Pre Production - Research Into Writers of Autobiographical Documentaries

Louis Theroux: America's most hated family in crisis

What is really interesting about this is that Louis is writing the story as well as being the presenter, much like myself in this unit. This will enable me to learn a lot about him as a person and how he knows how to get the best out of himself via a script. I will be focusing on the writing aspect of Louis documentary in this blog as that is one of the three main areas I am researching. (Directing, Writing and presenting). However, while watching this I did also pull out some features that made the documentary have a solid story as I think it will be useful information for myself throughout this project.

The documentary starts off with a really offensive scene in which the Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) is protesting at a funeral. This is a scene that really affects the viewer as it is deeply disturbing and offensive to the large majority of people watching. This would not have been pre-planned in the script, as they would be unsure exactly what footage they would be able to obtain, but they knew that they would want a clip that prompts the audience into watching more. This is a highly controversial topic and people would be interested, whatever the journey was, but the fact that there is such a hard-hitting message, right at the start, enables the viewer to be drawn in. This is an important lesson for me when planning and scripting. While, of course, my subject matter is very different, the scripting will be similar in a few ways. One way is making sure that the documentary starts with something impactful on the viewer. Making the viewer feel some sort of emotion, whether that be happy, sad, confused or excited, is important in drawing the viewer into the documentary. My initial plan for my documentary is to start with a flash-forward to the main race day and have a short montage of speed/action and drama to draw the viewer into the subject matter.


A flashback is used early on. This will have been written in the script to make sure the viewer knows that Louis has a history with this subject matter which adds extra meaning to this documentary. Through watching many documentaries in the past, along with the ones I have looked at more recently with a critical eye, the use of flashbacks is a recurring factor in helping the audience engage with the meaning of the topic. For example, I think a great way to show the importance of motorsport in my own documentary will be through the use of archive footage. It has a similar effect to a flashback as it shows moments from the past which have relevance to the story. I think the use of archive footage will enable me as the storyteller to show where my love for motorsport started and why this developed into a long-term passion. This also opens up the audience type that will find an interest in the subject matter. Because I know not all people have an interest in motorsport, I need to find ways to connect the general viewer to the subject matter, through the use of archive pictures and video it will be shown that this story is more than just a documentary, it is my life and dreams.

When watching a Louis Theroux documentary I always feel he knows himself very well and how people want him to be represented on screen. Through use of the script, which would have been turned into storyboards, Louis knows that adding a little bit of humour into his documentaries allows a wider, possibly younger, audience to appreciate his work. This is done by the documentary tackling a very hard-hitting subject, but then we have cutaway shots of Louis looking very un-impressed and flat faced. This is where self- awareness as a writer and presenter are important. In a lot of his documentaries, the person reacts how we would expect, with disgust (in regard to this issue at least). However, Louis sometimes seems too serious. It makes the viewer laugh a little, as his facial expressions are doing all the talking. This is where a strong script which highlights that camera operators should capture these moments is key. Without these moments of Louis' quirks, the general viewer may find it hard to listen to a very crazy view on a certain subject. A lot can be learned by me as the writer, director and presenter. I must not allow myself to script scenes so far that I can not have a natural reaction. A strong understanding of myself as a person and presenter will be key to the tone of the documentary via the script. I will be able to learn what works and what does not via test shoots, but I cannot let myself script certain scenes as it will detract from the authenticity of this project which will lower the quality and standard.

This documentary never addresses the camera directly and in a lot of ways, the camera becomes invisible, like a fly on the wall documentary. Louis always looks past the camera and at the people in the documentary rather than acknowledging it is there. This often means the camera operator is left making quick movements between characters on screen and appears to be shot by a single camera. It seems to depend on what the documentary is trying to achieve, but in my personal opinion, documentaries where the presenter is on a journey, it works best to never directly address the camera as it feels too staged and set up. I feel that scriptwriting this documentary would have been tough as many times the presenter and the camera operators are going “out on a limb” and not exactly sure what is going to happen so cinematically it is not amazing. This authenticity does, however, allow an incredible story to be shown. The order of events seems to have been decided before the event via the script. They would have known the order in which people would speak throughout the documentary. This enables the story to move on no matter what answers are given in the "interviews". What I am seeing is a close correlation between how cinematic a personal journey film is and how much it is scripted. More scripting enables more cinematic opportunities because the scriptwriter will have written exactly what is going to happen in each scene. The cinematographer knows exactly where they need to be to capture the best shot. I personally want to be somewhere down the middle. I want the film I am creating to have some strong cinematography, to enable the rest of my group to show off their skills. However, I feel like I need to be honest with myself and say I will need to script more scenes than Louis does as he is vastly more experienced. As a relative novice to presenting, I will need more hints to help move the story along. This does not need to detract from the story at all, but I just need to spend as much time on the script as possible so it allows me to find the right balance between authentic moments and scripted ones. Finding that middle ground is going to be tough for me, as I am doing multiple roles, but with the assistance of a great team, I think we can overcome any issues we come across.

Other moments show that Louis’ film would have only been loosely scripted in some areas, as it would be very tough for him to know exactly what was going to be said. There is a clear list of "poking points" that Louis has for each person he speaks to as he is always able to provoke an emotion in them. This would be thanks to strong research before the documentary was filmed. Character knowledge enables Louis to come up with questions on the spot which allows this documentary to feel very real. However, Louis would not have been going in there blind. Through the development of his script, he would know a lot about each character which allows him to bring out more and more information when speaking to them. This teaches me an important fact about writing my script, even though I may go into interviews or situations with a few questions, I need to know a lot about the character so it enables me to ask questions that make sense when answers are given. It is hard to know exactly what was written on Louis script as I do not have access to it, but I would assume he has an agenda of what he ideally wants to come out of the interview with. If he cannot get to the answer he wants, it will enable him to explore another avenue which could be equally as interesting, but knowledge of his characters enables him to go down other avenues if needed.

It is clear that Louis as the scriptwriter spent time working with the editor as a lot of the story could have been lost with a large number of interviews, some of which are purposely trying to destroy the narrative of the story. The script would have set a clear idea of what he wanted to show to the viewer. It would be fine to show counter opinions, as this could help further prove the points Louis is talking about. This documentary certainly seems like one that had a lot of leftover footage as everyone in the WBC seemingly wanted to say something. Of course, a lot of what was being said was nonsense, so separating useable interviews from the trash would have been a time-consuming process. But time spent with his crew would have enabled him to show his predicted timeline of events. It may have changed slightly, but Louis would have probably known before starting, what he wanted to show. This is helpful to think about for my documentary as I am sure there will be moments that do not go as planned. Learning how to adapt the script to follow the story arc and show the character development will be key in allowing my documentary to be successful. It is impossible for the script to go exactly as planned, as we do not know what a lot of the contributors will say. We may change the story slightly along the way, to allow the contributor's opinions to flourish, but keeping the story moving along, and touching on the subjects that I have planned will be vital. We must not let situations distract from the story we are trying to tell.

As a lot of scenes in Louis’ documentary are unscripted in the sense that he does not know what is going to happen, this allows more authentic emotions to be shown. A passerby shows strong emotions towards the WBC allowing the viewer to see how the WBC responds to people who aggressively disagree with them. Louis comes into this documentary with a very reasonable approach and does not go in shouting, but still gets the same response from the WBC that the passer-by who screams at them gets. This is a powerful message which is shown through the use of having unscripted scenes. This scene shows the viewer that the WBC reacts to everyone the same, whatever their approach. This lack of human empathy once again causes an emotional response from the viewer. I think this is helped by Louis going into a scene knowing anything could happen, which allows him to methodically observe a situation and come at it with a level head. As we are on Louis side in this documentary, the script is almost there to show public opinion, but in a more normal way, rather than shouting. That connection between the presenter and the viewer allows the viewer to be more involved in the topic matter and understand better than if we were just observing. This shows me the importance of creating an emotional connection between the presenter and the audience. Through various changes in my documentary, I think I have allowed the topic to be accessible to more people, as well as allowing the viewer into my mind. Without this emotional connection, it makes the journey less powerful. I think this can be created with a background story of myself and my upbringing which I hope a lot of people can relate to. I also hope this allows the viewer to think about their dreams, and if they want to attempt to achieve theirs.


I feel they would have known while writing the Lois Theroux script, that the points they were trying to make would have provoked some sort of reaction from the WBC, but they were probably unsure exactly what was going to be said. This meant they would need to be consistent throughout the documentary and represent them as fairly as possible. The reactions that Louis got would need some sort of meaning for the final piece, so this is where going into a situation knowing what you want out of it is important. This allows the story to keep moving while still trying to see the individual stories broadcast throughout. This shows me how important it is to let natural situations play out, although you do eventually need to make sure that it gets to the point. It is important to have "tangents" to allow the viewer into the mind of the characters, but these must to stay close to the story otherwise it will become chaotic.

I think the biggest thing I took from this documentary was how the use of voiceover allows the story to move along. This is because the WBC often try to change the subject and move around the issue. The use of voiceover enables Louis to progress and try to learn more. This is where script writing after the filming is complete is vital to ensure the story you want is told. The fact that voiceover is broadcast after the event also allows the viewer to see a different perspective as the story moves along. This knowledge from the future allows the documentary to have a story arc, still having a meaningful ending. I think this is an important lesson for me as a writer as it may be easy to think that my job as a scriptwriter is complete as soon as we start filming. However, after every scene is recorded I need to make sure that the piece still relates to the story we are trying to tell. I need to think of the necessary voiceover to help "fill in the gaps" and make sure the story reaches its endpoint. As a side note, I also like how voiceover is used when Louis is on screen as a presenter. Doing this makes it feel more natural and that we are moving with him on the day. Some voiceover can seem forced, but when we still see the presenter on-screen it helps the viewer feel that the voiceover still has a lot of relevance to what is being shown.


I know my job as a scriptwriter will be one I will find tough. I know it has been one of my weaker points so far while at University. I think the fact that I have done this research will enable me to know what to do and how to go about it. I am sure there will be hiccups along the way, but learning from my mistakes will be key in helping the script evolve into the great story I believe it can be.



Anthony Joshua: The Road to Klitschko
I wanted to understand what a scriptwriter is thinking when crafting a script for a sports documentary. Therefore, I'm looking at a boxing documentary about a personal journey. Anthony Joshua's road to fighting Vladimir Klitschko in 2017.



This documentary starts with a flash forward to the final event, or at least the ring walk before it. The commentary is by a Voice of God (VOG) and not AJ himself which seemed odd to me as this is a personal journey and I would have thought that he would have been better in voicing over the scenes. However, I can understand that AJ probably has a tight schedule and they realised this early on and did not want to rely on him being free. This meant that the VOG would have been the sensible option as they knew he would be available. I think that this VOG does work, but I found throughout that he sounded bored and disinterested in the story. Someone with a little more energy could have carried this documentary to another level. There is a difference between being serious and getting the facts across. The commentator sounds so worried about getting the facts across, that he has no emotion in his voice, dragging the tone of the story down with him. I know that I will be commentating over a couple of scenes in my documentary. It will only be to help ease the passage of time between scenes, but I am very aware that I need not become the presenter in my documentary, rather the contributor. I have realised over the past weeks that I should not refer to myself as the presenter as I am not directing myself towards an audience. As a scriptwriter I also need to be aware of ensuring any voice-over does not become too formal as that would lead the viewer into thinking I am the presenter. It would also change the tone of the piece. We want to create a story that is as close to reality as possible. In some ways that seems counterproductive and it will be better to plan less for certain scenes as we want the natural emotions to come out.

I noted that AJ sometimes directly speaks to the camera which is sometimes a little off-putting and breaks the fourth wall. The majority of the story is being told like an observational documentary, but here he is acknowledging the camera and speaking directly at it. These scenes are generally AJ discussing moves and techniques to the viewer. But as a scriptwriter, I would have made sure these sequences were done with a friend or trainer as they seem very forced and take away from the feeling of being an observer. When we are spoken directly to, it throws us off guard a little and we are unsure if this is how it was originally planned. Of course, with any documentary following a journey, you cannot plan exactly what happens. But there must have been a decision before they started filming that these scenes would be included. I personally feel they spoil the tone of the documentary. It would be much better if they were removed as they are just too random and add nothing to the story. As a scriptwriter, I will be sure to evoke a conversation with my writing, but not writing down word for word what is going to happen. We may encounter situations where we go off script to capture an unplanned moment, but changing the tone through suddenly speaking to the camera would destroy the illusion of the documentary for the viewer.

Some actuality sequences are filled in with the VOG. This felt like an afterthought as a lot of the film, in general, is just background chatter. The narrator is not present throughout the documentary, but when there it helps inform the viewer. I would have prefered him to have had a little more energy and also speak a little more. Of course, this is a documentary about AJ but we need more information rather than a huge amount of candid moments, which this film seems to rely on. The voiceover does seem at times like it was done in a little bit of a rush and we feel like we should have commentary at certain moments but nothing happens. Parts of the film go on for several minutes with no "PTC Sequence" (where he is chatting but not directly to camera) or voiceover. There is just background chatter that doesn't really add to the story. If I were the scriptwriter, I would have either severely shortened these sequences or removed them. It is nice to allow AJ's personality to shine through, chatting with mates, but there does come a point where the scene consists too much of jokes back and forth between them. As a result we lose track of what the documentary is actually about. I learned from this that you need to be tough on yourself when writing the edit script, if something does not add to the story, even if it looked great, it needs to be shortened or cut. The story moving along and having an arc is more important than including a scene just because you thought you needed it. Overall, teamwork will allow us to ensure the edit script includes all of the best scenes, while still telling the intended story.

While I am not a fan of the narrator's unenthusiastic commentary, it does allow the story to move along. Without these relatively small pieces of information, this story really would have been lost. There seems to be a lack of coverage in the middle of the documentary and we seem to gloss over some moments. This is probably down to poor planning and the scriptwriter not thinking about all of the possibilities. As one of my jobs is writing the script, I will be sure to include alternate scenarios of how the scenes could go, this will enable the cinematographer to continue shooting relevant clips, even if it strays from the "ideal situation". More time planning the possibilities will allow us more options in the edit, which is really where the story comes together.


There are a couple of great establishing moments, but not enough. As a scriptwriter for this documentary, I would have been sure to note as many possible EST Shots as possible. They are vital in setting up new scenes. As this documentary goes to a new location quite regularly, it may be wrong to do a drone shot for each, but a way of letting the viewer know where the scene is taking place is key to them understanding and reading it. More time should have been spent sourcing locations for these shots as they would have helped tell the story better. I have already included points where I think EST shots will be key in my documentary. But after seeing this, I need to ensure I make it very clear that these shots will be essential in telling our story. I will go back to the script and add more shots we could use as establishers, even if they are not used. It is vital to have the clips and, even if we do not use them, we know they are there if needed.

I felt like a lot of what was included in this documentary was not even thought about in the original script. There are a lot of scenes that are really random and don't add anything to the overall story. An example is when "The Rock" comes in and has a chat with AJ. This would be fine as a quick 5-10 second moment. But it is dragged out for a number of minutes and doesn't add anything to the documentary. I understand that showing him adds to the story of AJ from nothing to someone famous with celebrity friends, but this scene was a bad attempt at trying to show the reality of AJ's life. His friends are preaching throughout that he hasn't changed, but this scene is trying to convince us otherwise. I personally feel he came across really well in the documentary, and as someone who does not watch boxing, it is very good that they managed to evoke an emotion from me as a viewer. However, this documentary could have been 20min shorter and told the same story. I understand that there are different ways of telling stories, but there was so much unneeded content in this documentary, it makes me wonder how much effort they put into the script. From this, I have learnt that a script is invaluable. It may not be a word for word final version, but it enables the crew to conduct themselves in the right way and capture the footage needed. As long as the story still has the same narrative arc and includes the key moments, that is most important. But, looking at it from a director's POV as well, it is clear to see that you want to keep the excitement and pacing consistent throughout. The pacing was all over the place, sometimes you were really getting into it and then suddenly it slows down for no reason.

Apart from the random moments where AJ spoke to the camera, the script is seemingly very loose and shot "on the go". However, right towards the end of the documentary, it starts to look more professional. For the first time we have sit down interviews and these enable us to understand all of the facts just before the big fight. These sit down interviews are vital in making sure the importance of the boxing match is understood. Before this, we only glimpse how important it is, but towards the end, we get hit with the reality of it all. These are powerful interviews that really drive the narrative arc. The script seemingly has asked the right questions as the answers really help the viewer understand the full story. Without these interviews right near the end, I would certainly have been "less hyped" for the finale and the outcome. This has taught me to understand what questions I want to get out of my interviews. You may need to ask on multiple occasions to get the answer that fits your narrative, but once you get it, it's powerful. I am making sure that we have one or two hard-hitting interviews in our documentary, I think even if they are actuality interviews where we are doing something and chatting, it is important to capture the "soundbites" that ensure the final moments have meaning.

I noticed that they got AJ to recount some memories after the fight, which were placed just before the fight was shown on screen. This is one of the best things that the script did as it allowed the viewer into his mind before the fight. We can't interview him as he is preparing for it all, but after the fight, we can recall those memories and they help build the drama for that final scene. This worked really well and I think if the scriptwriter had not ensured that the documentary had these injections, the final fight would not have been as personal and we may not have connected with his emotions at this moment. They enable us to see the serious and funny side of AJ as a person but also as a character on screen who we are cheering on. This was definitely the strongest part of this documentary. As in our documentary, we generally know what the outcome will be (success/failure of the event) but ensuring that the emotions are shown throughout is important in making that final scene worth it. I personally feel the scriptwriter should have spent more time on the opening and middle scenes of this documentary to bring more of AJ's personality out. It would have meant the final fight was a life/death situation in his head.

The final event speaks for itself in many ways but ensuring we capture the moments, the ups and downs, is important to the ultimate meaning. I would have liked a little more reflection after the fight, about how it went and what's next, but maybe it did not fit into the time-frame of the project. Overall this documentary is a good base, but as a scriptwriter, I wish they would have gone deeper and shown the struggles a little more. Too many things are glossed over. The fact that there is so much unneeded content instead of a deeper backstory means that the scriptwriter did not do the best job in this documentary. The documentary is still enjoyable and tells the story adequately. But, when this story is one that could have touched many people, you are disappointed that it does not have the expected impact.