To Direct or Not To Direct- That Is The Question....

Stanley

Yesterday I ran a video by nyvs member Michelle Michael which I thought was a pretty outstanding example of great video.

It was so good that she won the NPPA (National Press Photographer's Association) Award as Videographer of the Year in 2011.

Then, I got an email from John DuMontelle, a professional videographer (and a very good one) in Miami.

John is in the news business and wrote the following:

I agree with you Michael.

Very nice.

But…the reality is this was not exactly “real”.

Twenty four notes? She got all those shots, all those angles, while he played those 24 notes once?

How many times did she have him stand there and play them? Or did he even play them? Just stand and look like he was blowing on the bugle while she got all those shots? Because it’s so obvious the man did his “thing” over and over for Michelle, it brings into question all the video. Did he really walk over and put his hand on the headstone like that or was he told where to walk and what to do?

Again, a very pretty story with a wonderful message. A good man doing a good thing.

However I doubt Michelle went out there and captured “reality”. She made a movie with a willing actor. She got to be Cecil B. DeMille for a day…and she did very well.

Yes, a real interview with his real thoughts. It just looks like yet again someone very heavily invested in the National Press Photographer’s Association went overboard and became a movie director instead of a journalist capturing real moments.

I think there WERE real moments there. But which ones? Without a doubt…not all of them. And that’s where I get a little turned off.

Well shot, well composed, well edited and written. A great feature story and I have no doubt it got notice form the NPPA. For this very reason, the NPPA has fallen from grace with so many long time news photographers. They should be honest and take the “press” out of the group’s name.

But it’s a good story to watch and learn from.

I have been back and looked at Michelle's piece several times now. Frankly, I could parse it either way. It is possible that she could have shot the bugle playing sequence in one take. She would have had to run pretty fast while keeping the camera rolling and getting perfect audio the whole time - so it is possible, but not easy by a long shot.  However, as I was not there, I can't really say whether there was more than one take or not. 

You should read Michelle Michael's response to John below in which she states emphatically that she did not direct.

The larger question, I think is - does it matter? Or, how much does it matter - if the story works and it conveys what you want it to convey? This is no simple question and there is no easy answer here.

By way of background, let me say that I began my career in the conventional traditional news business. My mentor in the TV news business was Fred Friendly, who as an incredible stickler for integrity and honesty in news.  As a CBS News employee, directing anything was a firing offense.  (Watching CBS News, or any network news now I can see that that is no longer the case). 

In news we were taught that directing was a slipperly slope and that even the smallest bit of directing could undermine the trust that the audience had in the honesty of the piece.

This is all very good in theory, but in practice of course, there is a great deal of directing that goes one, whether you do it consciously or not.

Every time you conduct an interview, this is a 'directed' event. 

My thinking on this is promoted by a new book out by Errol Morris, (Director of The Thin Blue Line, The Fog of War and many other truly great documentary films), Seeing Is Believing, (Observations On The Mysteries of Photography).

Morris' book, which I have only just begun (more on this when I finish it), is a study of the intersection between photography, art, story-telling and propaganda.  He unravels examples of powerful photographs which were taken to 'prove a point' or illustrate or convey an idea.  Where they staged? Does it matter?  It's a very very interesting discourse, and one which anyone in the business should read.

All of which brings us back to this question of 'directing'.

I used to say 'never direct anything'.

I did this because directing more than anything else can lead you into the realm or recording what simply is not true. As Fred Friendly said, it's a slipperly slope.

I am also opposed to directing becuase it is a crutch.  It makes life too easy.  It's like learning to play tennis with a coach who always puts the ball squarely in front of you. The first time you get in a real game and someone hits a line shot, you are lost.  But you can't say 'hey, stop the game and gimme an easy shot to return!'.  This is not how real life works and in any real life shooting situation you can't always 'stop the action' so you have time to set up.

That being said, I am, (based on reading Morris to a large extent) starting to think that first, we inevitably manipulate the medium and reality just by our presence, and b) if our intent is to use video to make a point, to create a kind of art to make a point, to tell a story, then perhaps some degree of directing is also not only allowable but necessary.

In the 1930s, Franklin Roosevelt's PWA program paid for photojournalists to wander the country documenting the impact of The Great Depression.  (One may only wonder what the reaction would be today if a stimulus plan including hiring dozens of documentary videographers).  In any event, the work of those photographers,people like Dorothea Lange, Walker Evans, Ben Shahn and Russell Lee,  not only captured the nation, they became both documentary and art.  If you would like to see them, many are now hanging in the Museum of Modern Art in NY.

This one was done by one of those photographers, Arthur Rothstein.

It's probably familiar to you.

It was from the Kansas Dust Bowl.

Here's another one from Rothstein, but this one was a bit more controversial and the subject of a chapter by Morris:

You may have seen this one as well. It was from a massive heat wave that swept North Dakota in the summer of 1936.

It certainly makes the point.

And it certainly is both jouranlism and art.

However, when the photograph was published there was a great hue and cry that the photo was a fake. That the cow skull had been moved and used as a prop.

It was a complex story, and you should read the book to get the whole thing, but it is very very interesting.

The larger point, I think, is the intersection between art and journalism; storytelling and truth-telling.    This is not so black and white. 

In 1988 I went to cover the Seoul Olympics in Korea for CBS News.

Although it is now ancient history, there were student riots in Seoul during the Olympics.  This was then considered a big news story, and as the CBS News producer in Seoul, I was assigned to cover it.

Now, Korea is a very organized society, so there was a riot-information phone number you could call to find out where and when the next riot was scheduled.  We got the info and went.  (We being myself and the Asia based CBS crew). 

When we got to the 'riot', the students were nicely lined up on one side of the street brandishing signs and molotov cocktails.  The police, in all their riot gear with their plastic shields, were on the other side of the street.  My cameraman took me into the middle of the street and said we would position ourselves here.  This seemed a bit crazy, so when the students and police began to charge at each other, my instinct was to run.  The cameraman grabbed hold of my collar and said 'stay right here'.

The riot proceeded around us - a small island of network camera crews and reporters.  The police bashed the students, the students threw the flaming molotov cocktails at the police. When one smashed into flames near my foot I jumped, but the cameraman said to relax. It was kerosene, not gasoline. Great show, not much danger.

In about 15 minutes the rioting was over and both the police and the students retreated, leaving a mess of broken glass and torn signs on the street.

Most of the other network crews headed for their offices to cut the pieces and uplink them to make the evening news.

I started back but my cameraman said, 'if you want to see something really interesting, wait...'

So we did.

About 20 minutes later, both police and students returned to the scene of the riot - but this time with brooms and buckets. Then, together, they cleaned up the mess and left the street as it had been before the mele started.

Amazing.

We filmed that as well.

But when the piece aired on The CBS Evening News, none of the clean-up footage made it, nor did that part of the story. Instead, the 'danger of the riots spilling over into the Olympic Stadium' was the theme.

Truth?

Honesty?

Staging?

It's a complex issue.

Late Breaking: This response from Michelle Michael:

Michael, John,

I appreciate you sharing my work with the mases, however, I would like to share my thoughts on the "discussion" that was more of a "bashing."

Being involved in NPPA, I very much take pride in a very high standard of ethics. For the record, I am not in this business for the glory. I am not in the business of "directing" either. I look to NPPA for the mentors--just as you did, John. AND...I have many MANY mentors in the organization. It IS an organization w ith values. Noone can take that away!

I have very thick skin, but this blog just made me sick to my stomach. To suggest I directed "Bob" to do anything for the story is sickening. The "moments" I captured, were just that. They were real moments, captured on camera honestly. Bob was not an actor.

Of course I did not get all 24 notes --and all those shots--once.
Taps is played at the 11th hour. Bob was so nervous he began practicing at 9. Is it wrong that I used my time wisely, and recorded him while he rehearsed? I think not. I work smart. I think on my feet.

Be turned off by any of my stories if you wish. However, please ask for the facts before you try to make me into something I am not. I tell stories because it's my passion. I submit them for awards, because at the end of a contest year, I understand what worked...and why.

BTW, I did not win solo video journalist of the year for this story.