1. From Jesus to Christ: The First Christians (1998)
2. Money, Power and Wall Street (2012)
3. The Long Walk of Nelson Mandela (1999)
4. ENDGAME: AIDS in Black America (2012)
5. College, Inc. (2010)
6. Dreams of Obama (2009)
7. The Interrupters (2012)
8. Battle for Haiti (2011)
9. Rules of Engagement (2008)
10. The Choice 2008 (2008)
11. League of Denial: The NFL’s Concussion Crisis (2013)
12. Black Money (2009)
13. Dropout Nation (2012)
14. Growing Up Online (2008)
15. Sick Around America (2009)
16. American Porn (2002)
17. The Untouchables (2013)
18. God in America (2010)
19. The Dark Side (2006)
20. The Education of Michelle Rhee (2013)
20. The Merchants of Cool (2001)

Documentary film teams are better off being run like a Navy SEAL team rather than through a corporate sector. Essentially, in all aspects of the documentary filmmaking process a small unit of army combatants bent on operating in guerrilla-style approaches and through the trenches make for a better, quality end product than anything a corporate structure can produce. Since a lot of documentaries involve grunt work, constant cinema verite-style shooting, no scripts—all which must be completed with sweat equity a Navy-like seal team is the best formula for success. A producer with his director, camera operator/D.P., an Associate Producer/fixer, and possibly a field researcher or two can make for a solid, effective core team of documentary film army combatants. Even if an independent documentary film has a large budget stretching into the six-figures—the team working in the day-to-day operations would most likely succeed with a small unit off multitasking individuals rather than through corporate functionaries divided by company divisions.

Picture the reality of documentary film production as going to war, operating in warzones, communicating and functioning through war-like conditions—all without the notion of violence, of course. Moreover, documentary film productions also include living and operating in the trenches, limited supply of goods and often times working on the schedule of your subjects and cast of characters you are determined to capture on camera. Plus, there’s the accessibility of information and encroachment on territory. Each member of a given documentary film team must be proactive in survival. Small, special forces units are more ideal to get the most content and information out of a limited budget and accessibility. In this sense documentary film production beyond the sociopolitical ones that are bent in exposing the powers to be or actual real-life war coverage is the kind of production reality that is germane for a Navy SEAL team operation to accomplish its mission. Survival in this context means the opportunity for success.

Crucial things get lost within the corporate hegemony. Corporate institutions put too much of a hold on rules, procedure, protocol, roles, and lanes only job titles can fulfill. This trumps the creative initiative and proactive process that allows producers, directors, and even writers to go beyond in order to capture a strong documentary film narrative that can potential captivate niche audiences. Unscripted, story-driven, nonfiction, long-form works of art that are constructed in the midst of rules that are prefixed is not only antithetical to what drives those to produce such works but is a potential for failure in the long run. Creativity, originality and even artistic expression are diluted to customary, standard approaches when situated in the corporate environment. Anyone who has been involved in any aspect of working on a documentary from concept to completion knows that so much of the journey and process is rugged, indefinite, and self-reliant. Imagine, for starters—you are determined to capture character(s) in an interesting narrative or a little-to-known storyline developing in front of the camera not knowing initially what access you will be granted or how long to capture the subjects and story development. In many ways, you and your team must roll up your sleeve, get creative and gritty and figure out how to best capture the story in light of the reality it takes to put it all together (budgets, accessibility, and time). This is the same principle factors that special operations forces like Navy SEALs work in through warzones, enemy territory, military occupations, etc.

Documentary Filmmaking = Budget + Access + Tons of Patience

As much attention in documentary filmmaking is put into budgets and film financing little is known to the lay public of how crucial access is to a given production. Access is a documentary filmmakers favorite word as well as best friend. Access to material from stock footage to old photographs to historic archives and dated newspaper clippings, access in shooting in given environments important to document for the film’s narrative, access to interviews for candid perspectives and insightful commentary, and access through legal bounds where safety, security, and law are all taken in consideration—all lift up what documentary filmmakers come to do. Access makes and breaks an independent documentary film and television documentary programming where it can often be the litmus test to the caliber and level of a finished work. Access serves as the nexus to essentially capturing a film’s ongoing narrative that has inspired a documentary film director and producer(s) to capture on camera. Without access credibility, perspective, knowledge, and even integrity is compromised on a given work.

As research begins on a given topic worthy enough to produce a documentary film on so does the search and seeking of accessibility on that given topic readying its way for a thesis. Just as a movie won’t begin production until the right cast is set so does a documentary not begin production until a significant degree of access is granted. Questions in creative meetings as documentary film teams come up with a general understanding of what they are going after would be: “Who can we get to speak on this? How much information is disposable to us? Where is the narrative taking place?” These questions along with many others lay the foundation to all necessary components that need filling in during the pre-production phase of a documentary film including—finalizing budgets, booking necessary interviewees, collecting stills, photos, and video/film footage to be later incorporated in the film during post-production, travel considerations and accommodations, and so forth.

If a documentary filmmaker cannot speak with a central character of a given subject worthy in helping tell the overall story or if a documentary filmmaker does not have access to key documents that may help uncover a story than the work this filmmaker is undergoing will be limited from the start. In fact, a large part of a documentary film production, which usually takes a long period of time—several months if not a couple of years, is due in large part to accessibility in given materials and permission to shoot a cast of character to the storyline. In order to finally produce a high-quality, flowing documentary that will not only appeal to a niche audience but may even spill over to a larger market of audience members the editing of the picture lock version of a film needs to be seamless. And, the only way to reach a seamless edit on a given film piece is when the story unravels itself on camera during production. Experience will show that a story unravels itself on camera when the film team itself are “flies on the wall” in cinéma vérité—style of shooting. This approach where the camera lens literally serves as a window to reality can only be achieved successfully when access is granted. The cult classic documentary, Hoop Dreams, is a perfect example of how access can serve a film team to be involved candidly in their subjects for a number of years without influencing their everyday reality. Once access is granted filmmakers and their small (or large) team get so infused with the subject matter that they become entirely invisible to that documentary film production as a whole. Take award-winning biopic pieces like Marley or Tupac Resurrection—great examples of how access to given information and material can elevate what would be a standard biographical account of said high-profile music artists to a powerful biopic narrative of never-before-seen material and perspective on famous celebrities—which end up leaving a lasting impression toward eventual viewers. Both films worked well in due in large part to the support of family members who took part in the project. The Marley family and estate served as executive producers and consultants during the making of the 2012 documentary, Marley. Afeni Shakur, Tupac’s mother, was one of the main producers on Tupac Resurrection. What the family, close friends and associates provided for each film is the important storyline that commands authority, credibility, insight, and truth in documenting high-profile figures.

Accessibility in no way is cheap. If it doesn’t cost you a significant amount in the beginning it may cost you a lot along the way in terms of time. Patience and a budget are required in securing accessibility and utilizing it as well. In the end it becomes a main component in producing, writing, and editing a documentary. Although one can make an argument for unauthorized versions of a documentary film storytelling which prompts a given documentary film team to work behind the lines—with little to no accessibility on the subject matter seeking to be documented. But, what one will see in that approach is a big challenge in credibility especially if its a subject matter that hasn’t been publicly disclosed to any significant degree. As in journalism where a journalist works heavily with unnamed sources documentary filmmakers work in the same guise but on a contrary approach—sources need to be named for access to be granted in its attempt at Truth. In the Academy-award winning film, Inside Job, director/producer Charles Ferguson and his team took a penetrating examination to what exactly led up to the devastating economic meltdown on Wall Street that led the United States and many parts of the Western world into the Great Recession. Inside Job was peppered with documents on top of documents of what was being reported, warned about, and disclosed as to the trajectory and growth of the real estate bubble that eventually burst into the entire financial sector. The film built motion graphics breaking down complicated systems and processes that are mainstays among Wall Street firms like derivatives and credit default swap (CDS). But, more importantly, Charles Ferguson’s probing piece included a commanding list of important interviewees like top economists, Wall Street executives and employees, journalists, authors, and politicians who took part in curbing, administering, and exposing Wall Street’s reckless behavior and the astounding immunity from criminal prosecution and government bailouts many of the firms and their top executives received. All this is to say that Inside Job serves as a great example to not only what level accessibility can allow a documentary film to reach but the ways in which film storytelling can be exacting, precise, and lucid on complicated and often conflating subject matter.

Since documentary films encompass a plethora of subject matter and topics on a range of issues the most relevant of documentaries are the ones focused on historical events and in current events. Historical documentaries focuses intrinsically on biographies, time periods, past governments and their policies, social movements—among other things—while current events tackles the topics of the day and the top issues in popular discussions—kind of like a long form version of news packages. The question arises whether documentaries make more or less of an impact on historical or current events or whether they fail in either regard. Television channels that touch on historical events like the History Channel, National Geographic, PBS, and Discovery—for example—today have slowly evolved into the constructing and distribution of documentaries focused on a range of current event topics. These channels put together programs that compete in the long form news documentary fashion such as CBS’ “60 Minutes”, ABC’s “Nightline”, PBS’ “Frontline” and NBC’s “Dateline” to name a few.

Timing is a fundamental aspect to documentary filmmaking not just for a project to go from concept to completion but more so, in distribution as well. The heart of documentary films is social consciousness which prompts production teams to raise awareness on given topics in order to convey its important themes, provide an in-depth look on a pressing issue, and investigate a topic to its core eliminating the tendency for bias, manipulation, and distortion. While documentary filmmakers aren’t always purists and take heed fully to accuracy and impartiality they are timing in their work. This sense of timing can have a marketing approach angle to it but in many ways it also adds to the conversation of a current subject matter. For historical pieces timing is all in the details of the historical timeline that is being conveyed in the film itself. So, will viewers take heed to timing documentary film projects or wait for it to come to life and unfold in historical portrayals? And, are documentaries at their best when timing correlates seamlessly to the best narrative portrayal on camera?

Eyes on the Prize, was an episodic American television documentary series that covered lucidly the Civil Rights Movement in the United States. The documentary consisted of 14 televised episodes in two different airing seasons that first premiered on PBS in 1987 nearly two decades after the movement was essentially over. Eyes on the Prize is a great example to the impact a historical documentary can have on the consciousness of its viewers especially when they are targeted to a generation after the social movement it conveyed. Lauded as the most critically acclaimed documentary on the American Civil Rights Movement the documentary series went on to garner several Emmy Awards and a Peabody Award. The question to pose here is—would Eyes on the Prize have made such a deeper impact on the thoughts and minds of its viewers if it had been produced during the movements’ time? Is their more credibility in facts, research of what transpired, and testimonials years later when a historical documentary is produced?

Perhaps, one can answer these hypothetical questions with a simple—each documentary, its own. Some documentary projects make more sense to produce and distribute even as the current event topic is still unfolding. Example of this is Charles Ferguson’s Oscar-winning documentary film, Inside Job—which effectively documented the global financial crisis of 2007–08 that led to the Great Recession. It was released in 2010 a year or two removed from the actual meltdown itself while the repercussions still were in effect. Ferguson and his team could’ve easily waited until the dust was really settled—where major lawsuits have been settled and all new governmental policy was enacted since clearly political and economic activities were still being framed years after the Great Recession formally ended. Another example of a semi-historical documentary based on current events was the controversial documentary, Loose Change, a series of films released between 2005 and 2009 which argue in favor of certain conspiracy theories surrounding the September 11th attacks. Clearly, the makers of this series of films needed time to gather all necessary data, research all relevant information, and articulate a strong enough thesis to move forward to a completion of the thought-provoking film piece they eventually put together. Surprising enough documentaries can work as a current event piece upon the time of its release and then as a historical piece years later like Peter Gabriel’s powerful film, Hearts and Minds, which captivated the audience on the reality of the Vietnam War and released in 1974—the last days of the war. It is clear that specific documentaries work well in hindsight where others are more effective in covering the latest hot topics. Special is the case of documentaries that do not fall in either side of this dichotomy. Like Morgan Spurlock’s Super Size Me which analyzed the growing sales trend of McDonald’s former value meal selection. Here, Spurlock covered the historical ascendancy of the mega fast food chain while simultaneously documenting the social trends and health implications presently occurring with the company.

A lot happens in documentary film storytelling with timing. A story never really ends once the camera is off nor when the editing of past footage material is finalized. Thus, with personal stories where filmmakers become a “fly on the wall” to capture a storyline and its characters interacted in its rawest forms and moments the same thing happens in historical pieces of work covering large periods of time. Yes, one can argue that historical events are timed in the sense that it’s over and is no longer happening but historians, journalists, and anthropologists covering a specific moment in time of past events are constantly digging and finding new stuff to opine about and discuss. Each documentary film functions on its own breadth and film producers, directors, and writers all get to work on the arbitrariness of a given moment. After all, documentary film works well when there is an audience ready to consume such content. So, from whatever platform marketing initiatives take into effect some films may work in the present moment while others are more effective in hindsight for a release date. The market of would-be consumers of a given documentary program or film is essential to whether a specific documentary does well in timing for a successful outlet and business plan. As long as documentary films do not lose its elements in nonfiction portrayal of spontaneous, non-scripted storytelling and nor does makers of documentary films lose their merit in the integrity of telling the truth and exposing reality in its purest form then historical and current event documentaries work for specific reasons.

1. O.J.: Made in America (Ezra Edelman)
2. Brothers In Exile (Mario Diaz)
3. The Announcement (Nelson George)
4. The Fab Five (Jason Hehir)
5. June 17, 1994 (Brett Morgen)
6. No Crossover: The Trial of Allen Iverson (Steve James)
7. Benji (Coodie and Chike)
8. Survive and Advance (Jonathan Hock)
9. Big Shot (Kevin Connolly)
10. Bad Boys (Zak Levitt)
11. The ’85 Bears (Jason Hehir)
12. Without Bias (Kirk Fraser)
13. The Best That Never Was (Jonathan Hock)
14. No Mas (Eric Drath)
15. Ghosts of Ole Miss (Fritz Mitchell)
16. Trojan War (Aaron Rahsaan Thomas)
17. Catching Hell (Alex Gibney)
18. The U (Billy Corben)
19. Chasing Tyson (Steven Cantor)
20. You Don’t Know Bo (Michael Bonfiglio)

Key word in the title of this blog is “rarely”. The world wide web is an endless cyberspace of information, pictures, messages, writings, music, graphics, stories, articles, and videos. The dissemination of such materials is easy, cost-effective, and rather convenient. The internet has even shifted various industry models for distribution of such materials and the content produced with easy access to people’s fingertips. With the Millennial Generation and the generation after reared and groomed through internet technology and the ubiquitous evolution of social media platforms people as potential audiences for such diverse content are more selective in what they read and watch. They surf the web looking for intriguing and interesting content, product, and the platform that allows for it. They are also plugged in to the hype of word-of-mouth advertising on what’s hot, popular, and good. Independent documentary films, a late 20^th century and early 21^st century explosion, is coerced to function within the limitless parameters of the internet before and after release. Marketing strategies and advertising schemes dancing on internet domain names and hyperlinks play a crucial role in what goes out and more importantly, what lives on.

Today, what is happening is digital content makers, internet marketing agencies (SEOs included), film/television/web producers all play the game of getting the most views, the most “likes”, endless email blasts, constant press releases and the biggest word-of-mouth sharing of links on many if not all important social media platforms (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram—among the growing others). How long will non-quality, nonsensical, poorly put together content make it among the fickle attention spans of internet users and followers? How important is it to compete with the top media makers today through creative means to plug in new and growing audiences? Stellar, original, high-quality documentary films like Super Size Me, An Inconvenient Truth, Food, Inc. Jesus Camp, The Thin Blue Line, and Hoop Dreams have life weeks, months, and even years on the internet often pushing the boundaries of how great a documentary can be. These types of documentary films survive and thrive in a cyberspace of internet users with fickle attention spans and little patience for bad and slow delivery. Often is the case that with such stellar documentaries is the type of films that are timeless in their storyline, important in their social message and are celebrated for being vintage like Hoop Dreams—for example.

While documentary films live in various domains in our society of media-driven technology such as film festivals, DVDs, and television broadcast today more documentaries often rely on media buzz promulgated by social media marketing for internet survivability in order to remain relevant for years down the road. So, why do documentaries today need to be good and establish itself as high caliber content? Because internet users will go elsewhere to pass the time and imbibe in content that entertains or speaks to them more vividly and more appealingly. Such living space for documentaries become rare in a marketplace where micro-distribution toward niche markets is essential. In other words, documentary films itself is selective in a limited space for distribution—whether that be an airing on a local PBS affiliate station or the Netflix category of documentary films. Documentaries cannot afford to be bad in production nor weak in marketing because together they have only a small outlet and space for release and marketing reach.

The internet created a world where the audience is waiting on content delivery 24/7 around the world. They are already in their theater seats awaiting to be plugged in and plugged away. Documentary film producers and directors, alas, have center stage with the internet. However, with a continuously huge flow of documentary films that come out every year their stage time is little to begin with—especially in an industry today that has been downsized for pretty much anyone with a limited budget to walk in and produce documentary film content. So, where bad documentary films may falter in word-of-mouth, internet survivability, and marketing reach the average internet user who are documentary film fans may never actually hear or come across such bad titles. Social media has allowed for one important thing documentary filmmakers have always needed since the beginning of its ascent into mainstream popularity—audiences to congregate and self-advertise their films which builds more audiences and newer possibilities for different venues to showcase such work. Good, high-caliber, award-winning quality is essential for that necessary social media plug.

It has been quoted that “documentary filmmaking is the meticulous planning of spontaneity.” Filmmakers of all backgrounds, experiences, demeanor, and work ethic find effective ways to convey a story, portray a profound issue, and highlight a theme and lesson via the camera lens. It is clear and well that at the heart of a documentary film is a detailed focus, meticulous appropriation, in-grained understanding, and established approach to exactness in a storyline, theme, subject matter, topic, and thesis which in the end makes documentary films—documentary films. Research is not only the main entree to a documentary film dinner but it the precursor as well as the driving force to constructing a documentary film. In other words, research is the appetizer as well as the dessert for the full course meal. Research follows a production theme from concept and development thru post-production—and in some cases—even distribution.

Since documentary films is about a detailed and articulate storyline conceived and portrayed entirely visually research has to be exacting, meticulous, probing, clear, accurate, concise, and refining. Only with such resounding resource to such a researching approach on a given story, topic, and subject matter can a documentary really reach its highest potential. This in no way implies that research needs to be perfect because surely there are misses to such type work. What solid research and researching do for documentaries is provide a necessary scope and probing perspective that is at a tier level higher than simply information gathering. Where information gathering is the collecting of notes and materials on a given topic and subject matter research takes a very clear and hard entry look into the topic/subject matter. Researching is as investigative as documentaries are educational. Its like a team performing surgery on a topic—taking a part a big topic and storyline into small incisions of precision in information. All that is fundamental for documentaries to get its running start.

In a world where social memes often fabricates facts, reality television muddles the concept of reality, church doctrine personalizes truth, and cynicism has downgraded curiosity and an open-minded focus on a topic documentary films proves to be the last testament in telling the truth—even if its from one side. Where viewpoints and opinions can be agreed to or not documentary filmmakers and the work they put out still shows the resolve in honesty and trust in the telling and portraying of a given topic and issue. Treating the narrative in its rawest if not purist form—is what makes for a great documentary. But a documentary can only reach that plateau and mark with solid research work.

Much can be said about the kinds of documentary films that are the big topic issues of the day—whether its a piece on the environment, a political piece on a domestic policy, a public health piece on the outbreak of a disease, and so on. These long extended subject matter requires a deeper more articulate form of scrutinizing, analyzing, and investigating—all main components to top-notch researching. Documentary filmmakers put themselves in a winning scenario in constructing projects of award-winning material when they get their footing into solid research material and work. Information gathering at best provides the stuff that can make for a good conversational piece on film/video but nothing that is deep and probing which excites documentary film audiences.

Films of all genres is, after all, a story. The constructing of films is a different context of storytelling. Narrative is axiomatic to filmmaking. Documentary films, however, is unique in the sense that it takes the nonfictional approach to storytelling entirely told in front of the camera. Books can paint the picture of a story with words and even does justice in the nonfiction-style of storytelling. As the saying goes: “The book is better than the film.” Documentaries preserves the integrity of a nonfiction book and delivers on the impartial outlook on the storytelling process. Books in their specialized subjects tackle big topics in a generalized sense. However, far too many documentaries fall from its caliber and potential when they attempt to cover big topics in the generalized sense. Take a look at VH1’s TV documentary, “The Tanning of America”, for example—which attempts to cover the impact of hip hop music on the United States in the past generation. Or Michael Moore’s most successful documentary, “Fahrenheit 9/11” which not only simplified a very complex sociopolitical issue the film bordered on propaganda rather than on a constructed storyline and researched facts. “Waiting on Superman” also fell short of tackling a deep-seated, big issue topic into a probing and lucidly, clear storyline. This is where documentaries fall unintentionally into its subgroups and subgenres of docu-series, docudrama, and even “reality” television. The watering down and dilution of story narratives in this regard muffles given topics and exposes the lack of solid research and researching that would do away with generalized conceptions and articulations of such topics. If and when taken seriously documentaries can be a vehicle to Truth (with a capital T) if documentary filmmakers are honest and pure in their telling of a story and its characters.

At the end of the day audience members that flood the theatres for the next big documentary film that drops or scurries through the world wide web utilizing video on demand search for interesting and great documentary films want narrative-driven film work that digs deep on a theme, cracks open on an issue, and deconstructs a storyline. They want to be absorbed to the kinds of visual images and sounds that captivates something probing. Research, first, invites them to that world and then gently takes them in and around that world. Information gathering leaves them on the outside looking in where one can be privy to the topic. Hearing commentary from interesting and not-so interesting people being interviewed is fine if the intent is to start a conversation and spark a debate. However, great documentary films like MTV’s “Tupac Resurrection” or Errol Morris’ classic “The Thin Blue Line”, or even “Searching for Sugarman” that profiled the Mexican-American musician Sixto Rodriguez takes the viewer in a world that probably he or she knows little to nothing about and articulates and illustrates the meaning of their story. Strong documentaries deliver on that promise of story deliver.

Principal photography is the component in the production phase of a documentary film that often consists of the actual gathering of film/video content ready for scripting and editing in post-production. It is when the director and the producer puts on their production hat and goes forth in the field to capture a story narrative or a report on a given topic and subject matter. It is here where production dollars are put to good use in the right way to produce the kind of material that would make for a great story. Visual portrayals and the illustrating a given story via the film camera is paramount before the scripting phase begins just prior to post-production. Principal photography must be the heart of what inspires and motivates a filmmaker to have the greatest material and content to work with in time for editing. In metaphorical language—principal photography is the heartbeat of a documentary film. The colors, shot selection, the framing of the camera all make for solid work in principal photography through the production phase of a given film. The right elements used in principal photography are the principles in production.

From an aesthetic point-of-view what really makes for the right look and feel for a documentary film? What are some of the principles to principal photography? How can principal photography done the right way help a film story flow visually and meaningfully? The answers to these questions are the focus that a director/producer and his or her team takes on as they go forth in putting together a documentary. It is how a producer and his team answers this question that would make for the best production value of a documentary film. What works and what doesn’t work out in the field has to all be accounted for in the highest regard for a successful documentary project to come to fruition.

Far too often do the visual aspect and the aesthetic of a film get underlooked treatment as production teams embark in the arduous, patience-demanding endeavor of a documentary film production. Realities like shaky camera work that disrupt the flow of verite-shot scenes, interview subjects not portrayed in their natural element which takes away from the power and focus of necessary commentary, boring footage that slows down the momentum of the film’s narrative and too scripted and too planned scenes and location shooting which hurt the credibility and the understanding of a documentary all occur in principal photography. Yes, it can be argued that a lot of the mishaps that occur out in production of a film can be saved in post-production. However, when the thing(s) that needs to be saved the most for the sake of a storyline become the very issue than ultimately a documentary essentially suffers. There are principles to principal photography that need to be met and adhered to by the research team, the writing team, the producer team, and the director team—however, way the teams don’t correspond or overlap.

Relative are the style, tone, scope, and even depth documentaries take—one after the other. A filmmaker may come at a given subject or narrative from a comedic element and another may take on a more serious, probing approach. Nonetheless—principles must be adhered to for the highest documentary film production value to be met—which, by the way, do not come off as a complicated process. The principles are so-called unwritten rules for documentary filmmakers and their teams. These are the driving mechanism great doc filmmakers have employed in their work using a myriad of elements and approaches. For one—there is a principle to research that is the driving force for where principal photography goes. Without effective researching a producer and director wouldn’t know where to go to shoot the best content of the story. Without proper researching production team’s following of a given narrative may be restricted and limited. After all—all documentary filmmakers ask for is—access; access to time, footage, clearance of materials, and potential interviewees. Another key aspect to documentary filmmaking which can fall under the umbrella of principles needed in principal photography is the timing that footage is shot. Oftentimes, in telling a story with a camera a production team is coerced to let the story breathe by allowing it to flow on its own—with very little recourse or pretension to shape it in either direction. Such “happy accidents”—whether its a surreal soundbite that captures the film’s thematic message or that spectacular thing that is captured during a shot unplanned—all occur in the production mode of a documentary. This reality and tendency add to the flavor and overall esteem of a documentary film project. One can definitely tell when a documentary film production is rushed or not.

Documentary films have come a long way in just a short period of time. Where old, dry, long-winded, sit-down, on-camera interviews may have passed for a specific documentary film a generation ago today graphics, sleek camera angles, voice-over narration, and cinema verite-style of shooting has grown to importance for the documentary film genre. Principles, unwritten rules, and ways of doing business put quality documentary filmmakers time and time again at the successful end of a powerful, important, and great film work. Principles drive the story narrative of a given documentary as well as take it to the level of high quality necessary for a growing, diverse audience as well as a niche market for distributors to exploit. Every and all phases of documentary film from research, development, pre-production, principal photography, and post-production are all vital facets. It is how important in doing it right is for the producer and director that will make a documentary film work and not miss its mark.

Inquisitive, intelligent, cerebral, determined, focused, deep, inquiring, confident, articulate, thought-provoking and so on are common character traits that can be referred to documentary filmmakers all over the world. Whether their work in documentary filmmaking is a probing, investigative piece on a political issue or an emotional touching story of a powerful personal journey or even a tribute piece toward a cultural movement or moment in history documentary filmmakers of all styles, tastes and approaches have and develop an ethos that carries them forward in their work. This ethos may be innate in the individual documentarian as he or she begins their filmmaking pursuits or it can be a developed characteristic over time that is necessitated in the wonderfully, precarious journey of documentary filmmaking.

Even if the choice to direct and produce documentary films becomes a person’s career goal often is the case that these filmmakers become a certain person in order to complete project after project. Here, the question still lies whether life imitates art or art imitates life. Do documentary filmmakers develop a kind of characteristic about themselves that help render them to storylines, facts, truths and realities guided by the camera? Or are they simply born with a destiny of such character traits needed for creating such films? Key character traits aligned with a growing number of documentary filmmakers are: the ability to communicate very well for direction on camera and attracting needed interviewees, a deep sense of focus that guides them in research, principal photography and digging for facts and perspectives on a given topic, an inquisitive and inquiring nature to understand more fully varying subject matter, the motivation to pursue thought-provoking points-of-views, and the confidence to pursue a story-driven narrative through the ventures needed for the pursuit. These character traits run parallel with the nature of building and constructing a documentary film project from conception to fruition.

It will be argued that documentary filmmakers tend to be liberal-minded, social entrepreneurs bent on ridding inequality, injustice, oppression, and misinformation found too often in the world. Although liberalism and the platform created to voice such principles and ideals of the Left may be a heavy influence for a lot of budding and accomplished independent filmmakers, however, upon closer inspection more and more individuals of all political persuasions have entered and mingled into the world of documentary film production. Freedom, information, knowledge, education, and facts are important elements in principle and values for documentary filmmakers and their team of creative cohorts but the means to express them and the ideology to progress them can be as much conservative as liberal. Moreover, documentary films have over time catered to political soundbites, ideologies, dogma, philosophies, and ideas from all parties, classes, platforms, and divides–to the effective use of adding to a discussion on a given topic and subject matter.

In defining the ethos and character of the documentary filmmaker it is important to note that personality is not the foci. For personality defines one’s identity in their given milieu and its what makes each individual unique and different in their interactions in the world. Ethos and character is the driving force in their personhood that makes for a documentary filmmaker–whether he or she is starting out on their journey or has experience in this genre of filmmaking for years. The character trait of a documentary filmmaker is shaped and molded by work ethic, creative visions for accomplishment–even hardship and tragedy. In other words, it takes a certain person to be a documentary filmmaker.

With the rapid movement that information is taking to span its reach for a global audiences via the internet and the kinds of ways technology is shifting how industries and the people of a given trade are working documentarians have evolved into certain persons. These personhoods of today’s documentary filmmaker are not entirely distinct from journalists, nonfiction writers, and independent filmmakers of other genres–for example. However, documentarians do take a little of the kind of ethos it takes for those others to complete the work that they are involved in. One could spend hours listing the comparable adjectives and distinct character traits that group in the world’s supply of documentary filmmakers. However, once you come across us documentary filmmakers you’ll get the feel of what inspires us, motivates us, drives us, energizes us, and continuously push us forward–the thing that defines us in general.

1.  Tupac Resurrection – Lauren Lazin (2003)
2.  The Thin Blue Line – Errol Morris (1988)
3.  Hearts and Minds – Peter Gabriel (1974)
4.  Hoop Dreams – Steve James (1994)
5.  Bowling for Columbine – Michael Moore (2002)
6.  Inside Job – Charles Ferguson (2010)
7.  Searching for Sugarman – Malik Bendjelloul (2012)
8.  One Day in September – Kevin Macdonald (1999)
9. Taxi to the Dark Side – Alex Gibney (2007)
10. From Jesus to Christ – PBS Frontline (1998)
11. Lumumba: The Death of a Prophet – Raoul Peck (1990)
12. Roger and Me – Michael Moore (1989)
13. Malcolm X: Make It Plain – Orlando Bagwell (1994)
14. 4 Little Girls – Spike Lee (1997)
15. The Fog of  War – Errol Morris (2003)
16. Super Size Me – Morgan Spurlock (2004)
17. Blackfish – CNN (2013)
18. Citizen King – Orlando Bagwell (2004)
19. Aileen: Life and Death of a Serial Killer – Nick Broomfield (2003)
20. Gates of Heaven – Errol Morris (1978)