Normally most documentary film productions take 2-10 years for completion prior to getting into distribution. Distribution entails its own length of time. The time allotted usually consists of many things and challenges that embark a producer, director and production team on the documentary film journey. Such challenges arise in funding, finding the right story, following the right characters to build the film narrative, access to information and materials (photos and archives), and even personal endurance on the part of the production team. Far too often newcomers who venture into the precarious world of documentary film production underestimate and undervalue the time length needed and demanded to put out a well-done, high-quality film with award-winning caliber material and production value. This belief often stems from the nature of producing a documentary film which based on appearance seems rather easy to complete—with the involvement of smaller budgets, a small crew, lower-end production equipment to use, and even basic editing as a prime necessity.

The tendency for being concise in a story—film or written prose—demands itself patience with time. In a scripted narrative storyline for television or narrative film production time management is already established with the booking of talent (actors to play certain roles), securing locations for a given amount of time, and a budget that pays in agreed upon increments. However, documentaries are an entirely different beast. A producer and director must allow a story to unravel itself on their cameras. Research is ongoing to establish the right facts—particularly if it’s an ongoing social issue. Characters must get comfortable with the crew as to not come off as staged in front of the cameras. Traveling may take time for the necessary segments to be added in the documentary film. Budgets may not cover the necessary story angles and graphic design needed—which may put a film on pause. All these aspects that usually arise in documentary film productions greatly impact the length of time in creating and producing such work.

Patience is demanded in every creative endeavor and artistic venture. A creative work cannot be rushed nor limited because of time constraints. No other genre in film makes patience to its fundamental degree a necessity. Hence, the reason very few attempt to venture into the arduous road of documentary film production and why so little monies are there to back documentary film productions. In a world where short-term profit-making endeavors are not only ideals to attain to but a growing requirement for entrepreneurs and industries today patience can indeed be that virtue for the documentary filmmaker and his team. In an industry where short turnaround time in production is essential for the livelihood of a production company to remain working patience is a virtue for documentary film directors and producers. In catering to audiences whose attention span grows fickle by the generation with the advent of technology and the internet and whose choices for mass consumption in entertainment is accessible without any tendency to wait patience is indeed a virtue for the film documentary.

Regardless of the final length of time for a specific film and regardless of what elements and tone the documentary produces the length of time in production is what makes and breaks documentary films. It is what separates the great documentaries from the mediocre ones and the strong documentaries from the weak ones. If shortcuts with time and patience is taken upon a documentary film team—young or old—they can possibly jeopardize the story structure of the film as well as the integrity of the film and its production team. As much as films depend on time allotted set by given budgets and a total run time (TRT) for slotted airtime and schedule for television and film festivals documentaries will still be demanding of its producer and directors—time, patience, and attention. This length of time creates the very fabric that audience members will wear. So it must be done meticulously, delicately and exacting.

Today (if not up to a few years ago), documentaries have hit the toughest market to sell its products and content to in decades. Coupled with the fact that documentaries wasn’t an easy sell to begin with throughout the history of the genre the Millennial Generation proves to be, in fact, the toughest sell for documentary filmmakers (directors and producers) and the distributors of documentary film content. More importantly the target audience of Millennials is one demographic and pool that documentary film producers can no longer ignore. The question then becomes—does documentary films take another plunge into the evolution of the genre to cater toward an ever-shifting Millennial Generation? Or do documentary filmmakers shift the consciousness of Millennials into taking documentary film content more seriously making them the new consumer market for documentaries wherever it is distributed—online, television, DVD sales, or the theatre? Or both?

The Millennial Generation—also known as Generation Y to some theorists—is perhaps the most fickle, constantly evolving, lucid, distracted yet attentive, generation in American history. Those considered part of this generation were born in the late 1970s to the early 2000s. Psychologists, sociologists, writers, cultural critics, and the like have written that Millennials have distinctly different behaviors, values and attitudes from previous generations as a response to the technological and economic implications of the Internet. Others have opined that Millennials, deemed “Generation Me”, are the most wasteful, apathetic, narcissistic, ego-driven, one-dimensional thinking of generational groups in the world. Other so-called experts predicted Millennials will become more “civic-minded” and “environmentally-conscious” than the past generation with a strong sense of community both locally and globally. Whatever is said in documenting this generational group whether it be positive or negative—one thing is clear—this generation was born, grew up, and reared in the age of information promulgated by the world wide web. This technologically-driven—or shall we say, technologically-privileged—generation proves to be one in flux between a precarious global economic reality as well as the social media world that simultaneously and continuously add and subtract to their identity, connection, and place in society.

Here’s where documentary films and the Millennial Generation clash both in terms of consumer demand and attention to detail but suggested entertainment as well. As I written before social media platforms have created an accessible reality to information and content with up to the second internet uploads, online Google-like searches, and web page views. This creates a dynamic among these young men and women to choose content carefully and quickly. Moreover, due to economic pressures of the job marketplace where wage stagnation, income inequality, unemployment, and underemployment is a real life scenario Millennials aren’t walking around with the kind of disposable income their parent’s generation do. This becomes a precursor on their reluctance to consume documentaries—however way it is marketed to them. With mass information accessible on one’s fingertips and entertainment spawned on multiple platforms through nanoseconds of viewership the Millennial Generation has grown accustomed to choosing important content of information as quickly and to the same degree as entertaining and appealing forms of entertainment. In the midst of this reality documentary film directors, producers, and distributors see their Millennial market being more apt through smartphones, tablets, and laptops to follow social media content of memes on Facebook and Instagram, less than a minute of slapstick humor on YouTube or Vine, a two-paragraph news article or political soundbite through blogs like Blogger, Tumblr, and Google + and Twitter feeds of commentary on current events. What impulse will drive these Millennial men and women in watching much less buying an iota of documentary film content even if interested?

Being the most scrutinized and deconstructed generational group often for marketing and business purposes Millennials currently lead the crossover of education and entertainment deep into the 21^st century. With much credence on entertainment imbibed in the “Reality TV Show” era and secondary and post-secondary education evolving to an online presence the creators of independent documentaries must be tasked at bay to plug-in documentary film content to this growing and evolving generational group. Award-winning documentary filmmakers like Morgan Spurlock, Alex Gibney, Brett Morgen, Steve James, Charles Ferguson, Michael Kirk, Michael Moore, Kevin Macdonald, and Robert Greenwald seem to evolve with the times and cater a lot of their content as a way in plugging in Millennials both in their attention span and purchasing power. Meanwhile, A-list documentary filmmakers like Ken Burns, Errol Morris, Barbara Kopple and even Spike Lee are the last of a dying breed. Recent successfully-distributed documentary films like Searching for Sugar Man, Inside Job, Blackfish, Exit Through the Gift Shop, Marley, Twenty Feet From Stardom, The Imposter, and Catfish have been well-received by diverse members of the Millennial Generation. One thing successful documentary films have done in winning over a large audience of Millennials is construct documentary film storylines that are relate-able, believable, credible, and lucid with a focus that does not distract them and more importantly a film they can follow and galvanize behind via social media platforms after the film is released and/or after they viewed it. For example, the career of Sixto Rodriguez, the folk singer from Detroit featured in the documentary, Searching for Sugar Man, was revived in concert shows and live performances sometimes even after film screenings by new age fans after the documentary was released to the mass public. For the most thought-provoking content of serious current events—PBS Frontline and Vice Media does a great job in producing high-quality, award-winning documentaries in a way of keeping Millennials plugged in weeks, months, and even years after they consumed it through social media platforms. For documentaries that are catered to more niche markets ESPN’s 30 For 30 series do a phenomenal job for Millennial sports enthusiasts and VH1’s Behind the Music and their Rock Docs series satisfy the music enthusiast crowds.

No longer is it acceptable for 21^st century documentary films to be boring, conflating, talking-head, graphics-less, non-humorous, dry story-driven content with no social media plug-ins for Millennials to engage in. Such documentaries will end up having the Millennial Generation market yawn themselves to another television channel or another click on Hulu or Netflix. Today, more engaging and surreal subject matter sell for Millennials who despite the negative criticism thrown at them want to be more engaged and caught up with global news and important information happening around the world. Teachers, parents, and neighbors—especially as the Millennials, the “Generation Me”, grow into the professional working class and those responsible for a family—will stay in tune with documentary film content that speak to them and keep them in the loop.

Today, we live in an information-driven, digitized, media-crazed world of constant overflow of entertainment. With growing technology that has enhanced smartphones, tablets, television viewing, computer programming of all kinds, and even car rides—media entertainment is easily accessed at one’s fingertips and mere disposal. This You Tube-generated, social media-motivated society, where hundreds of thousands if not millions of videos are uploaded daily on the web, prompts a whole new approach to television, film, and video. Through entertainment and education an entirely new paradigm of reality begins to occur in our thinking and interpreting the modern world. The concept of reality and the very way reality is viewed has shifted within a generation that often has a tendency to confuse, conflate, and even manipulate the dissemination of truth and what exactly is going on. One clear example of this shift in thinking occurs in reality television programming and documentary filmmaking where blurring lines, sub-genres and gray areas of documenting realty with a video camera are still being defined.

Reality television, a 21^st century phenomenon, has grown to unprecedented and unanticipated scale with a popularity that covers a wide range of viewers and demographics. While the genre of documentaries—both in television and film—have grown over the years in the past two and three decades it has yet to reach the level of scale of reality television consumption in terms of popularity and dollars grossed. One can argue that humanity—if not just the Western world—has reached the crossroads in understanding and interpreting “reality” via the camera. Such a crossroad affects how people perceive and understand reality in an information-driven, digitized, media-crazed world designed for mass consumption and entertainment appeal. Since television, film, and video production play a significant role in all of our lives to some degree it’s important to re-evaluate what reality is and how it should be understood if not consumed by mass diverse audience members. On a minor but relevant note one may even argue that reality television has added tremendously to a celebrity-driven culture where popularity and the ostentatious lifestyle is more favored than intelligence, education, and Truth (with a capital T) itself.

Reality television is defined as a genre of television programming that documents unscripted situations and actual occurrences, and often features a previously unknown cast. The genre often highlights personal drama and conflict to a much greater extent than other unscripted television programs such as documentaries. The genre has various standard tropes, such as what is termed “confessionals” used by cast members to express their thoughts often in a sit-down, interview-style set-up where the subject of a show addresses the camera, which often double as the shows’ narration. In competition-based reality shows like “American Idol” “The Biggest Loser” and “The X Factor” there are other common elements such as one participant being eliminated per episode, a panel of judges, and the concept of immunity from elimination.

Reality television has faced significant criticism since its rise in popularity. Much of the criticism has centered around the use of the word “reality” itself, and such shows’ attempt to present themselves as a straightforward recounting of events that have occurred often to the appeal for entertainment. The question arises whether the attempt at reality television programming is an actuality of nonfiction. Critics have argued that reality television shows do not present reality in ways both implicit (participants being placed in artificial situations) and deceptive or even fraudulent, such as misleading editing, participants being coached in what to say or how to behave, the acting out of scenes, storylines generated ahead of time, and scenes being staged or re-staged for the cameras. The staging or re-staging of scenes and scenarios in reality-style by producers is often considered as “soft-scripting”, which in many ways plays an affect toward what reality is and how it should be conveyed.

One can easily argue to much greater extent how documentaries whether they are classified into subgenres like docudrama, docutainment, docu-series, and so on can have the same tendency if not tenets of reality television like unscripted situations and the documenting of unknown participants. In classical understanding of documentary films there are modes to documentaries that can be referenced as sub-genres which include: Poetic, Expository, Observational, Participatory, Reflexive, and Performative. Each of these modes and subgenres “play” with reality for the producers and directors through editing, scripting, and documentation much to the same degree as the makers of reality television content.

Where the crossover of reality television and documentaries begin to show difference is how much power the producers, directors, and makers of a particular show, programming, or film give to reality itself. Documentaries often is a compilation of sit-down, expert interviews with cinéma vérité scenes, b-roll footage, and archival material of video (or film) and pictures all for the attempt to tell a story or deconstruct a social issue. Cinéma vérité is a key focal point in understanding how directors/producers of documentaries approach their work. Here, the film crew simply follows a story and its important subject(s) in real-life scenarios often with the impulse that the story is too strong, important, interesting, and fascinating to tamper with in any editorial proclivity. This approach demands a level of honesty and integrity for reality in the literal sense. The cinéma vérité approach is the most compelling act in a documentary to validate its attempt at documenting reality in the nonfiction sense. It combines improvisation with the use of the camera to unveil Truth or highlight subjects hidden behind crude reality. It is sometimes called observational cinema, if understood as pure direct cinema—mainly without a narrator’s voice-over. Documentaries can also be detached with the conflating definition of reality television by documentary filmmakers’ and their teams’ ambition in covering something and someone in-depth. It can be argued that reality television fails if not excludes itself in digging deeper from the surface of a subject matter and the people involved. Morever, the very tenacity at “entertaining” target audiences differs in degrees and value for producers of reality television and documentaries.

In simplicity, reality television and documentary can be best understood by its very name and title. Documentaries, in fact, document a storyline, subjects of a suggested narrative, a social/political issue, and the historical veracity of something or someone. Documentaries are thorough, comprehensive, in-depth, and motivated in informing rather than just appealing to audience members. Reality television is programming and content that is of reality not simply realistic. Scenarios, storylines, events, and subjects in reality television shows tend to be nonfictional and real. However, content remains on the surface of addressing people and their stories in an appealing and entertaining way. Reality television focuses more on drama and conflict in human situations and scenarios while documentaries focuses more on research, information, and documentation of human situations and scenarios. The conflation of reality television and documentaries comes from both genres’ work in subjectivity. As it may be overlooked documentaries are not immune to subjectivity in the production and post-production phases. The best documentary filmmakers do in capturing a storyline impartially is to provide both sides of an issue and all voices to a subject matter for a debate where viewers then decide the Truth. Reality television works strictly in subjectivity with the participants on camera agreeing to come together in scenes and “act” accordingly in tempted if not manipulated scenarios such as reunion shows after a season’s end, singing in front of judges for a music performance competition or even being weighed in front of a trainer for a target goal to be reached.

Time will tell how reality television content and documentaries will continue to evolve in the near future probably based on audience members intrigue and interest in what’s going on especially as both genres prove to be cost-effective to produce. In a radical view reality television may be a genre in filmmaking similarly how documentaries expanded from film to television a couple of decades ago. One of two things for sure will occur in these gray areas of documenting reality through video. One, if mass markets for media consumption leans toward distraction and emotional impulse reality television will continue to grow in market appeal and entertainment value. Or two, if mass markets for media consumption lean toward being more informed and educated through researched information and documentation all with the serious intention in knowing what is going on documentaries will grow in mass appeal and interest.

The art of documentary filmmaking carries with itself a sense of philosophical undertaking beyond any established or proverbial school of thought. With its philosophical component in the act of producing a documentary film documentaries also carries in itself a language, a film language, which is used to communicate a message to its niche of diverse viewers. In this pursuit of communication two things occur—one, the act of entertaining a story to its growing and changing audience, and two, the act of informing others through raising awareness. These intentions to use such film language compels the documentary filmmaker—in some degree—to take on the role of the philosopher with a camera in the field.

Just as the philosopher devises arguments with well-conceived premises and point-of-views by semantically defining terminologies used and deconstructing realities and perspectives so does the documentary filmmaker do too as he and she goes to work. A specific and simple question is what guides both the philosopher (in the academia or in writing) and the documentary filmmaker; and mildly the journalist at work. This question is the motive for the thesis for a documentary film. It may begin with a “why” or a “how” or even a “what” or “who”. Nonetheless, documentary filmmaking is the tendency to dig deeper into a topic and subject matter—an undertaking that requires the same scrutinizing homework as the philosopher.

The only slight difference in both realities of documentary filmmaking and “philosophizing” in the traditional sense—the writing of treatises and the teaching component in the academia—is the level of research necessary in both fields. The documentary film director and producer drives their specific story with, hopefully, a graceful flow of meticulous details in storylines and features necessarily delivered with heavy research. Research is paramount in this regard to the searching of archival footage material, documentation of a long, continuous narrative or issue, biographies of potential interviewees, and tidbits of information on a given topic or subject matter. All of these details and notes to the research is then scripted for the documentary film—which eventually outlines the film’s thesis. On the other hand, the traditional philosopher uses research for his or her concluding arguments to dialogues that have been carried forth in the history of philosophy with the continuance of established universals. Research in this regard is not at the same level and capacity as the research of facts, information, and impartial understanding to material that documentary film productions necessitate for their completed works.

Since documentary filmmakers must be excellent communicators to their story’s subjects and interviewees they too must be demonstrably superb writers and thinkers. The tendency to simplify language for better and more informed clarity is at the heart of any published philosopher, philosophy professor, and public intellectual in the field of philosophy. This practice is also fundamental for the documentary filmmaker and his small crew. The questions that film documentarians ask in a sit-down, on-camera interview and the story they end up scripting for post-production of a film is very much in par with the works in the field of philosophy. Philosophers ask a series of questions to get a better feel of the topic at hand and must redirect such answers to questions in written form—either in a college thesis paper, an article in an academic journal, or in long form through a book or essay.

The title of this blog could very much be the name of the next college course to befall in a public or private university’s academic curriculum. In such a course the professor bridges both the understanding and enterprise of philosophy with the art of documentary filmmaking. Here, the marriage of the two disciplines can teach of the power of the platform documentary filmmaking have in the 21^st century. Even if broken down in semantics philosophy can be better understood as “learning how to learn.” In that understanding documentaries can literally take on that philosophical enterprise using the camera lens to document a story or tackle an issue as a prescription to changing people’s minds or simply changing people’s thoughts and thinking from ideology and doctrine to enlightenment and self-realization.

It is often observed that documentaries are consistently produced and directed by one-time and first time independent filmmakers. A journalist may be willing to take his or her particular story with its many subjects from a TV or news media report into a full-fledged documentary. A student filmmaker may want to expand his or her film thesis or student film project assignment to the next level through the world of professional independent documentary filmmaking. Hungry film enthusiasts and budding directors who are seeking ways to crack into the film industry may get their start up opportunity in producing a documentary film or two. A nonfiction writer may collaborate with known producers and directors to help stir a documentary film project into fruition. Reality TV show producers and music video directors seek the genre of documentary film storytelling to expand their creative portfolio. Even a radio commentator may get behind the producing aspect of a documentary narrative just to tell the story and get it out. But when documentary films are, in fact, directed and produced by novice filmmakers, who may or may not even be willing to take on the title of “documentary filmmaker”, is it enough to conclude that documentary films in general especially when done well can be completed by those with little to no experience?

Since so much of documentary filmmaking falls away from the classical structure of filmmaking with the model of the pre-production, production, and post-production phases set in stone it may seem elusive to think that any Joe Schmoe off the street can partake in the endeavor of documentary film constructing. A narrative feature-length film in the genres of comedy, drama, sci fi, Western, action, thriller, horror, and even animated often goes into production once a script is completed and will only go into post-production once principal photography has concluded. Of course, like in all works of art exceptions are made based on budgets, director’s film style and vision, and, of course, clearance/legal rights issues. However, for the documentary film genre and all its sub genres of “docudrama”, “docutainment”, and “docufiction” pre-production, story development, and research may all continue through the production and even post-production phases. Most documentaries take 2-10 years to complete often due to following a story that fits the main narrative and thesis of a given film rather than the common challenges of budgets, clearance and copyright issues, and access to interviewees and important subject matter. But, the larger assessment to analyze here is whether experience is paramount for the director and producer of a documentary as he or she puts together such a film from beginning to end.

In a media-driven world where the lines of reality and fiction continue to be blurred and where Truth often takes a back seat to what’s new and hot and entertaining documentary films now fall into a murky, weary, and strange existence of video storytelling, film entertainment, journalism, news reporting and the disseminating of information. It is in these times that I believe documentary filmmakers must not only be on top of their game, per se, but must have the necessary experience and working knowledge that can take a documentary film to the next level. Strictly for conversation documentary filmmaking in this sense means award-winning caliber work where distribution will reach the levels of audience that can resonate and imbibe in its material. Art in this sense is taken in a different respect than the proverbial art house, experimental films that are shown in local venues and may not be good or strong enough or even willing enough to reach a mass audience.

It can also be argued that one’s passion and enthusiasm for a given documentary film thesis can be enough to drive a documentary film from development to ready-made distribution. This can be enough for that same Joe Schmoe to pick up a camera, garner a small team of other enthusiasts, roll video, ask questions to those who appear in front of the camera and perform all the other necessary aspects to the task of documentary filmmaking. Plus, the fact that documentary films are thought to be wholly about capturing reality with little to no manipulating (or editing) makes the novice filmmaker feel access and the inevitability of accomplishing the task at producing a documentary film easier than what one would initially think. I mean–what could be hard in capturing reality with a video camera?

Well, the simple answer to that is—if it were easy everybody would be doing it. Documentary filmmaking is one of the toughest, exhausting creative projects anyone can ever endeavor in. Not simply because of the time and patience required but the diligent focus necessary. Documentary filmmaking requires months if not years of focus on story content and story development. Documentary filmmakers whether they have little to no “skin in the game” has a monumental task in production of a given documentary—marrying information with entertainment and bridging the Truth of reality with an entertainment value for a mass audience to consume if not appreciate. Here’s where experience is fundamental to such a task. Through developing a clear storyline and researching the right material that can carry the flow of a documentary (especially if it’s an informative piece) the directors and producers must hone in and deliver the knowledge required to making real the pursuit of documentary film storytelling. A novice filmmaker whether he or she comes out of the world of film theory or not lacks the criteria of following a story for a long-term basis on camera and then rendering a concise story once he or she has entered post-production on the film. A novice filmmaker does not carry with him or her the vision of putting together material containing information, statistics, and more with alluring sentiment and market appeal which only an experienced documentary filmmaker has from years of work in this specific genre of the film industry. If documentary film producers and directors do not carry the “pain” and “pressure” that comes with producing and directing an important film the work will most likely suffer from lack of focus, lack of allure, lack of comprehension, and/or lack of thoroughness. At best, the novice filmmaker would complete a feature-length documentary film but so does every other indie filmmaker who has uploaded his or her work onto YouTube and Vimeo. The best thing that first-time and one-time “documentary filmmakers” do in regard to an award-winning caliber piece is to link up and collaborate with experienced producers, directors, and even writers who knows how to drive a given documentary film project to the highest potential for success.

The feeling and the enthusiasm to say that first-time and one-time filmmakers can complete an award-winning documentary film is usually carried over by the simplicity and rather easy (if not easier) task of documentary short films. Documentary shorts—even as they fall succinctly into the genre of documentary films—do not carry on that challenge of focus, diligence, deconstructing, and comprehensive thoroughness that feature-length documentary film necessitates. Feature-length documentaries is fundamentally infused to the engrossing, the probing, the educational, the didactic, and the thorough where short-length documentaries are not coerced and obligated to take on.

The term “docutainment” is as much a misnomer as it is precise in usage and understanding. As with other popular neologisms that have grown in recent years in the genre of documentaries like with the terms “docudrama” and “mokumentary” documentary films have continued to expand the terrain in visual media and entertainment to a point where the informative and the entertaining become closely linked and embedded in one another. Especially in an ever-evolving digital age of 24-hour news cycles, people’s access to voicing their opinion on social media platforms and blog sites, and technology constantly driving human beings to stay in tuned and entertained documentaries in the 21st century has developed vital and unique ways to plugging in viewers in today’s hyper-competitive and hyper-commercial reality. Here, entertainment becomes paramount in producing documentaries particularly for the ubiquitous Millennial Generation already bent on crossover innovation and technology. However, this in no way means that documentaries of the past was not produced for entertainment purposes. It simply means that entertainment has gone to another level with informative, engrossing, educational, didactic, thought-provoking, and heady documentary film content.

Its due to the impaction of accessible video in this proverbial YouTube generation where video is constantly being streamed through smartphones, tablets, laptops, billboards and in cars, airplane seats, dentist offices, and so on that documentary film producers and directors had no choice but to step their game up. Today, digital technology allows any viewer and consumer of media content to turn any video stream off by switching to another channel, logging onto another web page, or simply clicking on another app. In that visual media experience attention spans become fickle and interest on topics consistently malleable. Entertaining viewers for large scale viewership is at the heart of current documentaries. This point of emphasis is responsible for the neologism of the term “docutainment’.

The misnomer of the term comes in when the motives of producing works that are considered “docutainment” is called into question. In some definitions docutainment refers to a class of entertainment that has the pretense of a documentary but is aimed at entertaining the viewer. In this understanding docutainment producers, directors, and even writers uses the guise of a documentary and the motivation/inspiration of documentary filmmaking to construct works that are primarily for entertaining the audience. Similar to the works of mokumentaries that is produced as false narratives—often for comedic purposes—in the guise of a full-fledged documentary docutainment is seen as only enthralling, distracting, and captivating target audiences. The line gets drawn in the sand to the degree in which docutainment is informative and educational on the one hand and entertaining and captivating on the other. The best judge in seeking the dichotomy in a given producer and his production team’s motive for a documentary film upon completion is seeing in what ways the documentary makes an impact on that given society of viewers and in what ways the documentary will be exploited for other purposes than entertainment through monetary compensation.

It’s interesting and eye-opening in the manner in which the term is being debated among documentary film purists and its avid enthusiasts and fans. Could the obsession and societal focus with entertainment be the death of the documentary film genre or rather it’s savior? In an attempt to lure mass audiences for distribution and the pressures for market appeal for a completed film is entertainment rising roughshod over essential documentary filmmaking roots? Is the documentary film genre being watered down so much that it might as well be renamed “Factual Entertainment” another possible neologism added to the influential genre of documentaries? Can documentary satisfy varying people’s need for entertainment whilst staying true to it’s origins? What does the impact and the meaning of docutainment mean for the next generation of filmmakers? And, how will they learn their craft as technology continues to evolve and expand methodologies and approaches to documentary filmmaking?

So many questions leaves the reality of just how specific documentaries have been understood over time and the need to better understand the motives and inspiration behind documentary film content and its production. But these same questions also reveals how the genre continues to evolve into the near future. The term “mokumentary” is a portmanteau of the words mock and documentary usually crafted as a parody of historical/current events more for entertaining than for informing and teaching. In the same vein the term “docutainment” can be seen as a parody on fundamental aspects to documentary filmmaking. However, if docutainment’s main focus is to entertain through the guise of a documentary, which overall represents teaching, informing, and educating (raising awareness and enlightening), than only one of two things are clear. One, docutainment has always been the case since the genre of documentaries was first realized, conceived, and developed or two, docutainment is a product of the 21^st century—a recent phenomenon of a visual media in a digitized, technology-driven world. If the former is the case here then documentary film purists, avid enthusiasts and their fans, who consume documentaries through video-on-demand, create and flood film festivals and take part in panelists of judges for awards, must all admit to the degree in which documentary film is vital in entertaining and captivating audience members. Such a motive may in fact represent the same level of motive as the teaching, informing, and educating (raising awareness and enlightening) aspect is in traditional documentary filmmaking. If the latter is the case than audience members have changed over time and their approach to documentaries have shifted over time as well and the demand in which documentaries have been in recent years is to the point where entertainment is primary among viewers, buyers, distributors, funders, and its producers.

Something should be said about the role the filmmaker plays in society. He or she is an artist in every right of the word—a person who maintains a living occupation with creative vision and artistic integrity. But more or less—the filmmaker is just that—a maker, a doer, an active achiever and not merely a critic or spectator. The filmmaker whether his or her artistic platform of creation is documentaries, experimental film, art house projects, or independent filmmaking is motivated to accomplish and complete and inspired to achieve and create. Not that filmmakers do not hold an opinion one way or another on other film works like that of a spectator and film critic but that their goal in life and in their career is not posited solely or largely on critiquing, analyzing, or providing constructive or literary criticism for classic films and currently released ones. Just like a chef who eats out from to time and makes varying critical notes to various dishes he sees prepared or he has served to him the filmmaker responds the same way sitting in a movie theatre watching someone else’s film.

An artist as Charles Bukowski put it in his poem, “so you want to be a writer?” is moved by passion and nothing else. He writes, “…unless it comes out of your soul like a rocket, unless being still would drive you to madness or suicide or murder, don’t do it. unless the sun inside you is burning your gut, don’t do it…” Passion is what moves the film artist to create, pursue, and accomplish something not found in movie critics and film spectators. The true, motivated artist not just with filmmakers but musicians, poets, and writers is so inspired in his or her rendition in creating that they have little to no time in keeping up with the latest movie and contributing it with the latest opinion blog or critique. They are wholly concerned with the absolute challenge that all artists are compelled with—perfection. Perfection is what takes most if not all of their time. It’s here in the pursuit of perfection that keeps the filmmaker only active in his or her pursuit of making films rather than just criticizing, commending, analyzing, and watching films.

Satisfaction is the highest reality that a filmmaker aims for. Seeing his or her creative vision accomplished through the medium of film on a movie screen delivers the highest degree of satisfaction. Critics and spectators are satisfied in talking, commenting, providing criticism for debate and discussion all on the sidelines—literally. Filmmakers are only satisfied in accomplishing in the ring, on the field, on stage in their performances of producing, directing, and writing film works. Bent for the inspiration to bring something from nothing filmmakers move through society with an artistic outlook. They, in fact, do not watch a film the same way as a film spectator. Most film critics do come from a film background either through theory courses in film schools, judges/panelists for film festivals and awards ceremonies, or even on set as a one-time producer and director. Satisfaction may be interpreted as the ego of the filmmaker or a filmmaker being arrogant about his or her work but this is erroneous and a misunderstanding of the role the filmmaker plays in society through entertainment in one degree and activism/informer in another. The filmmaker wants to move in the reality of progress and achievement with the thinking that their artistic work is nowhere to be seen in the world. Such the audacity to accomplish and plan for such creative accomplishments appears to others as arrogance and egotism but it is the very drive that propels him or her forward. This is the same drive that separates the true film auteur to the constant moviegoer, film critic, and spectator of such works.

The director of a documentary film is a lot of things to the story being covered or the subject matter/topic being addressed. She is the film’s narrator and driver, and the catalyst in asking the right questions, seeking the right materials and finding the right shots for the film. Different film directors take different approaches to constructing their specific documentaries and these approaches are filled with unique styles and forms. Different styles and different forms are inspired by the director to convey the theme to the film and all its elements as well as the overall message to their storyline. One of the more favored stylistic approaches popular and not-so-popular documentary filmmakers utilize is the omniscient narrator. The omniscient narrator is when the director takes on an on-camera role greatly evolving the traditional role of a documentary film director who exclusively guides the film behind the camera. Here, the omniscient narrator asserts herself as a subject in the film driving the storyline to fruition. Catching the subject matter and all its important cast of characters in unison with the flow of the film makes the omniscient narrator a key contributing factor to documentary film storytelling. Similar to narrative storytelling in a novel—the first person omniscient—plays the role of the narrator who is inserted as a character in the story but omniscient enough to know the thoughts and feelings of all the other major and minor characters.

The role and tendency of the omniscient narrator was popularized from news broadcast of a television reporter or investigative journalist who appear in front of the camera to tell a sudden news storyline with intros and outros to the video. In some rare cases—in the beginning—the reporter/investigative journalist asserts himself into the news story by interacting with witnesses and digging up key evidence and discovering important facts for viewers tuning in. The tendency to use the omniscient narrator spilled into documentary film genre. With the documentary film works of Michael Moore, Nick Broomfield, Morgan Spurlock, and others the omniscient narrator became a dominant attribute in the genre used in covering a specific subject matter and telling a personable and relatable story. The award-winning English documentary filmmaker Nick Broomfield was the first to take this style of storytelling to the next level. Broomfield usually works with a minimal crew, recording sound himself and using one or two camera operators. He is often seen in the finished film, usually holding the sound boom and wearing the Nagra tape recorder. In his films Broomfield interacts with his characters in one-on-one scenarios in a personable approach asking intimate questions and seeking key elements to the story—evidence or commentary—rather than being the curious onlooker as a director peripheral to the story and its theme. It is for this “self-reflexive” film-making style—a film being about the making of itself as much as its about the subject—that Nick Broomfield is best known. His influence on documentary is clear since Michael Moore and Morgan Spurlock have all adopted a similar style for their documentary film box-office hits. Filmmakers who use this style have even been referred in likeness to to the gonzo reporting style of Hunter S. Thompson. Broomfield’s metadocumentary approach in covering biopics greatly enhanced story-driven concepts vital to a documentary film in not only the impact of the storyline but the flow to a film itself in keeping auidence members engaged and entertained. In watching a Nick Broomfield-directed documentary a viewer feels he’s part of his journey of discovery and part of his probing work in deconstructing the film’s storyline.

It’s hard to see the omniscient narrator not being utilized in television news broadcast today. Nearly all TV reporters first appear on camera and report their topic with the camera following the reporter asking the hard questions and involving themselves in the report as a concerned investigator and probing correspondent. Along with her voice-over narration the reporter becomes a key character in the story being covered—if not, personally but intricately. The documentary filmmaker in recent times have employed this same methodology of storytelling when covering a hot topic, popular subject matter, or personable narrative. For them its not enough that the story tells itself but that there exists an outside engagement to stir the audience and one in which those same audience members can relate. Michael Moore and Morgan Spurlock specifically carries themselves as “a typcial American” from American surburbia concerned by the specifics plights of the U.S. They seek their documentary film story with national pride and the best interest of their country in mind through their theme and message—whatever their political persuasions lean. This ethos of the documentary filmmaker adds to the dimension of the omnisicient, narrative storytelling process. In his Oscar-winning documentary film, Bowling For Columbine, Michael Moore presents himself as the voyeuristic character seeking an answer to America’s growing problem of gun control. His assertion as the ominiscient narrator to the film carries the storyline as the activist-on-foot asking the necessary and unpopular questions to politicians, lobbyists, and corporate leaders taking advantage of guns being sold and used in middle America. Morgan Spurlock in his Academy-Award nominated documentary film, Super Size Me, plays the omniscient role to its upmost respect when he takes on the challenge of eating exclusively McDonalds food for 30 days—while the audience members follows throughout his journey. Engagement, intrigue, and emotion all play in effect in the role of the onminsicient narrator—all key attributes to any storyline seeking an audience to relate, understand, and imbibe in.

Not all popular and less-than popular documentary filmmakers take on the omniscient narrator role in telling their film’s story. Errol Morris, Alex Gibney, Michael Kirk, Ken Burns, Barbara Kopple, Kirby Dick, Charles Ferguson, Kevin MacDonald and even Spike Lee all remain in the traditional role of the behind-the-scene director to their documentaries. Morris and Gibney may employ the “off-the-camera questioner” interacting with their cast of characters in on-camera, sit-down interviews but this is rather minimal in becoming a character to a film. Part of the motivation to use the omniscient narrator to a documentary film is to also add to the film’s appeal and marketability in endorsing its celebrity director in the likes of Moore and Spurlock for example. In fact, Michael Moore has created for himself the image and persona of a political pundit who uses the platform of documentary films in expressing his sociopolitical views.

From a distance documentary filmmaking and journalism can seem to be in contrast with one another from details of content, method of distribution, and the motivation to produce such specific works. But upon closer introspection and study the two endeavors overlap in many ways. If the term documentary is defined as any form of material used to communicate, document, and cover a real-life actual event, era, life story, etc. with factual accounts containing no fictional elements than journalism in many ways follows in that same vein and pursuit to truth. Reporting in the field of journalism is the attempt to document impartially the who, what, where, when, why, and how of a given topic, story or subject matter. Here, both endeavors in documentary filmmaking and journalism are investigative and motivated by matters of the truth. The difference comes between the two endeavors in the amount of content given, the turnaround time in production, the motivation in distributing such content and materials to a given audience of viewers/readers, the degree of neutrality and objectivity, and last (but certainly not least)–the tendency in doing art.

Documentary filmmakers are inspired like that of a philanthropist or an activist bent on tackling a complex issue, raising awareness on a problem for available solution(s), or plainly inspired for social, economic or political change. He or she in their pursuit of constructing a documentary film may be more moved in ways larger than just documenting a storyline or narrating a real-life drama. A meaning to the story and the importance in revealing the motif to the story is of high priority to the documentary filmmaker. This tilts or expands the degree of work in content building, story-telling, and distribution documentary filmmakers accomplish in contrast to journalists. On the other hand journalists are simply reporters out in the field determined to cover a storyline or real-life drama in one avenue of expression that prominently centers on the facts. A journalist’s motto would be: “Facts no commentary.” Journalists—depending on their method and access to distribution—are not exclusively motivated or inspired in the emotional telling of the story or any teaching/preaching moment of a lesson and motif germane to their storyline. Journalists aren’t working to give his or her audience a means to how to think about a given story. They are essentially there to give to his or her audience what to think about.

If journalist expands their area of expertise from print publication for distribution in his or her work into areas like video/film or television broadcast than the lines may blur to how “investigative” a reporter or journalist are in the likes of a documentary filmmaker. In other words, with new and popularly-growing 21^st century terms like a “photojournalist” “video journalist”, “multimedia journalism” and “digital communication” a journalist based on his or her motivation and inspiration and the amount/level of content ready for distribution can produce work that can, in fact, be parallel to that of a documentary filmmaker and his or her work. With the advent of rapidly growing digital technology, the popular growth in social media platforms, and the high importance in including the Millennial Generation different methods through digital video has changed the ever-shifting landscape in reporting the news and documenting the “Truth” to such a degree where traditional job descriptions of a journalist and documentary filmmaker no longer hold up. Moreover, in order to keep the attention span of a younger generation groomed in the digital world documentary filmmakers are constantly going back and forth in long-form to short-form content to telling their stories and inspiring their call to raising awareness.

Is a 30-minute investigation special on MSNBC purely a journalist at work or an example of a documentary short? Can the approach in production and editing an ESPN documentary be the same in CNN’s approach to cover a news topic? Are full-length documentaries on PBS Frontline not something a journalist can do especially if the documentaries follow the same method to reporting? Does journalism depend entirely on turnaround time of a given work or a TRT (Total Running Time) of the output of a given work? How much of journalism differs with documentary filmmaking based on the creative control and involvement both the producer and reporter have in their work(s)? Is it important in identifying if not creating a dichotomy between journalism and documentary filmmaking? To answer the latter question—the two endeavors may be argued for contrast to the degree of what motivates a given work to be produced and then eventually distributed. Long-form documentaries—depending on the budget—usually take 2-10 years to complete for the purposes of following a storyline for a thorough, balanced and focused narrative. Separate from producing today’s reality television shows with fast cuts, snippets of soundbites from sit-down, on-camera interviews tightly juxtaposed in the edit of a given episode, and multiple camera angles capturing real life moments—documentary films usually blend with the characters of a story as they follow a subject matter to such an important degree that the camera itself becomes a window to the story—through the cinéma vérité style. This makes documentary filmmaking deeper and more conscious. Journalist in using the video camera moves at a different pace, methodology, and motivation. He or she sees their content as “making air not art”—where timing is vital. A given turnaround time for a broadcast journalist may be in fact a couple of weeks if not days. This method in reporting will then require a different style to the one whose putting together a documentary film. More, importantly a journalist is more pressed with time in execution where the reward is in telling the story at the onset of its problem, popularity, and value. The reward in the documentary filmmaker is documenting a balanced subject matter in raising awareness on a given subject matter and producing film art—which incorporates emotion, feeling, and inspiration that comes with any and all artistic expressions. Journalists are reporters while documentary filmmakers are artists.

Art is a big factor in what documentary filmmakers do which is surprisingly often overlooked by the lay public as well as “experts” in the field. Creativity is what drives the director in telling a strong narrative and documenting a specific issue through film language. Symbolic imagery where the camera catches things, people, and occurrences on camera as a symbolic representations of the style of the story being told is a fundamental aspect to documentary film artists at work. Art takes documentary filmmaking to a different avenue and degree than video journalism where being impartial to story content is an unwritten rule. Art doesn’t necessarily hinder the objectivity and engrossing element to documentaries it only enhances the way the story is told and the way the issue(s) is being addressed. That focus in doing art takes a viewer into a world that they may not have entered otherwise. This essentially makes television or film documentaries much different that long extended news packages done in feature-length time.

However, objectivity and neutrality can always blur in any media platform—especially a media platform motivated in making money. Here, documentary filmmakers are no more immune to this reality than journalists are. One can argue that the notion of 100% objectivity in the sense of a reporter or documentarian who is simply on the outside looking in as a way of finding out what’s going on and highlighting the importance of the story is a mirage. It’ll be better in this sake for either person to come at an angle in telling a story or arguing a point no different than what one might read in a nonfiction book or expository essay. Journalist in comparison to a documentary filmmaker can get away with this more easily if he or she is out in the field in a limited time frame covering a hot topic that needs to go out to air or in publication. There isn’t enough time to spin a story or produce a work that critics and viewers may argue is propaganda within that structure. However, it is important to note that there is growing popularity and constant attention put on pontificating commentary where op-ed columns, editorials, lively pundits, and blogs get weighed upon more than factual reporting and political journalism. Documentary filmmakers exclusively operate in one angle of a given subject matter or narrative however subtly it is portrayed and conveyed. For example, Ken Burns’ historical documentaries on PBS usually affirms the belief in American exceptionalism and deep American national pride—whether it be in an anthology of the Civil War, Jazz music or National Parks or biographical documentaries on Mark Twain and Thomas Jefferson. The best documentary filmmakers do in regard to the level of objectivity is to keep it subtle where facts are not construed with commentary, the documentaries are thorough in research and provide valuable information and both sides of an issue or problem are represented and addressed in the film.

Journalism and documentary films overlap in production value, focus on truth, methodology of approach and the gathering of information and research. The two endeavors differ in distribution method, time frame of execution, level and degree of content and the motivation and inspiration in making art and news. The degree in raising awareness and reaching close to the Truth—with the capital T—is what delivers value in both endeavors. Both endeavors can be painstaking in information gathering and research, dangerous in going into the field and working on certain contentious subject matter and issues, and both require much diligence and determination to perform especially in their respective fields that are currently undergoing measures of significant downsizing due to economics and growing technology.

As discussed in the earlier blog entitled, “The Digital Revolution” the very approach people are making today to watch television, movies, and even the news has radically shifted within a half-generation. With the advancement of digital technology a high importance in educating, informing, teaching, and raising awareness of specific issues and topics have underwent an important paradigm shift into the visual-spatial arena. It is in this shift documentary films will provide a unique resource to learning that it never had before. One aspect to the unique enterprise of documentary filmmaking is in filmanthropy.

Filmanthropy is the next profound impact digital media will make on the world through the digital revolution. Defined loosely, filmanthropy means the practice in filmmaking that raises consciousness on a specific issue and promotes solutions and outreach toward a specific cause. SnagFilms, the advertising-supported video-on-demand (V.O.D.) website for independent documentary films, was the first to coin the term. SnagFilms‘ founder and chairman Ted Leonsis utilized the term as a marketing tool and his company’s mission to describe the power documentaries have to inspire community action. The online site markets short-length and feature-length independent documentaries with that focus in mind. In a better understanding filmanthropy is philanthropy through filmmaking. Philanthropists, who now serve as a growing group of investors in documentary filmmaking have joined forces and collaborative efforts with filmmakers to produce socially relevant and impactful films on a wide range of issues affecting the world today. Although primarily focused in on documentaries filmanthropy can also include narrative, fictionalized short-length and feature-length films as well.

Back in the day—years before the internet reshaped the world as we know it documentaries played an archaic part in research institutions, university curriculum, library collections, and school resources. Once upon a time, an instructor would wipe the dust off of an old VHS cassette tape of a documentary and pop it into a VCR for the chance at teaching a subject matter for an engrossing, teachable experience to a diverse group of pupils—most likely in a lecture hall, classroom or academic/research conference setting. The documentary would be slow-winding video of a distant narrator speaking over stock archival footage parlayed with long soundbites from expert interviewees. Here, documentaries had one primary function—to teach a given subject matter on relevant topics for discussions, symposiums, conferences, and lectures through the limited space of distribution dominated mostly by colleges and universities. In this period, documentaries were an illustrated reference book of a topic in video form. Now—fast forward to today, documentary films have evolved into a whole new world of relevant digital media. With the means of distribution in DVD sales, online streaming, the film festival circuit, and on television documentaries have proven to be more powerful in impact than in subsequent years. Far from its once primary function as a resource to teaching in the halls of the academia and institutions of higher learning documentaries are seen practically everywhere with added functions and attributes: to provide media that prompts people to think differently on given topic, entertain people with an interesting focus of informing on a topic or issue, raise consciousness on a current event, and prompt engagement in people for necessary social action. Today, documentaries have expanded beyond its limits into a work of art that can serve as a social utility for activists, philanthropists, and community advocates bent on change, sustainability, re-development, and more. In fact, documentary filmmakers prove themselves to be the activists, philanthropists, and a community advocates who they collaborate with through their work.

In an internet culture of fast-pace trends, overemphasis of time in feedback and postings, and the pressure to provide enough visuals to keep an internet user stimulated enough not to click away documentaries have evolved through such a culture. Hence, the reason documentary films needed to take an entertainment angle to informing their viewers for the emphasis of being engrossing and didactic. Such liberties documentary filmmakers utilize for entertainment in their work has been the popular use of the director playing the role of the “omniscient narrator” by appearing as a storyline in their film which you see in all of Michael Moore’s work, Morgan Spurlock in Super Size Me, and Nick Broomfield in Kurt and Courtney and Bigge & Tupac—to name a few. Other means of visually-stimulating approaches and an entertaining focus documentarians are using today have been the use of graphic design particularly motion graphics, unique subtitling and title graphics, the “Ken Burns effect” where the camera pans and zooms in on a still image for a stimulating effect, and even Errol Morris’ use of the Interrotron, a device similar to a teleprompter where the director and his or her interview subject each sit facing a camera where the interviewee looks directly at a human face (the director) as he or she is looking straight into the camera. Such devices for documentary film story-telling has enhanced the appeal documentaries have on a mainstream culture while keeping in par to the niche markets of documentary enthusiasts and its community of fans. Here, documentaries do not seem to “sell out” to the mainstream for popularity and profit. This new way of creatively approaching a documentary is an important aspect to documentary films’ new focus in filmanthropy. Here, filmanthropy is not only seen as “preaching” or “spreading propaganda” of a specific issue and its cause but a visually stimulating media form that captivates a diverse audience of viewers needed to propel change for a common cause and action. Filmanthropy in this guise makes social issues cool to investigate and learn about and appealing to take part in for the sake of productive and effective solutions to the problem. Viewers in this light will not only see the responsibility to the cause the documentary film introduces but also the very need for documentary films itself to be that voice, channel, and platform to relevant topics that may not get its due attention in the mass, commercial media space.

So, while a director and producer of a particular documentary may be asked in a Q&A forum following a screening of the film: “Why did you make this film?” The director will answer in the same light the activist or advocate will answer to why he or she was motivated and inspired to take up the cause of a specific social, political, or environmental issue. Such a question would probably never be asked directly to a filmmaker of another genre because entertainment alone would be the given answer.