was always behind the camera. Once in front of the camera, he has to hand the responsibility to others.

What is also interesting is how Laurence decided there should be an L cut when it cuts back to a scene from earlier in the documentary. The interview from earlier says "the best thing that ever happened to me" while the next line of the commentary is "Joe is struggling a lot here". This would have been a directorial decision made after all the footage was together as that sequence is only powerful because the director knew the end result. The reason it was done like this was to show how much it meant to Joe, which hits hard when we realise he is badly losing the fight. When creating my project, I always need to be open to the script slightly changing and we could find a better way of telling the story. As with this example, we could notice something that was said early on the documentary that only gains significance once the story has played out. Laurence would have reviewed the footage once it was all complete and then made this decision. I found this interesting as I would have normally thought the director's job was pretty much done once filming is complete. However, after watching a lot of source material, I realise that the director plays a key role in decisions made in the edit.

I have mixed opinions about 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 and all are things which should be included in an ending. I feel, however, that the scene is in the wrong location. I think to show the contrast in how far he has come, it should have been shot in Newcastle, his hometown, like the scenes of him remembering his past. It would have worked better there, to bring the story back to where it all started. That is something I want to do. While the main ending may be the race, I would like the closing thoughts to be at a motor racing track, as that fits with the purpose of my documentary.

I have certainly learned a lot about Laurence's directorial approach while looking into this documentary. I have since watched more videos that he directed on XO and they follow a similar style in terms of directorial approach (Very cinematic shots, "raw" moments and intense close-ups) But the editing is certainly different, many of the regular videos are faster paced and cut a lot quicker. This documentary certainly made me think that being a director can work even when you are on camera, but planning and a great crew are what make that possible. I feel the biggest thing learned from studying Laurence and this documentary is not to limit myself to the script. If you feel a scene will work a different way when it comes to the filming or edit, give it a go. The final script will most likely not look much like the original script. Sometimes a story can be told better once you know all the facts and have all the footage. I feel that if they had stuck to the original plan in every area the documentary could have lost the cinematic feel and quality. New ideas should always be considered, as it will make the documentary better by the end of the production.


CHRIS HOY - FROM VELODROME TO LE MANS (Directed by Christian Trumble)
Next, I wanted to focus on a motorsport specific autobiographical documentary to see if there were any special quirks when directing something very unique. The story is about Sir Chris Hoy's journey to race in the largest motor race in the world, the Le Mans 24 Hours.

This documentary has a very odd beginning, in my opinion. We start on the morning of the Le Mans 24 hour race and we see that Chris is ready for the race. While this does create some emphasis on the journey to the moment we are seeing, I would have preferred the documentary to start with a more personal look at his feelings. If you did not know who Chris Hoy was this opening would not get your attention, nor would it if you were not a motorsport fan. I am trying to understand the audience for this documentary as appears to be aimed at a wide audience, but a lot of the content is for motorsport fans. It is a weird hybrid and the introduction doesn't clearly set out what we are going to learn in this journey. What I have learned from this is, the introduction needs to be eye catching. We need stunning shots and intense music to draw the viewer in, especially if they are not a motorsport fan. The introduction to the Chris Hoy documentary didn't leave me with any sort of special feeling as the shots are generic and the soundtrack does not build up the event. Both this and my documentary are trying to build and "hype" up an event, so making it seem dramatic is key. Therefore, for our documentary, I want to have a more intense montage sequence opening our documentary, with punchy shots which are either close-ups or ultra close-ups, giving it a heart. I want the viewer to engage emotionally when watching the opening scene.

The story jumps around in this documentary, we start in "the future" then jump back to what we think is the start, then we jump back even further to gain a little more knowledge. The director seems to have over complicated the narrative to try and make it seem more interesting. However, I think by doing this (jumping back and forth) we start to lose any sort of interest in what may/may not happen. This is because we know he is going to race, we see him racing within the first few minutes. Saying this, I did like the fact that they went all the way back to the start and showed Chris's progression through motorsport and emphasise to the viewer that this is not a spur of the moment decision, he has been working on this for a while. The use of this archive footage shows Chris's passion for the sport and how he needed to find a replacement for competitive cycling. This insight also allows the general viewer to connect with Chris as his wife allows some glimpses into their life since Chris has started to compete in more motor races. Capturing these moments of honesty between characters is important in any documentary, however, it is even more important in an autobiographical documentary. This is where good teamwork between the director and the cinematographer will come into play. The cinematographer needs to predict what shots are going to be needed in the documentary to help create the tone. There is a certain amount a director can visualise, but sometimes things happen on the day that is unexpected. Test shoots with Cailan in our documentary will be vital as well as showing reference material about what broadcasts emotion well and what doesn't will be key in keeping our tone the same throughout.

As a director, I like the fact that the Chris Hoy documentary does not rely on stunning visuals to move the story along. They focus on getting moments that help improve the narrative and show the emotions of the characters. As previously mentioned, these shots will enable the viewer to connect with the characters and, if they do that, they will relate to the story. However, the documentary does not rely on handheld shots which simply capture the story, most scenes have a couple of establishing shots that introduce the location. The way that we can ensure we have a good mixture of reality and staged shots is to recce the track locations and know what will be accessible. I have already visualised some very cinematic shots to bridge scenes. An example is the Brands Hatch Iconography when driving into the track. Capture these moments and shots allow the documentary to be both natural and give the cinematographers some stylistic shots to attempt. A strong team connection will allow the emotion of the documentary to come through. This will be even more important because as the director and the subject matter, I will not be able to direct when I am in front of the camera.

One thing that I disliked about the Chris Hoy documentary was the use of a "Voice of God" rather than Chris narrating himself. I understand that he is more of a subject matter than a presenter, but I think his personality would have been able to shine through it he was doing the voice over and strengthen the connection between the viewer and him on screen. However, the Voice of God works well for delivering facts in a very intelligible way. The reason they did this could be because they wanted to ensure they had a neutral voice over to caveat anything that Chris said if needed. As a BBC 2 documentary, they try to remain as unbiased as possible, therefore that could be the reason why a Voice of God was used rather than the subject. If we had Chris voicing over as well, the documentary could become quite one-sided. For our documentary, we are aiming at a Channel 4 type audience, therefore I personally feel that if I voice over it will be better because we are not trying to remain unbiased and want to show the reality of the challenge I have set for myself. This does not have much to do with directing, but I do need to ensure that my commentary still fits the tone of the documentary and does not sound too informal.

Chris's personality definitely comes out as the documentary progresses. He has more time alone and we are able to see his quirks as a driver and human. I like that these are captured in a style not too dissimilar to a video diary or home video. These strengthen the connection between the viewer and Chris. These are handheld and not particularly amazing shots, but they are putting us in the moment and we feel a part of the journey when we are brought into his everyday life. An issue I am having when scripting and thinking how I am going to direct this is making sure I am natural in front of the camera. I know the shot I want as a director, and, as I am in the film, I need to be able to relinquish control when I am facing the camera. Camera tests of PTC's are going to be vital in enabling me to relax as a director on shoot days where I am involved. If I become involved it breaks the continuity and loses some of the honesty which moves the story along. Setting up too many scenes will also be counterproductive. As a director, I have already included an ideal camera angle and sequence, but it is up to the cinematographer to adjust to the situation and stray away from the storyboards when needed.

Throughout the Chris Hoy documentary, something the director does well is capturing the mini-stories of other "characters" in the project who we also see develop and change as the story goes on. This is very important in the overall narrative arc so that we see a progression in everyone, not just Chris. Chris's journey is only happening because of the people around him, and seeing how they react to him and learn with him is as interesting as his own story. As a director for our documentary, capturing these moments of actuality from other members of this project (like my teammate Sam) will be important to the tone of the project. The more external sources and voices we hear that are directly connected to the race/me, the better. They help tell my story better and we need to hear from them. I have written down in the script, some events that could take place while I am on track to evoke these emotions in other characters, but it will be down to the producer and camera operator to ensure these moments are captured in the ways I have planned. I am a big fan of including other contributors as it adds weight to the story, as long as they are still telling the story we want, we should include as many as possible!

In the Chris Hoy documentary, editing of the final race is actually really interesting. They are using a large mix of clips, some self-shot and some from the television crew there for the event. They are mixed together to heighten the drama and engage the viewer in the race. The director would have known that he would have had access to the clips otherwise it would have changed the way that he would have told the story. However, with access to this footage and commentary, I think it helps fill in the viewer without reverting back to the Voice of God every few minutes. Directing our project, I am unsure we will have access to any separate TV footage and as I am not notable in any way I doubt my name would be mentioned in the commentary. Therefore, we are going to station multiple cameras around the track and make our race sequence more of a montage. If we get access to any TV Coverage we may change this in the edit, but I personally feel we should try something unique and go for a very visually pleasing sequence with some bold shots. They would stand out and make it something different from the majority of motorsport documentaries.

As for shot types used in Chris Hoy's show, I liked the use of onboard cameras, they really put you in the position of him as a character in the show and allow us to see his emotions and movements while in the car. In our film, we will have more in-car space and need to take advantage of this. It will enable us to put 2 or even 3 cameras inside the car and take greater advantage of this viewing dimension. As a director, I will be sure to capitalise on the affordability of modern high quality action cameras to capture some vital moments in the car. As for outboard shots, the Chris Hoy show generally picks wider angles which are provided by the TV companies so that they show a broader perspective, but they do not create a great cinematic effect. I think, by stationing multiple cameras around the track, it will enable us to capture the shots we really want, rather than using footage shot for another means. I want to focus on close-ups and ultra close-ups in the race with possibly a mix to the pitlane every so often and maybe an ultra wide shot very occasionally to show scale, or for a brief pause. The intensity is important for me in the race scene, and in the Chris Hoy documentary, that intensity is lacking because of the shots they used.

The documentary had a great ending, however, one that really shows the emotion of the whole project. It may not have been apparent throughout the documentary, but we finally see Chris let go and release his emotions. It is powerful as we do not expect an Olympic gold medal winning cyclist to be in tears after finishing very low down in his class. The reason it is emotional is that the race had meant so much to him and had finally happened. This once again, is where spontaneity by the camera operator is key to capturing the shot. As I will be driving or at least, preoccupied, I need to trust Cailan to be ready to capture the moments of emotion, whether that be happiness, sadness or something else. As a director, I can be helpful in showing reference footage and possibly trying to film it myself, and create the cinematic effect I want to show in the ideal world. However, I am fully aware that we must not stage actuality or plan it too far otherwise it detracts from the story and is less meaningful.

Overall both documentaries have helped me understand my role as a director in different ways. Merging my role as director with the scriptwriter is not much of an issue, but learning to distance myself when being the presenter is key. Understanding how a scene could play out is important, but ensuring it isn't staged is more important, to ensure that we show a natural run of events. This research has enabled me to develop as a director and change some of my ideas and events to ensure they are capturing actuality. As a director I know I will be aware that the crew may not get the shot I initially planned, but it will be for the better if the shot it is one showing genuine emotion because that is what you want as a director of a project like this. You need the viewer to feel something.

Pre Production - Plausibility and The Legisitics

How Plausible is my project? 

As the director, writer and presenter in this project, I want to consider the plausibility of this project and start to think of what issues we could incur and how best we could solve them.

• I already have a car and team confirmed to help with the project. This means that all that needs to be done is when the 2019 racing calendar is ready, we can decide which event we will be filming. Then we will go about sorting out payment with the team. This has all been set aside in our budget and we are happy with how the budget lines up with the money we are putting together as a group.
• Trackside filming access will be no issue. I have obtained it many times over the summer while filming interviews for this project. George, as the producer, will be in charge of obtaining this access with the track. To ensure we pick the best filming locations, we will scout the location once and then obtain access to film trackside in a test shoot to make sure that the shots being created are the same to those planned.
• We need to source one or two additional cameras. We may be able to afford one in our budget, we will also rent alongside my personal equipment and one University Camera. I have personally already looked into cameras and suggested a number of cameras to the group. (Pansonic G7, Lumix G85, Sony A6300 and the Olympus E-M10). All four of these DSLR's capture 4K Quality and through videos watched on YouTube and Dailymotion would be able to film the high-speed sport of motor racing. 
• The most unpredictable circumstance will be obtaining the racing license. As long as I am methodical with my approach there should be no issue with this. But as a group, we are fully aware this could be a place where the documentary could end and the race would not happen. It still fits our narrative of how hard achieving your dream is, however, so we still have options of how the documentary could end. If the project did go in this direction we would have the option to focus on if failing the license would change my perspective on motorsport. Do I still want to pursue the dream? Does it give a new found respect for motor racing drivers at all levels? Has this changed me as a person and how disappointed am I? Of course, we do not want the documentary to end this way, but knowing what we could do if it does happen is vital otherwise we are left with a documentary with no end.  
• We understand as a group that motorsport can be dangerous, but with all of the safety equipment and precautions in modern motorsport, it is a subject we are happy to involve ourselves with. I have had the opportunity throughout the summer to understand this in more detail as I have gone trackside in Global motor racing events like the World Endurance Championship an DTM (German Touring Car Championship). I have been able to understand the safety concerns and how to conduct yourself when trackside. These experiences will enable me to share them with the group and show them how we can create a cinematic film while following all of the safety procedures. An example is you are often left with little room behind the barriers and may struggle to set up a tripod. This means on our location scout, we should see which barriers offer more space so we can set up our 2/3 cameras on tripods in those specific locations. 
• A lot of the interviews have already been completed. Before the summer I spoke with Simon who gave access to myself and a friend to film at various large motor races over the summer. We obtained some great footage and we think we got some interviews with great answers. We did not manage to get the answer needed, but it gives a good base of answers to help guide the documentary. We can film the rest of the interviews in the new year once the team comes together and have decided which interviews are needed to help the documentaries narrative. 
• The overall budget has been a worry since the start of this project. As a group, we all understood that doing a documentary on this subject (motorsport) would be expensive as the sport is one that costs a lot, even for regular fans. Along with George, we have been looking through the sequence I have planned as a director and worked out a good idea of how expensive each item and sequence should cost. (picture below). George created this "cost-map" with guidance from myself on items he was unsure about. We all agreed before the project started to put in 500 as a minimum, but now the costs have been provisionally worked out, we have spoken more and agreed 600 each would be completely fine. 

What are the logistics of my Project?

• Each filming location will be located inside of England meaning we will be able to drive to each location, locations which will be confirmed as soon as we know where the race is being held and what interviews we need to obtain. We will normally be a team of 3 (myself, George and Cailan) but for the test day and race day, we want 4 or 5 cameras to cover each area (multiple trackside & garage/pitlane) so that we do not miss any of the key events that will happen during this documentary. 
• One way we have decided that will help with communication, is the use of walkie-talkies. These, as shown above, have been allocated to our budget. We think this will be an effective way for all crew members keeping in contact. We will test these when we are on location at Brands Hatch or Donnington Park when doing a location scout or camera test. (The 2019 calendar will be revealed in late 2018) 
• As the director/presenter/driver I will not be able to "direct" scenes on the test and race days. This is where effective teamwork with George and Cailan will make this less of a challenge. Through camera tests and location scouts, I will be able to decide what shots I want in specific scenes. However when I am out on the track, I will not be able to communicate with the rest of the crew, this means George will become the director on those days and make sure the shots I will have planned are taken out. Cailan will know the shots inside out at this point and will be able to help out camera assistants in what shots are needed. Communication will need to be very clear for these days and while I will be focusing on driving, I personally want to be involved with the crew and understand what is going on. This will ease my nerves and hopefully enable me to perform better out on track!
• Sourcing filming equipment may also be a logistical hassle. We have access to 3x 4K Cameras at my Home (Mine + Families) along with 2 Go Pro's that record in 4K. We will have access to the Universities 4K Panasonic and Cailan is buying a 4K camera. We also may decide to hire a 4K Camera that shoots slow motion for one day (either the main race day or testing)
• Transporting that equipment also could provide us with a small issue. There will be a lot of kit on both the test session and the main race day. We may have to take two cars on these days to make sure we have all 5/6 cameras, tripods, extra equipment and the people who will actually use them! We will certainly have to see how to fit all the equipment into the cars.
• Over the coming weeks, we will understand other possible circumstances that we may incur. When those present themselves, I will update the situation in a blog post. At this stage, we are happy with how realistic this project is. There are many things to plan and finalise, but as third-year students we have learned a lot from previous projects and can put that into place in this unit. 

Pre Production - Who is my Audience? Where Will This be Broadcast? What Genre is it?

THE AUDIENCE

The channel has a target audience of 16-34 and has a variety of content, including comedies and dramas, sport, documentaries and more. The content on BBC is aimed towards a younger audience and is currently reaching 8.5% of people in its intended reach.

Due to being an online-only platform since late 2015, BBC 3 does have a smaller reach than it's opponents channels. Even so, the Top BBC 3 iPlayer shows are still reaching over 1 million people, with Drama "Thirteen" being the highest at 3 million viewers. These numbers exceed what the channel what was getting as a Television station, with content receiving less than a million viewers, mostly between 600-800,000 on average. iPlayer use increased since BBC 3's switch to online and BBC 3's content receives over 7% of its total requests.

BBC3 online controller Damian Kavanagh has stated that he is not just after large audiences. He is focusing on broadcasting new and interesting ideas and increasing the viewer's engagement. Much of BBC 3's iPlayer content is now being uploaded onto YouTube to help reach a further audience. Their YouTube channel now has over 1 million subscribers and it's most viewed video has reached 12 million views. Our documentary is going to have a YouTube release as it will enable us to reach an audience who does not watch content via the iPlayer.

WHY BBC3?

BBC 3 is the ideal platform for this documentary. When watching their content you find yourself being interested in subjects that you were not even aware of, this is done by storytelling that engages the viewer in the subject matter. This is what our documentary wants to do for club-level motorsport. We are bringing the club-level Motorsport scene to the public, who may only be aware of Formula One beforehand. We will be able to do this by connecting the viewer to the emotional side of the story which will lead them to follow my journey and understanding the route taken by a racing driver.

BBC 3's mottos are clear - Here is how Dream Chaser fits into BBC 3's needs.

Why Now? - Timeliness and Relevance

British Motorsport is in it’s prime with Lewis Hamilton is battling for his 5th World Championship and younger British drivers are winning many of the lower categories. This documentary aims to show the issues they may have faced on their journey in motorsport and what kept them passionate about their dream.

It is a perfect time to illustrate this topic as many young motorsport fans in Britain will be intrigued by the success of our top athletes, this documentary will give perspective on what the journey is really like. Our angle of "chasing dreams" is something that is also always timely and relevant.

Talkability

This documentary is designed to get people talking. We want to make people question themselves as to why they never followed their dreams. From the motorsport side, as a fan of the sport, it always frustrates me people say "They just sit down and drive, they are not athletes". This statement could not be further from the truth and this documentary will help show the reality of the sport.

Once we show our journey we want to discuss how hard it was and if we feel differently towards our dreams, once we have completed them. This will ideally allow the viewer to evaluate their situation and set themselves some goals to achieve. We want to show a positive side of living a dream, even through all of the struggles to make it happen. This will enable people to question why they never went out their way to achieve a dream. We want people to really think about this question and we hope it will enable people to make a difference in their life and chase it.

Originality 

The subject matter of chasing your dreams isn't generally brought into the mainstream media or television culture unless something big happens that has changed peoples perspective on a situation. Once this is combined with Motorsport our show is truly unique and unlike any other show on BBC 3, while still being interesting and relevant to a large audience

There is no reason that this subject matter hasn't been talked about on a larger scale. It's definitely a passion project and the presenter and the staff around them need to be passionate about the subject matter to make a project like this. It will be exciting to explore a new route in Documentary making and understand a subject that we are passionate about and one that has never been talked about to this level before.

Why not another channel?

It's important to understand why this show is being broadcast to a BBC 3 audience rather than one of its competitors. This could have been Channel 4 or ITV2 as they have a similar audience age and style of content.

ITV2 and E4 had both gained popularity because of the change of BBC 3 over to an online-only platform. However, most of the gain in the audience was sitcom and reality Television that was transferred from BBC3 to Terrestrial Television and not content that the channel produced themselves.

ITV2 would not have suitable as it was very different to the style of the programme I a trying to achieve. The channel is aimed at reality television, not factual documentary storytelling. The show would not have fit the brand that ITV2 stands for and we did not want to change the story to fit a specific channels audience. 

Channel 4, like BBC 3 is a channel that supports more obscure ideas and documentaries. To try and gauge if Channel 4 or BBC3 was better, I started by looking through the current documentaries on Channel 4. Channel 4's factual documentaries typically inject more humour. Whereas BBC3 has a stronger emphasis on the story and the people behind it. BBC 3's documentaries certainly do include some humour, but that typically comes from a specific situation that happens, rather than being forced upon us by the presenter.

There are exceptions, but BBC 3 definitely has a style of documentary making that is present throughout. Example work by Reggie Yates and Stacey Dooley helps set the tone for the style of documentaries that BBC 3 is trying to create.

BBC 3 certainly fits the style of the documentary we are creating and it also produces a lot of short-form content which our project would fit under. The fact that BBC 3 is online-only does not affect our potential reach, however, as the best BBC 3 shows generally get aired on BBC 2 and sometimes on BBC 1 if they seem to be good enough. As BBC 3 also produces a lot of content on a tight budget, it fits perfectly with our plan of a total budget of under £2000.

What Genre is it and why is it this Genre?

The genre of this Documentary is "Self Exploratory" it could also be called a "Performative" Documentary in which the presenter (and filmmaker) is viewable to the audience. Performative pieces also include an "emotional response" to this subject. This style of documentary tries to make the viewer feel they are apart of the topic and give a perspective on the reality of a situation that the presenter is experiencing.

This documentary works best in this genre because it connects the viewer to the subject matter in a much more personal way than if it was a Participatory documentary where the presenter tries to be involved but not so much that they actually live the situations they surround themselves in. They simply ask people about situations instead of actually doing it, which can lead to the truth being slightly changed. Less perspective is given to the subject matter as the presenter themselves does not know how the situation actually feels

It also works much better than observational documentary storytelling as the viewer has little connection with the people on screen, as we would not know the backstory of the characters in this format. Observational documentaries also would distance us from the production value as you would have to place cameras in hidden positions so that it does not affect the reality of each scene. As soon as the camera is visible without knowledge, it can change peoples reactions and what they do.

We know that a Performative documentary allows myself as the contributor to be involved in the subject, meaning I am able to gain greater knowledge of the situation, giving us a deeper understanding of the issue. This format also allows us to be creative with our cinematography meaning we can test ourselves in new situations, rather than sticking to a format restricted by cinematography. This genre will allow us to explore our subject in the most genuine way, allowing our documentary to have a personal story which allows the viewer to connect.

References

The BBC 3 Audience: https://www.bbc.co.uk/commissioning/tv/articles/bbc-three 

BBC Viewing Figures: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/aug/22/bbc-youth-viewing-bbc3-tv-itv2-e4 

Performative Documentary https://collaborativedocumentary.wordpress.com/6-types-of-documentary/

Pre Production - Correspondence with George over Production Role

As previously mentioned, I had been thinking of this idea and starting to capture little parts of footage over the summer. However, to make sure that this documentary gives a fair representation of events, I would not be able to be the producer.

After discussing with Simon, the logical step was to ask George if he would be the producer as it would link well with his main role of being an editor. Simon mentioned that this documentary should be a true story of events and I should not really be making decisions of which segments make up this project and what parts are left in. For example, if something frustrating happens through the process, that needs to be shown. Even if it may make me look a certain way as the presenter.

To help George, I gave him some reference material to start working on what type of segments we should include in our Auto-Biographical journey in our documentary. This reference footage was what I thought would be relevant to understand what style and storytelling formats worked and which did not.

The reference footage I sent to George was as followed.

JOE WELLER: FIGHTER

















WALK THE WALK | KSI vs Joe Weller Documentary

Senna - 2011 Movie

Icarus - 2017 Movie
https://www.netflix.com/watch/80168079?trackId=251143950&tctx=2%2C0%2C1d440e3b-8dca-4410-b357-ad4e9179b917-5244555%2C4b2686b5-c5db-4a9a-80c9-81f9689a9266_82112556X10XX1533308849294%2C4b2686b5-c5db-4a9a-80c9-81f9689a9266_ROOT 

My Scientology Movie
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x60977x

The Insider: Reggie Yates
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p03ymv61/the-insider-reggie-yates-series-1-1-in-a-texan-jail

After a week of analysis, George got back to me with positives and Negatives of each film, this was the list I compiled of what we both decided worked and did not. This has allowed me to decide key moments in our script and enables our story to include as many of the good stylitic choices as possible.

It has also allowed me to question some of my previous decisions and adapt them into sequences that work with our project. This evolution will allow the script to go deeper and enable a better emotional conenection between myself and the viewer.

POSITIVES - WHAT WORKED?

1. The Keylight in Joe weller's documentary was great, it gave an intense look at his feeling and thoughts before the flight. This was shot in a dimly lit room bar the key light. 
2. Drone shots work but only if used sparingly, if they are overdone it starts to become annoying for the viewer
3. Walking and talking on location worked well. This gives the viewer an honest reflection of the character and is not staged, unlike most PTC sequences.
4. The power of silence and black screens or low light scenes is powerful. This can be used to enhance an emotion in the viewer. We will hope to capitalise on this and I have a few ideas for an opening sequence which could use the power of silence or the power of darkness. 
5. Video diary style segments worked, but George noted they could have been shot better, spending more time on these looking either more natural or real would help us connect with the subject matter and the presenter. 
6. Authentic Actuality, Unconstructed RAW sequences allow the viewer once again to connect to the subject matter. Sometimes setting up a sequence can lead to un-natural responses. 
7. Cutaways needed for all areas. Joe wellers documentary lacked the cutaways. WE MUST have a cutaway for every sequence, even if this means extra shoot days... It adds to the professionalism. 
8. Got to know the characters - eg. Joe's Mum was a character we warmed too because of her involvement. But once again, this worked because it was unscripted and natural. Forced interviews could bring out the same emotion in the viewer, but it is harder to recreate.
9. Movement, Walking into and out of venues, walking to places all helps the viewer connect with the presenter. This could include visiting places of the past that trigger emotions or bring back memories. For this documentary, Brands Hatch would be an example of a place we could revisit. 
10. A variety of close up shots to help show emotion as they are "in your face" for the viewer and they cannot ignore what is happening and what emotions the presenter is having. This could include obscure close-ups, low angle, Hands or even the helmet for our documentary.
11. It as noted that an energy point early on helped bring the hype of the subject matter. When it took a long time to have an action point, George said he struggled to remain focused on the documentary.   
12. Moments of comedy help bring the presenter to a human level, these cannot be faked, however. This needs to be natural. Broadcasting a wide range of emotions not just sad or happy.
13. Variance in interviews is needed, including some actuality sequences. If they are all shot the same, they will look the same and the viewer may not be engaged as well as if they are shot unique to the situation. 
14. Stock footage really helped out with the history of the idea and why it is important to the presenter. This will be important to me as I know I have stock footage from when I was younger at Brands Hatch. This being included in the documentary would be great in helping prove the point of how much this means to me. 
15. Being very selective of the parts of the interviews that are included will help narrow the piece down and not let an interview drag on. We will want short and snappy answers to keep the energy moving. 
16. Shots that match the scene are important, Tripod or Handheld. This has to work with what's being shot and what kind of emotion you're trying to create in the project. 
17. Narration drives the narrative in a lot of cases, we can use that to our advantage as we will not want to have someone on screen explaining every part of our documentary
18. Hearing something before seeing it can create a special kind of emotion in the viewer. Normally "shivers" as tension rises is an emotion that can heighten the drama of a certain situation.
19. Unique camera angles show off the cinematography. Cailan will be making decisions of what he wants the shots to look like.
20. George said the best documentaries are ones in which there is a clear story arc, building up to a moment and the realisation after it.
21. A feature that the Reggie Yates documentary did well was within the first 30 seconds you knew what the story was about. This sets the tone and objectives very early on. 
22. Regular updates help drive the narrative, but I personally think we should stay clear of the video diary style as I want our documentary to be more cinematic.
23. Placing affection on other people bar the main character can help us learn more about the situation and what is going on. If it is focussed on one person it can be hard to gauge what's happening around them.

NEGATIVES & WHAT TO AVOID

1. The pacing is key, The Joe weller documentary was too slow and George said it could easily have been condensed into a much shorter piece. Luckily we have a time limit and if anything too much content, so I think we should not struggle to make the pacing fast enough.
2. Further to that point, making sure segments don't drag is key as this can lose the attention of the viewer and therefore they may lose interest in the subject. 
3. The ending needs a defining endpoint, as this is a one-off show we can not leave it on some sort of cliffhanger. Our conclusion will include something along the lines of how hard motorsport is and how seriously it needs to be taken. 
4. The sound design needs to match the project. Too many times in the documentaries I sent George, the sound design just does not work with what is being told on screen. We hope to obtain a unique soundtrack for our project. This will be cailan's secondary job as George and I both will be working on two roles already.

OVERALL

The discussion with George about his opinions on these pieces really helped me understand what, as a producer, George thought worked. Now I have this information I will be able to start planning possible scenes and sections for the documentary. These will be forwarded to George though the pre-production unit and I will be told by him what scenes will be included and which ones will not. These are decisions George will make and I will then plan and add to the script. This discussion was very important in helping the project move forward. I'm very happy with the research George shared and we compiled a list of notes which will help drive this project forward. 

Pre Production - Week 2 Meeting with Simon

After bringing up the research that I had been continuing with over the past week which has been shown in my previous blog posts, Simon gave me some advice going forward.

After mentioning how my grades had improved from the first to the second he said it was important to dedicate time to the university as I had been doing over the second year to make sure the third year was a success. Reading the handbooks properly will be important to make sure we include all of the required information in blogs and essays etc.

The detail was good on the blog was good throughout the second year, bar a slight slip in the final unit of Transition which could have been better. Critical understanding rather than explaining what was going on was important. Detail and planning for the practical work were what let down the grade in the final unit. More time on the project before the film is key. This is very important as my roles mostly fall into pre-production as a director and writer.

Going through the handbook methodically and making sure you include will help. You cannot fail if you include each point included in the handbook.

For my pre-production, it would be important to talk about the advancements in technology. (This also links into my dissertation) As TV did not have any "Personal Journey" documentaries on TV before technology got smaller and portable and affordable and allowed people to record home movies. This created a new genre and sparked many people to show their journeys through certain subjects in the form of a documentary. This was in the 1980s and '90s. This will be an important route to follow in research. Where there any attempts into personal films in the early years of film cameras. Case Studies - Nick Broomfield, Louis Theroux. Also look at Auto-Biographical case studies like Supersize Me.

It is important to note that we are staging the story to enable us to make a piece. We did not see an event happening and then decide to film it.
After realising that... You need to understand....

• How this project is put together
• Ethics of the project (IS IT BEING HONEST?)
• How to remain objective

Important to include in THE PACKAGE

• MOOD BOARD
• STYLISTIC APPROACH
• DIRECTORIAL APPROACH

And then it is vital for the viewer to understand:

1. Where this project came from and why it's important
2. History of why I want to do this 
3. The personal side of the story 
4. Why I am doing this now
5. Why I am not doing this anyway

Time to starting thinking about the pitch and what to include, there is a chance that the project may not be "greenlit" straight away, I may be given an amber in which I may need to change a few parts of the project. - I hope to have planned thoroughly enough that it will be greenlit right away. The pitch should help alleviate any concerns previously held. 

Think about Locations - Correspondents - Contributors - Visuals 

Pre Production - CASE STUDY - Supersize Me

Supersize Me was the first case study I wanted to look at for research in Pre Production. Like the documentary we are going to make, the presenter goes on a journey and gets to understand a subject matter that fascinates him. Like our planned documentary also, the presenter is somewhat unaware of what will happen in the documentary and what events the documentary will throw up. I think it is a great show to examine from a Director's point of view as it shares a lot of traits which can learn from.

The show starts with hard-hitting facts and they are visualised on the screen to show how extreme they are. This certainly draws the viewer in right away to the subject matter and immediately we know what this show is about. I certainly admire the fact they have got the point of the documentary across within the first few minutes of the documentary. As for the graphics, I think they work well depending on the topic matter. It works well in Supersize me as they are trying to expose a fact and make it available to a wider audience. The graphics consolidate the point they are trying to make and if the graphics were not there, for some people, it may be hard to put into perspective how big of an issue fast food and people's weight is. I personally went backwards and forth thinking what would be best for our documentary, we aren't particularly trying to tell the viewer how bad a situation is via attention-grabbing facts, rather actuality sequences where the presenter is put through a number of tasks to reach an end goal. I personally feel graphics would come off tacky and look very out of place in our documentary. Especially, as I will talk about later, I want to take a more cinematic approach to film in comparison to this documentary and graphics on screen would not fit that directorial style.


Saying this, I did rather like the map with McDonald's plotted on a world map. The graphic did not linger and was only on the screen for a second, but like with the facts on screen, it really proved a point. Right away the viewer is felt astonished that there are so many McDonalds there are and for me personally it definitely made me think about how bad the modern world is to depend on fast food as much as we seemingly do. But once again, while thinking of sequences for our own documentary, I find it hard to think of a scenario right now that would warrant a large graphic on the screen. I personally feel both documentaries are trying to expose a hidden truth about the subject matter, but that does not mean they have to follow exactly the same Formula. As of writing this, I find it hard to think of a moment in our documentary that would warrant a large graphic. However, once I sit down with the team in January they may have a few ideas about how they could be implemented. I am certainly not counting out the use of graphics, but I personally struggle to see how they would help us tell our story better.


One small directorial decision I noticed was that the opening piece to camera was shot in an empty street with a wide angle lens on the camera. This is a somewhat daunting camera shot that is probably trying to show the scale of this documentary. I think this shot is being used to heighten the drama within the piece. The presenter is looking right at the camera and it is not a candid piece to camera in a car or walking. This is very direct and formal. I think this is being used to make sure the viewer realises, while there may be silly and funny moments during the documentary, the underlying message is that this is a serious topic that we all need to respect. This certainly made me think further about how we could open our documentary. I have various ways of opening it in my mind, a dramatic exercise sequence with panting breath, a car shot of a flashforward from the ending race day sequence or now, something like this. I personally feel this works well for supersize me. It focuses the viewer on the presenter and lets us see him before we start the challenge. This is important as we get an opening sequence to the camera which enables us to connect to him before he does anything. Without this PTC, we could lose that "bond" we have and need with the presenter to make the show intriguing and successful. I did personally not think about opening up our documentary this way, but this has certainly given me another way of opening our documentary.


The use of professionals quite early on in the documentary certainly put another layer of intrigue into this documentary. As professionals, they give the documentary more authenticity and it instantly makes the issue as important as it is. I did find the approach to feature them so early interesting, though. Personally, I would have liked to know more about the presenter and why he is attempting this challenge before we got to this sequence. You almost feel a little overwhelmed in the opening stages of Supersize Me as you have so many facts being told and shown on screen, it is hard to take them all in. I personally feel the opening 10 minutes of this documentary was to insense and rather dumps them on the viewer with facts and opinions. Saying this - The use of professionals is something I had somewhat overlooked while originally planning my documentary. I had one or two people, but probably not enough to make it feel involved in the subject matter. After thinking about other ways to include professionals I think I have a few ideas that will work for us. This was an important learning experience from watching this documentary. As without the figure of knowledge in your documentary, it is hard for there to be trust between the viewer and the documentary, as well as the documentary not having solid evidence behind it.

One small feature that I noticed was used throughout was the use of a soundtrack that built up to an event. The soundtrack was also used to set the tone for most sequences. As the documentary mixes between funny and happy moments and sad and serious moments it helps the viewer understand what they are supposed to feel in a certain moment. The sound is something that is sometimes overlooked and I have found in some of my previous projects that the sound has let down the project. In our group, we want to try and commision an original soundtrack, but I will also be working closely with George and Cailan to make sure the tone is correct through from pre-production all the way to the end of the editing stage. I think that this documentary does a great job with its use of sound. It certainly adds another layer to the show and makes sure the viewer feels the emotions that the directors and presenter were intending you to feel when they were making this show.

To make sure that this documentary is scientific, they include a sequence where the presenter goes through a fitness test and also weigh him and find out his general health. This sequence is vital in this documentary as it gives us a reference point for later in the documentary when they see what has happened. This sequence isn't drawn out and is almost played out like a montage. I think this sequence is not only interesting but placed in the documentary very well. This sequence made me think about how we can reference my journey and how we can show the evolution of my driving skills as well as myself as a person. I feel we should certainly have a sequence in our documentary near the start which shows me in the early stages and how I am. We could also do a fitness test, like in Supersize me. I could also show my development by showing my lap times of the circuit on my home racing simulator, this will hopefully show that I have got quicker! This sequence will be important in our documentary and I feel we should certainly have one in ours. I will brainstorm more ideas and discuss with Cailan and George about what else we could do to show evolution in myself.

Another sequence that inspired me was the sequence in which the presenter goes into the public and tried to understand more about the size of the issue and what people think about the issue. This is shot handheld and not very cinematic, but it gets the point across efficiently and in an authentic way. As these interviews with the public are not set up in advance, as the documentary maker you would not be sure exactly what is going to be said, but it does make the opinions more authentic and real. I'm not sure our subject would work so well with going up to random people, as our subject matter is not as broad as fast food. But I definitely think we should go to a kart track, where young racers are starting their careers. We should ask questions about costs, level of talent and motivation and fitness. I think this would help give another angle on our documentary as we get to see what people who want to make a career out of motorsport think about its incredible highs and tough lows.  I think this sequence will help the viewer understand motorsport and passion of the people on track. I feel our interviews may be staged a little more as we will need to be in contact before the event, but I think it may be best to keep the questions to ourselves so that we get authentic answers on the day.

Sequences that frequently appear in documentaries like this are car shots where the presenter gives opinions and thoughts and sometimes opens up to the camera more as the shots are not staged and have no moments of wondering what needs to be said. These sequences are great for when something important has happened in the documentary and we want to understand what the presenter is really thinking. They are not particularly cinematic but they add a humanising factor into any documentary where it is easy for the documentary to cut out sequences like this if they want to make it seem like things are easier than is a reality. Speaking with George and hearing his opinions about some of the reference material I sent him. He said car shots helped move the story along and helped us connect with the person who is going on this journey. I personally think these moments help us see the evolution of the presenter throughout the documentary as they feel like they are in a safe place and feel more comfortable in opening up and airing their honest thoughts. These shots are handheld and raw and I think these works really well in self-exploratory documentaries as we capture the presenter in a comfortable environment. We will certainly be using similar shots and sequences in our documentary as we will be able to show the journey in the most authentic way.

From my experience in documentary making, it is sometimes hard to get all of the facts and opinions to the viewers via pieces to camera and actuality sequences. The use of voiceover is then vital in filling in the gaps and helping guide the story. I think Supersize Me uses voiceover when it feels facts were left out or need reinforcing. This made me think about voiceover placement in our documentary. It can be very powerful in helping broadcast the emotions that you want the viewer to feel. As you can script the voiceover, it enables the voiceover to present facts and figures in a way that feels more natural than a piece to camera which, in a piece like, this may seem too forced. In our documentary I think we can use voiceover in actuality sequences where the presenter gives opinions on what is going on from a perspective after the footage has been reviewed. This can help add further context if there is something that happens at the time but it does not feel correct when filming to record a piece to camera. The use of voiceover will be a powerful tool in helping us move our story along and make sure authentic opinions are being shared.

Another filmmaking technique that proved successful in Supersize Me is the use of archive footage and reference material. In the case of supersize me, it allows the viewer to understand the scale of the issue and why fast food chains are brainwashing children with the amount of advertising. However, I feel in our documentary we can use reference material and archive footage to show how much motorsport means to me. I had old photos and videos of myself when I was younger attending events that got me hooked into motorsports. These reference clips will also show why this project is important to me and why I am willing to undergo all the stress of getting ready for a race. This material should also help connect the viewer to the presenter as they get to know me on another level, rather than just someone who wants to challenge themselves. I think the reference material could be occupied with either voiceover or with a piece to camera where I explain my history with the sport. Archive material always helps show the journey of the documentary. It shows that the documentary is, in fact, a small part of a long journey in motorsport which started many years before. This will also enable me to rewatch this archive material which will be nice and possibly bring out different emotions when filming.

The use of actuality sequences in Supersize me also enable us to connect to the presenter. As we get further and further into the documentary we start to learn the special quirks of the presenter and we feel we know them by the end of the show. Even if the actuality sequences are filmed rough and do not have much of a cinematic approach to them, what is important in these sequences is the growing connection between the viewer and the filmmakers and presenter. If everything was set up and formal it may not allow the viewer to connect and feel the emotions as well as if they are shot rough and "on the go". While I want our documentary to be more cinematic and have a long list of shot styles than Supersize Me, what the programme has enabled me to learn is that sometimes an actuality sequence is important in keeping the documentary truthful to itself and the viewer. Sometimes over-complicating a scene for cinematic quality loses the reality of a situation and then invalidates the point we will be trying to prove. The hard, honest, truth about motorsport won't be fully shown through lovely stylises shots. Rough sequences where you connect to the viewer will be important in the presenter's journey and the documentaries evolution.


One scene that stood out to me in the show, is one where they show an operation, it is quite graphic and shows scenes that will disturb many viewers. I found this sequence very uncomfortable to watch but I understand why it is there. The sequence is used to being a shock factor to the viewer to make them think hard about themselves and if they want something like this to happen to them. The use of needles as well as one that always affects me personally as I hate them! I personally would not like to go as graphic as this with our scenes, but as I am the presenter I will not be allowed to confirm exactly which scenes will be shown. If George as the editor thinks we should include them, then I will have to go by his word. If we wanted to include a sequence that includes shock factor, we could do something similar with a fitness test which pushes the presenter to the extreme. Another scenario could be an intense cycling or running scene in which the presenter is seen to be in pain which could be hard to watch as a viewer. Another way we could show a brutal sequence would be during an online race, we could see the stress that the presenter goes through when learning the circuit on an online gaming simulator. This last one, however, may not create a lot of emotion as a lot of people judge video games and may not think it is a serious sequence.

I think the conclusion to this documentary is very solid and backed up with hard truths and facts which leaves the viewer thinking about their personal situations. Referencing back to the earlier point in the documentary, they were able to compare the figures from the start to the end of the documentary. In this circumstance, it was seeing how much weight he gained and other issues he developed. Our documentary cannot really end the same way that this documentary ends as we won't have a factor we can measure at the start and the end. We will most certainly be able to see the evolution of lap times on video game simulators, but that will be finalised before my first race. I see our ending being something along the lines of "motorsport really is hard, you will have to make a lot of sacrifices to make it in this sport" and hopefully, that will have been proven throughout my journey into motorsport. How exactly this closing statement will be shot and presented is to be confirmed and I hope future reference material will be able to help me decide which way would be best in concluding our documentary.


This documentary has helped me learn about storytelling techniques through documentaries in which the presenter goes on a journey. It helped me think of new ideas to include in our documentaries, including speaking to people who are in a similar situation, for example, young go-karters who want to make a career out of the sport. The importance of car shots to show raw unedited emotion will also be vital in helping the story move along and letting the viewer know the presenter better. The use of sound including both a soundtrack and voiceover was also worth understanding as they can help add another layer to a documentary which helps immerse the viewer. It did also show me certain techniques I did not want to heavily rely on, like graphics and also made me think how I wanted my shots to be generally more cinematic than the shots they used.