Documentary filmmaking is a different branch of the filmmaking industry. In order to make a documentary film, an individual is required to understand every single aspect of the subject. These include the historical, social and cultural backgrounds, production requirements and technical necessities. Obviously, it is a very difficult option to choose and needs proper research and guidance to reflect the expertise and perfection in the film.

The documentary schools conduct a survey of the other schools and explore the different styles, structures and formats of documentaries. Students are then encouraged to research, develop and produce individual subjects of the documentary. The classes include lectures, presentations, screenings and demonstration of the production methods and equipments. An insight on the post-production processes, camera work, sound recording, lighting issues, setting and interview recordings are an essential part of this program. Apart from this, students are given to work on a specific number of projects for shooting and digital video editing. The work is then critically reviewed and judged by the faculty.

The schools arrange programs for the students, where they have to document local issues or events and project the artists and characters, systematically, structuring a flow in the sequence. Once they are edited and recorded, the sound and titles are added. The films are screened and critiqued by the instructors. In short, the film schools prepare the students in analyzing and understanding the subtleties of documentary filmmaking.

Both beginners and experienced individuals can join these schools. These include producers, cinematographers, editors and writers. The course duration and fee structures vary from one institute to another. A minimum of specified college credit scores are required to qualify for these schools. Candidates may apply online and select the course from the online catalog. Details of admission and new sessions can also be found online.

What is a documentary film? Well, essentially it is a film that is supposed to document reality. There is a wide variety of documentary films. There are hundreds of historical documentaries, and there have been some very popular political documentaries as of late. Although in my personal opinion you will find many of the late political documentaries have a bias agenda.

For example, Al Gore released an extremely popular documentary called "An Inconvenient Truth" which was about global warming. While many still say that global warming is not absolute truth and that we are merely in a cycle of a small change in the worlds climate, this documentary states it as thought it is a fact rather than a theory. It provides only the evidence that supports the theory. While the documentary is rather interesting, it obviously has a very bias agenda.

Other popular political documentaries are Michael Moore's films, "Fahrenheit 9/11" and "Sicko". Fahrenheit 9/11 was probably one of the most controversial films of the last decade. It contains outlandish comments about the Bush administration and even referring to the media as "cheerleaders" for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Many people supported it, but those that disliked it found it necessary to make a rebuttal documentary of their own entitled "FahrenHYPE 9/11". The documentary is devoted to try to prove many statements that were made in the Fahrenheit 9/11 documentary as false.

Sicko made its own wave of controversy. It made comments about how poor the American government's healthcare system really was. I do not believe it made as much of an impact simply because most people are aware that our quality of healthcare is much better than most other countries, it is just the cost that is killing everyone. Michael Moore takes it to another level stating that even some third world countries have better healthcare. I think most everyone knows this is simply untrue. You can simply take a look at the rampant diseases in those areas to determine the truth on the matter.

Making documentary films is a challenging and rewarding career path. Too many documentary filmmakers fall into the trap of creating the 'talking heads' documentary where they simply interview people against interesting or artistic backdrops. However, this form of documentary film making leaves a lot to be desired. The bottom line is that 'talking heads' are boring to watch. If people are just going to speak about their experiences, then an account of the situation in written format would be a much better idea since people usually write much better than the speak. There will be no "ums", or awkward pauses.

The art of documentary film making is the process of 'showing' and not 'telling'. For example, rather than having a person explain the definition of poverty, why not show poverty. The audience is intelligent enough to draw their own conclusions and definitions. What about filming in neighbourhoods where poverty runs rampant. What about showing the lives of people living in poverty. Their long bus rides to work, what they eat for dinner, what they struggle with and so on.

Film is a visual medium and people watch films to have their visual senses peaked. Simply watching someone speak is not visually entertaining. It might be from an auditory standpoint, but if it's only interesting to the ear then you should write a book rather than shoot a film. You need to make your documentary films interesting to the eye

However, this is not to say that 'talking heads' need to be removed all together. They can be great for explaining overly complex subject, for filling in any information holes that you couldn't 'show' and not 'tell' and they can provide back up explanations or help give your films thesis validation based on their credentials. The point is to simply use them sparingly.

The Lumières' brilliant invention, the cinematograph, was a machine which filmed, processed, projected and also, being portable, it could be taken anywhere with a minimum of fuss and used to record and display to an audience the world in which they lived. The Lumières chose to film real people in real situations, never showing any interest in dramatic stories. That is why they are considered the true fathers of the documentary form.

It has taken film technology 100 years to catch up and overtake them. A century after that first screening in Paris, we finally have a camera which can rival and outstrip the cinematograph.

Granted, the digital video camera cannot project its pictures to an audience - but it can play them back in the camera. And it can keep filming for long periods without having to change tapes. And it records sound. It is cheap, it is lightweight, the picture and sound quality are constantly improving, and it is user friendly. A single operator can take it anywhere and record our own contemporary lives on the run.


The invention of the DV camera has had a massive influence on documentary. So too has the development of digital video editing, sound recording and post-production, and of course also digital tools for animation.

All new aesthetic developments in documentary have followed on from technical breakthroughs. In the 1930s and 1940s, for example, some of the most compelling and beautiful documentaries were made, but they only really became possible after sound came to the movies. In the 1960s, the invention of 16 mm cameras with sync sound shepherded in the movements known variously as cinéma vérité, direct cinema or fly on the wall. Now we have the digital technology which has liberated film-making in so many ways. In documentary, the effect has been immense.

We are now in the middle of a new golden age of documentary. What makes this one different and therefore, more exciting is that there are so many people working in different styles with different approaches to the documentary genre. For years, the vérité aesthetic dominated documentary production and this, as a form, was often unduly restrictive and creatively stifling. Of course, some brilliant films came out of that whole movement, but some other brilliant films, stylistically different films, were not being made when they could and should have been made. After all, film-making was a very expensive business until recently, so the small number of television commissioning editors - still the main source of funding for most documentarists - had a great deal of power. Some of them were very narrow-minded, even conservative, in their approach.

Things are different now. Because of the lightweight, relatively inexpensive digital equipment, more and more people are funding their own films, which gives them the creative freedom that my generation never had. These people, the mavericks who want to express themselves without censorship or who have projects with no obvious big audience appeal, are now leading the way, creatively speaking. Their films are often purchased after they are shot, even, sometimes, after they have finished editing. Only at that stage are schedulers prepared to admit that the film-makers were right in the first place. The maverick films are everywhere. They refresh the television schedules, often get international distribution deals in cinemas and win major awards

Interested in making documentaries? Well, is your story compelling? Very few forms of communication have the power to impart to an audience the unique perspective that a documentary does. Bearing this in mind, do you want know how to make a documentary?

If I were a budding film maker I would certainly want to know how to make a documentary, however I am not a film maker. I am merely a writer, and the only thing I can do is change the way that people think by means of the power of words.

Many film makers believe that they have the unique perspective to capture the imagination, and this is certainly true. But how many have the ability to engender such a unique perspective that they are able to capture the imagination as well as to evoke change? Well the makers of documentaries do!

While it is true that would-be documentary film makers are more prolific than antique car salesmen, this is beside the point. People from all walks of life have a story to tell, and to tell it cinematically means that they are able to reach people who can relate to them perfectly. This is one of the gifts of knowing how to make a documentary, being compelled to share your story!

Your story does have to be compelling; there is no doubt about it. As an example, we know someone who is after his divorce, living between his vehicle and an abandoned building. This guy is a regular "Joe", not a hobo, he has a job and played a strong community role, however because of his divorce and between alimony and child support, he is barely any longer able to support himself. Now some people may think that this is not worth documenting. I disagree, I believe that this story is compelling and warrants attention.

I believe there is a strong universal lesson that can be learned and when learning how to make a documentary this counts, by the way this is coming from a woman who after her divorce could not get child support because my ex husband lied to the courts regarding his financial status! But others may feel differently, this is what makes a documentary so personal and so "apart from the run of the mill".

What is it about your story? Does it apply universally? How much do you believe in it, enough to produce a film and know that other people will relate to and understand? If so, you will have your documentary material.

Essentially when you want to know how to make a documentary, you have to have a universally acceptably story, thereafter the sky is the limit. Documentaries are the ultimate soap-box!