I just finished doing some sound "editing" on a doc. I read Jay Rose's book which was helpful. I think my doc sounds much stronger now with added thumps and huffs and crashes.

But where is the line between capturing the truth as it is recorded and misrepresenting reality?

Is adding extra noise to a bike crash in a documentary morally questionable? I keep thinking of that Time magazine cover of OJ simpson with the airbrushed three day beard.

Does anyone else ever question this?

"Reality" is playing back what one camera left running in one spot sees. It's CCTV or surveillance video. The moment you make choices about what and where to tape, where to move the camera and editing you've created "unreality" . . . and that's why it's very important to be as circumspect as possible with documentary footage.

If you have to ask, you've crossed the line.

The moment you chose to make a documentary you've crossed a subjective line. You've chosen this subject - for whatever reasons appeal to you - as important enough to show to people. What you will present will be your subjective view - even if you choose to show CCTV or surveillance video. It's always a subjective viewpoint.

There is no objective reporting. Everyone has a viewpoint and an agenda.

The current buzzword is "Balance". Are you 'balancing' your viewpoint with counter point? Do you even care to? (You certainly don't have to.)

In terms of production 'enhancement'. When you boost the gain, when you color correct, when use artificial lighting - you are altering reality as percieved by the senses - so that it is represented by the reality as percieved by the technology.

At what point does your enhancement mis-represent the reality? That would be the 'line' I draw. Did the mic not pick up the sound as well as MY ears? Then I'll enhance it.

A perfect example in a doc I made illustrates the point. I was shooting a person at work in a strange environment, when they got a cell phone call - and took it. I could hear the cell ringing in real life - it wasn't captured in the shoot because of wind noise - so I put one in in post. Is that 'enhancing' or 'mis-representing' the moment? Our ears don't hear the wind noise that rushes over a mic, is it more 'true' to leave it in or filter it out? I think if I had chosen to replace the cell phone ring, with some sort of ring-tone that 'made a statement' - then I would have been guilty of 'crossing the line' of mis-representing the moment.

I'm sure others who have done nature recordings will chime in, but for years most of the nature films have sweetened audio adding or sometimes totally replacing the captured on-location audio.

I guess it's a matter of what you are sweetening and if you're changing the tone of the documentary to make a point or make your point. The recent Nova episode I worked on totally replaced all the sounds of the box the apes used with canned sounds because it made it sound better for the audience. I didn't see anything wrong with that and almost nobody would know the difference if they weren't there when we shot that scene. So, I guess it's really up to you if you think you've gone too far.

Wayne

...But where is the line between capturing the truth as it is recorded and misrepresenting reality?

Is adding extra noise to a bike crash in a documentary morally questionable? ..

The reality is that a bike crash does make a sound....

If the original recording was not able to capture that sound then it would seem realistic to try to re-capture the authenticity of the event as much as possible.

The misrepresentation part is when you try to hollywood it up and add something that could not have existed.

Well, on the opposite end, I find the total lack of ethics or standards in the documentary industry really appalling. I also don't buy the argument that since the camera is intruding anyway, why not fake other stuff too. That's a copout. If the footage and audio aren't genuine, what's the point in making a documentary, let alone watching one? I'm more forgiving of nature documentaries because a lot of that stuff would be simply impossible to capture legitimately. But in this era of reality tv blending the lines of journalism, showmanship, and entertainment, I think we need tougher standards, not continually searching for ways to justify cheating and lying. It cheapens the whole genre. Sorry for the rant, but this is a real sore spot with me. As far as your question about adding extra noise to that bike crash -- egregiously wrong. I don't see any gray areas at all there.

Look, one central reality here is that there is NO recording system on the planet (with the possible exception of sophisticated binary recording played back under controlled circumstances) that can record and reproduce a sound field which is an accurate re-creation of what something sounds like in reality.

If you're listening to a monkey chatter in a tree, your BRAIN de-emphasizes the sounds of the wind and the leaves and whatever and lets you concentrate on the MONKEY sounds.

So, if the attempt at sound sweetening is to present the viewer with a MORE realistic experience, - essentially bringing up the monkey against the background to create a better sense of what that monkey actually sounds like - I think that's totally congruent and fair.

I agree with the camp that says ALL documentaries are necessarily works of judgement. And an honest doc uses whatever tools are necessary to present the audience with as authentic as possible an experience.

And when and if there's a line that might be crossed - ONLY the documentarian's personal moral compass can make that call.

That's just the way it works.

The author decides what to write and not write.
The shooter decides what to shoot and what NOT to shoot
The editor decided what scenes to leave in, which to edit, and which to leave out.

And absent outside direction, when we sit in the seat, it's our JOB to make those choices as well as we can.

BTW, directly to Marco's point - what IS the real sound of the bicycle crash? The sound recorded from 1 foot where the crash generates a terriffic sound? The SAME SOUND recorded from 10 feet away where the crash is modest at best? Or how about the VERY SAME crash recorded from 20 yards away with a long lens - where the sound of the crash is virtually indistinguishable?

They are ALL completely REAL sounds of the crash - but their viewer impact is TOTALLY different.

Are you arguing that one of those would be MORE real than another?

Sound after being recorded and then played back is ALWAYS both flawed and subjective. That's just the way it is.

The reality is that a bike crash does make a sound....

If the original recording was not able to capture that sound then it would seem realistic to try to re-capture the authenticity of the event as much as possible.

The misrepresentation part is when you try to hollywood it up and add something that could not have existed.

I agree wholeheartedly. To argue that it's misrepresentation, you might as well argue against audio sweetening, or color correction. My CCD didn't capture that vibrant hue of red, so I fixed it. My microphone didn't catch the sound as well as my ear, so I tweaked the level. My mic was turned off? Oops. I'll foley it.

The point of documentary work is to get a point across. To tell a story through the use of film/video. Do what you have to to tell the story to the best of your abilities. While I would shy away from adding a completely different sound and passing it off as a bike wreck in a doc, I wouldn't see anything wrong with foleying the sound of aluminum on concrete. If you worry too much about the audio sounding exactly as raw, you will end up distracting audiences with poor audio quality - and missing the mark with your message.

This is, of course, without knowing any details of your project that might sway my opinion one way or another. Is the wreck the focal point, or a side note? If it is a focal point, and the video is 'evidence' of something or another, that is a completely different ballgame. If it is talking about someone's personal trials they've faced, and you show a bike wreck they were involved in to add DRAMA... I think it would be fine.

Sorry Marco, nothing personal but I really had to play devil's advocate here. I agree that reality TV has hurt the legitimacy of what we do, but we still should be concerned with telling the story.

Carl

To bump it a step further - how ethical is it to do voice edits? If we want to stay "true" then we let the interviewee ramble on. When we cut out the 4 sentence side story, or 10 sec. of dead air while the person searches for a word, or repeats himself or anything else to make the edit "tight" we are changing things.

The professional and ethical documentary producer/editor will try VERY HARD to make sure that those edits do not change the meaning of the person's statement or color it in any way. Done properly, they can improve, but not alter, a production. Done poorly, or with an underlying bias - they are a lie!

Just stirring the pot on a cold Friday afternoon!

I just don't see the correlation between, say color correction, and adding false audio to a documentary. Arguments like that, and quibbling over the impact of editing and so on strike me as specious excuses to justify doing whatever the heck you want, because after all, the whole thing's false, right? So the bike crash didnt' sound good, why not a better recorded crash, or better yet, a more dramatic crash sound. Throw in some sounds of shrieks for good measure. It'll help tell the story right?

My point with all this is that shouldn't there be guidelines and standards like photo journalists operate under? Every time the subject comes up people in the industry hem and haw about how surely their own judgement and integrity ought be enough, and in the end audiences find legitimate audio a distraction because they've been listening to so much fakery it's all they'll accept any more. That's a tragedy.

Oh, and Mike, my mention of editing wasn't a reference to your post. I hope it didn't come off like that.

First, to clear up the color correction thing -

When we color correct a piece to have a bluer feel to show the sadness of the person recalling memories, or red to show the warmth of the solution, we are using artificial color to influence a viewer's opinion.

Secondly...

I do believe this is a very complicated subject and worthy of some serious industry attention. I think we do need to be careful about where we draw the line, but it's rarely a tragedy when the editor attempts to keep morals involved. If the video is showing evidence of something, than it would be abhorrent, and I agree wholeheartedly with you. An example would be if the bike wreck was the fault of another motorist, and you are showing why they are responsible. Adding to the impact of the crash would unfairly bias the viewer against the motorist.

But if it's to add drama to the piece, or to emphasize a point, I think it's okay, of course dependent on the situation. If you're talking about bike safety, and you use the wreck as a cutaway shot, the sound can have a dramatic increase in the impact of the clip. As well, you can get away with a shorter, less detailed clip, and let the audio tell the story. Is that so bad?

I think there really is a lot of grey area here, depending on the USE of the clip, and the GOALS of the production. You are trying to inspire thought in your viewers, to captivate attention, and the edit process is a very important stage in which to use all the tools available to you, but to do so with moral fiber.

Carl

I definitely get your point on the goals of the production. As you say, if the piece is about bike safety, and you have a clip of crash, that's quite a different thing. I don't see a problem with foleyed audio there either. But if the footage is meant to show a candid moment, I just don't think you should be adding stuff that isn't actually there, at least if the audience will take away the impression that it really was. As I said, nature docs are another matter. If they were held to that standard, there probably wouldn't be any.

No. It is not ethical to replace the sound with a sound that did not happen in a documentary, any more than it's ethical to switch questions and answers around in a sit-down interview.

Exception: When the "crash" sound is so obviously unreal that viewers will know it is so - this is often done for effect. I.e, if a bike crashes and the sound is of a truck hitting a wall.

-- Brian Boyko
-- M.A. Journalism.

"Replacing a sound that did not happen in a documentary" - That's an interesting statement. What about replacing a sound that was not recorded clearly, but heard distinctly?IE: It DID happen, but the recording is faulty. (We had wind noise over the mic, but I could clearly hear it on my own.) What about using a zoom lens, to capture an image 'closer' than the camera person is actually standing. (I cannot clearly see the object in his hands without the 'aid' of technology.) Cetainly, I have chosen to 'influence' the viewer with how closely I am able to get.

Yes, it's all very "Grey". As I said, there are no 'objective' documentaries. Every single choice is informed by our personal objectives and agendas.

Hmm, I can see all the pundits are going to weigh-in on this one so count me in to join the fun!

For those who purists who think "tweaking the audio (whatever that means), is unethical, would they also have problems with the interviewee:

1. Applying make-up that they'd never otherwise wear?

2. Wearing clothes from a wardrobe they don't own?

3. Having enhanced lighting to make them appear different than normal?

4. Having special camera angles to subliminally affect the viewers?

5. Having music to dramatize and subliminally affect the viewers?

6. Having their footage edited to focus on issues likely to interest viewers?

7. Having the setting, props, and set design configured to influence the viewers?

8. Doing a retake?


If I'm doing an audio-only interview, I'll profess to be heavy handed in the editing process. I'll cut out the "ah's", stammers, excessive pauses, suppress extraneous noise, enhance the audio with special mics, adjust the level with compression and equalization, and more. If the interviewee makes an obvious error (as using the wrong name, bumped mic, etc), I'll even cut-and-paste the correct word. And I get even worse! When the subject jumps all over the place, sometimes I'll have to cut-and-paste a series of sentences to another part of the interview in order to keep continuity.

Bingo, to me it's all about continuity. So as long as I'm maintaining integrity of the subject's message, I'll freely make cuts where I'm sure our more conservative folks would avoid. But then again, long before I start the interview I fully disclose my methods and obtain the interviewee's concurrence - IN WRITING. I also remind them of this at the start of the interview, recording this fact along with their acceptance. Actually, my subjects are much more relaxed with this arrangement, knowing I'll be editing the audio to make him/her come across in the best light. In fact, I advise them they can always give me editing commands during the inteview, such as:

- "Strike that"

- "Let's redo that, I want to answer it differently"

- "That's ambiguous, please reword the question"

And if that's not disturbing enough to some of you, I advise my interviewees they can belatedly have their interview edited. So if I'm still in the editing process, with cause I permit them to belatedly strike portions of their interview.

So for better or worse, I'm far from doing "raw" interviews. For instance, on my last director's commentary the audio track needed lots of tweaking - even for my standards. Off-color remarks about the actors were whacked out. Retorts that would psychologically diminish the quality and value of the video (after his second glass of wine) were similarly excised. And tons of dead space were whittled out to improve the pacing of his dialog. Again, my bottom line is continuity, as long as the integrity (IMHO) of the interview remains intact.

Okay, flame on...

Warm Regards, Michael

An additional comment.

There is a difference between pure documentary and what the TV industry now calls "factual" content that goes on a lot of cable channels. (If you want to know about the factual market take a look at http://www.realscreen.com). Factuals are produced to entertain specific audiences with specific subjects with entertainment being the primary goal. The standards for factual content are commercial ones.

As I think about it, pure documentary tries to get as close to the truth (recognizing truth can wear many coats) of a subject or process as seen by the film maker. The standards are not as commercial as they are journalistic. My view is that the label "documentary" signals (or should signal) the program's intent to abide by journalistic standards. You can take a look at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/us/guidelines.html for one important statement of what such standards look like. Another very useful source is The Elements of Journalism ( see http://www.journalism.org/node/71).

"What about replacing a sound that was not recorded clearly, but heard distinctly?IE: It DID happen, but the recording is faulty."

Okay, I'm conscious of coming off as kind of shrill here, so I'll try to tone it down. Obviously we're all free to make our own choices, but for me personally, if I didn't get the shot (or audio) I didn't get it. That's a tragedy, but I just wouldn't feel justified in throwing in something false to hide the footage's deficiency from the viewer. Adding in a foleyed sound to footage that is supposed to be candid, to me would be like adding images digitally to the footage.

There are those documentaries about the Iraq wars. There's footage from bomber aircraft showing bunkers being destroyed and quite often there's a small explosion sound.

We all know that there's no way any mic would pick up that audio. Yet does it have a detrimental effect on the integrity of the coverage? Does it affect the credibility of the story? Those are the questions an editor should have in mind when working on a production.

As mentioned by others, reality is interpreted every step of the way. From where we point the camera to which clips end up on the floor. We determine what the audience will or won't see, and the guiding principle is whether we're providing an honest representation of the story.

There are those documentaries about the Iraq wars. There's footage from bomber aircraft showing bunkers being destroyed and quite often there's a small explosion sound.

We all know that there's no way any mic would pick up that audio. Yet does it have a detrimental effect on the integrity of the coverage? Does it affect the credibility of the story? Those are the questions an editor should have in mind when working on a production.

As mentioned by others, reality is interpreted every step of the way. From where we point the camera to which clips end up on the floor. We determine what the audience will or won't see, and the guiding principle is whether we're providing an honest representation of the story.

Undoubtedly the best documentary on World War II is Ken Burns "THE WAR" series. In the commentary Ken and crew underscore the fact they took over one year to edit foley sound effects into the video track (which typically didn't have an audio track). So I'll stick to my guns on prior post - it's all about context (and disclosure).

Ciao, Michael

Well, I like Ken Burns all right, but I do find it quite annoying in his documentaries that I'm never sure whether or not the photos he presents are genuine. I'm not suggesting that he fakes them or anything, but I constantly wonder whether the picture I'm looking at is literally of the time and place and people being discussed in the narrative, or just a representative photo from the period. If the latter is the best they could do, that's fine, but it's damned frustrating never being able to know. I really wish he could find a way to do the disclosure in the piece itself, although I understand how that would be difficult given his style. As far as foleying audio for old footage like that, it doesn't usually bother me either since it's obvious, or at least should be to most people. Where they do have the original audio though, I sure wish they'd leave it in and annotate it somehow.

Hmm, I can see all the pundits are going to weigh-in on this one so count me in to join the fun!

For those who purists who think "tweaking the audio (whatever that means), is unethical, would they also have problems with the interviewee:



1. Applying make-up that they'd never otherwise wear?

So long as it's the interviewee and not the production company providing the makeup.

2. Wearing clothes from a wardrobe they don't own?

Ditto.

3. Having enhanced lighting to make them appear different than normal?

I try to stick to standard three-point lighting in interviews.

4. Having special camera angles to subliminally affect the viewers?

I actually have to correct a shot because it's at too much of an angle and would unfairly prejudice the viewers.

5. Having music to dramatize and subliminally affect the viewers?

I try to choose neutral music.

6. Having their footage edited to focus on issues likely to interest viewers?

I do do this - but I also release all the raw footage of my documentaries to the Internet so others can judge for themselves if it was a "fair cut."

7. Having the setting, props, and set design configured to influence the viewers?

I don't mind if they want to add a flag or something in the background, but the flag has to be in the interview location to begin with.

8. Doing a retake?

I've done retakes but only because it was unacceptable sound or video. The raw, unusable sound and video was released to the public as part of the raw footage releases on the Internet.

Marco has it right. If you're adding artificial sounds into your documentary, you don't have a documentary-- you have a cartoon. I know that sounds extreme, but what you are doing is intentionally misleading.

There's a simple test you can apply: Am I doing my best to minimize what is misleading? If the answer is yes, you would never go out of your way to introduce artificial elements.

Of course every cut is subjective. That's why it's hard.

In the age of the digital camcorder, I think your average television viewer wouldn't know an Eymoe if it was sitting in their lap - and therefore wouldn't know that most WWII footage is without sound. Still, I've got no problems with adding audio to the battle footage.

I'll re-iterate my point. There is NO 'objective' documentary filmmaking. You can controll the lighting/makeup/costumes/background - or allow the subject to controll those for you. That's a choice - SOMEONE is always shaping the message, AND the image. It's a struggle between the filmmaker and the subject. You decide where to aim the camera, and when to turn it on or off.

The fact that we choose to cut the raw footage together in a particular sequence is an effort to shape the message.

It's obvious we all have our own 'ethics' in filmmaking, as well as life. That's what makes for good discussions.

It's obvious we all have our own 'ethics' in filmmaking, as well as life. That's what makes for good discussions.

Beautifully stated, Richard!!!

Marco has it right. If you're adding artificial sounds into your documentary, you don't have a documentary-- you have a cartoon. I know that sounds extreme, but what you are doing is intentionally misleading.

....

I have to disagree. A documentary is not a mere recording of events such as one might do to collect data for scientific research. It is relating a story, a factual story but it is a story none the less. And just like a tribal shaman telling an oral history around the fire, one uses the dramatic tools one has available to clarify the events and explain their meaning, to help the audience understand the facts, the emotions, and the signifigance of the events being related. As an example, someone mentioned that most WWII combat footage was shot silent. Adding accurate sounds conveys the emotion of the image much more strongly than would a dispassionate lecture about the effects of battle sounds on the soldiers done in voiceover - the audience can better understand the meaning of the moment with the more complete sensory experience and communicating with the audience is the whole purpose of doing the film in the first place.

Another example of audio modification in documentaries (as brian noted): Scoring. Since when does real life come with a soundtrack?

Adding a score injects emotion into the program or sets a scene within a period. And that's completely arbitrary yet generally acceptable.

I think you should add an explosion to the bike crash...

I think you should add an explosion to the bike crash...

Bike crashes are nothing - child's play <wink> Check out this unicycle videographer's "indiscretion" at timecode 3:45

http://youtube.com/watch?v=yNEGeKt_VtA

And if that's not enough, watch this Mountain Wingsuit video:

http://www.biertijd.com/mediaplayer/?itemid=4262

Hmmm, when the spectators say "Oh, sheeeeit" as the diver buzzes the road, was it real or was it Memorex?

Enjoy, Michael

I think the decision as to how far to go has to do with the subject and intent of the doc. We've done a variety of docs that are about nature or habitats. In these cases it's very important that the sounds are realistic and 'accurate'. If you see an Alps Crow flying through the mountains, you'd better not put an Eagle sound effect there. However, recording the sound from a crow that's flying a 400 feet overhead on location isn't necessarily going to work out for you, so we replace it with the thought that if we were standing there, we'd hear that crow. So in it goes. In these cases the goal is to recreate the atmosphere and environment as faithfully and accurately as possible. Look at the Planet Earth series. Technically, every helicopter shot should have engine and prop sounds because that's how sound recorded at the time would be. Instead we try and give an idea of what the scene would sound like if we hadn't intruded upon it. Of course Planet Earth goes much further: every time you fly by a mountain you get a whoosh or a rumble. So much for realism...

We also recently did a National Geographic doc that featured dramatic reenactments. These get the 'hollywood' treatment. The intent of the documentary is to entertain. we aren't trying to make people think that there was a camera recording events 5000 years ago. It's understood that it's a reenactment, it's understood that sounds are embellished. Of course you'd better know your audience though because you don't want to do the 'hollywood' treatment for a group of scientists or specialists. But Discovery, National Geographic, THC? They're using docs for entertainment, so have fun.

The really tricky thing is when producers want to start embellishing archive footage. I can't tell you how many times I've been asked to put in the sound of an explosion during war footage, or a plane crash, guns, etc. This is the slippery slope where credibility starts to go out of the window.

I think the decision as to how far to go has to do with the subject and intent of the doc. We've done a variety of docs that are about nature or habitats. In these cases it's very important that the sounds are realistic and 'accurate'. If you see an Alps Crow flying through the mountains, you'd better not put an Eagle sound effect there. However, recording the sound from a crow that's flying a 400 feet overhead on location isn't necessarily going to work out for you, so we replace it with the thought that if we were standing there, we'd hear that crow. So in it goes. In these cases the goal is to recreate the atmosphere and environment as faithfully and accurately as possible. Look at the Planet Earth series. <clip>


Hi Stephen,

Yes, and on the Planet Earth series I noted the simulated sound effects of the mother polar bear and her cub. The viewers thought they were hearing the actual (crying) sounds of the baby traversing the snow-covered hills as it first left the cave. The footage also included howling winds. Mind you, the camera zoomed way in, proving it was at least a quarter mile away from the bears. Certainly the crew didn't put lavalier mics on the bears. And while the gear had the best gear available, 1,000 foot reach is perhaps a tad long for a shotgun mic in the high Artic winds, isn't it? <wink>

So yes, they recreated the audio for the atmosphere and environment, taking artistic license of what might have happened - ergo, an illustrative documentary. You can see and listen to the video here:
http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/planet-earth/video/video.html

In a later Planet Earth video, the commentary for the film crew made clear their bias/journalistic motivation. The crew worked very hard trying to document the successful conclusion of a hunt where the jackels would catch their prey. Day after day they came up empty handed, even having their campsite catch fire (almost devastating, had their gas/transportation caught fire). On the last day the jackels were finally in hot pursuit of a sole gazelle which is forced into the lake, a desperate last move. The camera crew becomes excited, knowing very soon their helicopter crew will be there to document the kill. But alas, some other dogs make another kill off camera and the waiting dogs leave to enjoy a ready meal. And so the crew has to settle for footage showing the dogs feasting on a belated kill.

No doubt, Planet Earth was an awesome video but even for the best, documentaries are typically audience-driven with producer motives, agendas, plot points and the like. And I give the Planet Earth producers credit to occasionally give glimpses of their underlying agenda.

Warm Regards, Michael

All the hard line "i want to remain neutral" sentiment is noble, but a bit idealistic. When i'm cutting legal docs or depositions, sure I would avoid anything to color the piece, but a storytelling doc? Why wouldnt you? And as to releasing your raw footage for the internet to judge... That seems really extreme. Who cares what people on the internet think?

When I'm editing, I try to figure out the spirit of what the person is saying, and help them to say it to the best of their ability. I recorded my grandmother a few years before her death giving her own eulogy. When she passed away, i edited the hell out of it to make her points as clear as possible and as emotive as possible. When she was 60 she was an awesome orator, and while what she said at 93 was still poignant, it lacked the clarity and focus she would have wanted. I took 40 minutes of ideas down to 10 minutes of really heartfelt and snappy narration. Now, i knew my grandmother really well, and I am POSITIVE that what I did was not only right, but what she would have wanted. Colored? definitely. a misrepresentation of what she said? probably. A misrepresentation of what she had to say? not at all.

I had to do all the foley on an episode of NOVA i made. It was about a shipwreck excavation, but to keep the water out of the area they ran loud generators and pumps 24/7. I had to basically build the entire soundscape from scratch in my garage. Now, its likely that my interpretations of what spraying water on wet timber, and squishing mud, and screening shells while looking for tiny artifacts were fairly different from the real sounds. In fact, my sounds were probably misleading and deceptive... and who cares? The point of the doc was the science of the excavation and the spirit of the sailors that had once been on that ship. Would 54 minutes of generator drone really have been better for the viewer? Does it make any lick of difference? Should this story have never been told because we couldnt capture clean audio?

I also subscribe to the "use your morals and do your best to stay true" theory. The people on the internet can tell their own stories.

I think a lot of the fear of misleading an audience comes from the fact that our audiences know nothing about the filmmaking process. They know nothing but they guess everything based on what they see on extra features on DVDs and from what their eyes and ears tell them while they watch. This is because media literacy is terrifyingly absent from any high school or liberal arts college's core curriculum. I was a communication arts major and I found that even some of my fellow majors were making statements about reality television and documentaries that were 100% guesses.

In my Intro to Mass Communication class one group of students were assigned to cover "meta-movies" and "meta-television" (movies or television about movies or television) and to decide after researching whether or not the content accurately represented their medium. Their conclusion was that the content was accurate, and my professor didn't hesitate to rebuke them in front of the rest of the class for clearly doing no research on the topic.

There's a lot to be scared about when making decisions that concern representing reality but we can't afford to teach our audience about the process within a doc that has nothing to do with media literacy. I think there should be more of those, though! If our schools aren't going to provide this education then we should! Errol Morris' Standard Operating Procedure is a good one, actually. Check it out with an open mind.

It's obvious we all have our own 'ethics' in filmmaking, as well as life. That's what makes for good discussions.Totally agree, it's also what makes for good documentaries.

Marco has it right. If you're adding artificial sounds into your documentary, you don't have a documentary-- you have a cartoon. I know that sounds extreme, but what you are doing is intentionally misleading.


Would the absence of sounds for footsteps be any less misleading?

The mere presence of a film maker is artificial. Their job is to assemble a story from one that wouldn't otherwise present itself. Even commentary that is normally unspoken is artificial.

Errol Morris discusses this at length in his blog at the New York Times:

Will the Real Hooded Man Please Stand Up - Errol Morris Blog - NYTimes.com (http://morris.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/15/will-the-real-hooded-man-please-stand-up/)

But be forewarned - Morris is from that group of filmmakers concerned with "truthiness".

Today most documentary makers follow the Ken Burns infotainment model.

I am going to introduce you to a word that belongs in every documentary filmmakers lexicon: verisimilitude. It is the appearance or essence of the truth.

For example, my interview subject (whose interview I am editing at the moment) makes quite a few stutters, "ahs" and "ums" as well as plenty of false-starts to her thoughts which unedited makes it hard to follow, especially when she uses 50 words to make a point she could have made in 10. Now, in order to make it work on screen, I edit out the uhs and umms and reorder her phrasing. This is an ethical slippery slope, however I am not putting any words in her mouth that she didn't say and I am still remaining true to the essence of what she said. This is the test to pass verisimilitude. As long as the essence of the truth is kept intact, I have no moral dilemma.

For me, this is the best litmus test for any moral quandary: does it pass verisimilitude?

A good book which contains a great chapter on the subject is Barry Hampe's "Making Documentary Films and Reality Videos".

As an international shooter/editor, I can tell you that we have foleyed sounds like birds chirping after the interview was complete, BUT we waited in and around the immediate area where we conducted the interview and used the rationale "if we had conducted the interview 20 feet to the left and 15 minutes later, it WOULD have sounded like THIS..." This allows us control in edit to add JUST the right amount of ambient audio which we go out of the way to EXCLUDE while capturing subject interview audio... Oh what a tangled web we weave...

What we DON'T do is add the sounds of buses and airplanes to secluded accessible only by foot areas well off of a flight path.

And not to be argumentative, but I'm not sure one could say MOST documentarians follow the infotainment model; I would prefer MANY follow...

Verisimilitude... haven't heard that in years. Thanks for the refresher, Mike.

I think my doc sounds much stronger now with added thumps and huffs and crashes. [...] Is adding extra noise to a bike crash in a documentary morally questionable?
Is this a real crash caught on tape or is it an enactment? That must be made clear in your doc, period.

Now, if it is an enactment, then sound design is pretty much an open game, but should still be approached with caution. If it is a real crash caught on tape, then your leeway is significantly limited as to how far you can go before crossing the line. What kinds of sounds do you have in mind to add?

Again, I can't stress the importance of verisimilitude. (Are you reading this, Mr. Moore?)

I second Mike's idea of working with "verisimilitude".
BTW: I just checked my Italian-English dictionary,
and found no satisfying English equivalent for our (Italian) adj. "verosimile".
The dictionary lists: likely, probable, credible.
I'm quite happy to see that, for once, YOU appear to lack something that WE do have... :-)

"Truth": that's always a problem.
Example: city sidewalk, a few pedestrians.
You shoot with a WA at low level: looks like there's almost nobody around.
You shoot with tele at eye level, compressing the few pedestrians in your shot: looks
like the sidewalk is really crowded.
How do you apply the concept of "truth", i.e. "it was actually there, and I just recorded it as I saw it" to this setup?
"Verisimilitude" works better, IMHO...

(my humble two cents, of course)

Best

Vasco

We do have the same word in English.

Verisimilitude means "the appearance of truth". It is normally used as an accolade in describing dramatic productions but in documentaries it would be a backhanded compliment, hinting at deception of some sort.

in documentaries it would be a backhanded compliment, hinting at deception of some sort.
No, it isn't. Verisimilitude is the goal of the documentary filmmaker; it is the opposite of deception. It is the effort of the filmmaker to be as close to the truth as can be practical.

"You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means..." Inigo Montoya.

I think there is a misunderstanding about the word - Here's the encyleopedia Britanica's take for instance -

verisimilitude

the semblance of reality in dramatic or nondramatic fiction. The concept implies that either the action represented must be acceptable or convincing according to the audience's own experience or knowledge or, as in the presentation of science fiction or tales of the supernatural, the audience must be enticed into willingly suspending disbelief and accepting improbable actions as true within the framework of the narrative.

----------------

So it IS used in conjunction with fiction, as well as non-fiction. And frankly I don't think it's any kind of definitive metric at all. It's simply a word that leaves room for subjective judgement of what is 'truthfull' - which is always up for debate in doc work.

The OP's bicycle crash sound - 'truthful' or not?

Suppose I'm shooting an extremely long shot of two people, walking along a battlefield - we get a context of where they are, and they are wearing WIRELESS mics - so we can pick up their conversation. You couldn't possibly hear them from the shot where the camera is placed, and yet we hear them as if they are standing right next to 'us' - the viewer. Is that 'truthful'? Does it 'appear' truthfull to reality? - No. But it is truthful in the context of FILM - which the viewer has come to accept and understand - most of us have an understanding of the syntax of cuts and distance implied in shots - this shot FOLLOWS that shot in Time... etc.

So there is ALWAYS going to be a line drawn around what is acceptable and not. There are 'best' and 'standard' practices - most of these posts address those, and there are 'questionable' practices - where one mans' verisimilitude is another man's deception.

And so it goes.

Here is an example of what is IMO a verisimilitude FAIL: Newspaper upset with Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11- msnbc.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5575561/)

Getting the date on the paper wrong isn't so bad. For me, the fail is in the misrepresentation that the headline in question was on the front page when it was really a small heading above a letter to the editor. That IMHO is a verisimilitude fail.

We do have the same word in English.

Verisimilitude means "the appearance of truth". It is normally used as an accolade in describing dramatic productions but in documentaries it would be a backhanded compliment, hinting at deception of some sort.

Yes, I know you have it as a noun, but (according to my dictionary) not as an adjective.
And I don't think it means what you say... Definitely not.

Best

Vasco

here is the defininiton from Webster's College Dictionary 4th edition:

1. the appearance of being true or real
2. something having the mere appearance of being true or real

Vasco -the adjective you are looking for is verisimilar.

Mike - Your definition of the 'fail' is absolutely accurate - for your definition of 'truth'.

Which is the point. The actual definition of the word, SAYS that the truth is subjective. Simply using the word as some sort of metric - proves that the 'truth' is what is true to both the FILMMAKER and the audience.

I've seen a number of documentaries that seemed 'true' to the audience - but it seemed false to me because they didn't cover a particular aspect deeply enough, or long enough, or 'glossed over' some point that I thought was very very important to the subject.

The word 'verisimilitude' - simply implies that the film is emparting a telling of 'truth' in its statement. NOT that it "IS" truth...

There are facts. And then there are INTERPRETATIONS of facts. This is the fundamental struggle of any documentary filmmaker.

Every. Single. Decision. We. Make. Is. Subjective.

Period.

here is the defininiton from Webster's College Dictionary 4th edition:

1. the appearance of being true or real
2. something having the mere appearance of being true or real

Vasco -the adjective you are looking for is verisimilar.

Yes, Doug, of course.
"Vero" in Italian means true, and "simile" means similar -
and Italian being my mother tongue, the meaning of "verosimile" (verisimilar)
is pretty obvious to me.
What I fail to understand is your statement that
(quote) "in documentaries it would be a backhanded compliment, hinting at deception of some sort."
Thanks for pointing out the adjective.

Best

Vasco

Very interesting discussion.

Perhaps the problem is not with any of the concepts of truth, or truth as seen in the view of the observer, but rather with the way films are currently labelled. In films, the word documentary has come to imply that the film depicts a strong measure of objective truth.

This is not necessarily the case with books. One does not find books in a library labelled 'documentary'. They are labelled with words such as 'fiction' and 'non-fiction'. Note that the word is non-fiction, not 'truth'. Within non-fiction works the labels are words such as history, environment, current affairs, biography, etc. All of these types of books present their information with a slant, and often a very strong slant. Readers know this and judge the book and its interpretation of the information based on their own logic and knowledge.

I wonder what would happen to film-making if the documentary shelf disappeared and was replaced by a section called non-fiction within which were many shelves with names similar to books. Would it allow a more innovative complexity of films to be made without any sense of guilt associated with "taking liberties" to make your points? Would viewers, like readers feel more at liberty to engage the film in a personal dialogue, just as one might with a good book?

Alan

I should have noted that my interest in this was because I am making a film about two real caterpillars fighting over a leaf. I will add music, voice-over and foley sounds for eating and when the caterpillars bashed each other. For fun in the VO I named the caterpillars "Slim" and "Curley". The events are all absolutely real with no visual trickery. I edited out long sequences where there was no action, but there are minute-long battles.

So I asked myself -- what kind of a film is this anyway? The added audio makes it engaging and easy to learn about the complexity of nature, but the audio is fake, and there was no background music, my VO is my interpretation of what is going on.

Alan

So I asked myself -- what kind of a film is this anyway? The added audio makes it engaging and easy to learn about the complexity of nature, but the audio is fake, and there was no background music, my VO is my interpretation of what is going on.


Reminds me of a lot of some African wildlife films I've seen in the past where a narrator tells the "story" of a lioness (named something that sounds African) and her cubs (also named).

It's an interesting narrative form. Is it a doc? I don't really know...