A very, very good resource for what you want to do:

"Directing the Documentary" (third edition,now) by Michael Rabiger, Focal Press.

My bet is that a LOT of questions you have got their answers there.

There are a million ways to go with a documentary, and not knowing what your subject matter is makes it very difficult to give good advice. For instance, if your piece educational, historical, direct cinema (or as the French call it cinema verite)? What is your intended audience? Do you need prefunding to get going or are you going to shoot this at your own expense and then try to sell it?

I have sold to both PBS and cable and let me tell you, it has become more difficult as the "industry" consolidates. If you have more specific questions, and/or are willing to give some more information about your project, then I would be happy to be of service. What you might do is put together a non-disclosure document that would protect you from those who might want to hi-jack your ideas. You can contact me at sligo11@hotmail.com. Good luck.

Hee hee, just for the sake of it since I kind of like documentary ... ;)

In Cinéma Vérité, you can ask the subjects to re-do some part of action so you can edit when you get in post-prod.
*From the start*, you assess the camera IS part of subject's life anyway since you are there with all the equipment and your subject's already influenced by this "change" in his/her life.

In Direct Cinema you shoot like hell, kind of "from a distance" , so you have everything that's related to your subject according to the direction you want to give to your film. You never interfere with what's happening. Here, the camera should be *as ereased as possible* from your subject's life. Kind of like "spying" what's happening and recording it. Needless to say, you will NEVER ask your subject to re-do some part of the action otherwise you'd be doing Cinéma Vérité, which is too "invading" for the subject, from Dir.Cinema's tenants point of view.

Two different ways of working with your subjects. In fact, it's mostly how you plan to handle the camera and interfere with the subject.

Again, this book I told you about, it's all in there: writing, shooting, planning, protecting your rights, contracts, distribution, ethics, etc... a little expensive (+or- $50) but SO helpful and interesting without being too academic (except maybe this part on camera angles/action directing which is like one or two chapters out of maybe 10 or 12)... have a look, this must be on amazon or at Focal Press site if there is one !

And yes, take rextilleon advice about content's protection and distribution... For example, if you go with a network for eventual broadcasting, they may be trying to get their nose into your contents/editing etc... if they lend you some money in advance so you "conform" to the "house politics". Easy to lose control of your original idea then. You must kind of draw a line about all these questions BEFORE shooting / ask for financing.

Acid,
I have recently finished a grant funded doc, $20,000.00. It took two years and would not been possible without the help of many friends in the biz. My partner was the writting/producer & I did the Cam/Edit/and direction. Another friend wrote & recorded all the original music, several others provided the voices, ala Ken Burns style, of actual accounts found in newspapers & diaries. of the 1880 and early 1900s

We also authored the DVD version which was a new experience for me and far more time consuming than I had planned. Discmakers did a great job for us in manufacturing the finished disk.

Sell ing the project is another matter, so far no luck in broadcast, but are doing well at the musuem where it and smaller parts of it are on display. We are entered in several festivals coming up this spring. Our topic has limited regional appeal, and thankfully will remain a part of a exhib in a local musuem.

It was quite a rush to premier it in a packed theater of 350 people.

Another note, we actually screened a rough version to 50 college film students, their input/reactions helped make our finished work much stronger. Now I know why the big boys use focus groups......

Good Luck, Most people who do this work are full time fundraisers who make films as a hobby. I use to shot for a living, now I only do projects that interest me. I am fortunate to have a day job that allows my creative diversions,

I am not sure where you live, but film festivals are getting big, most have Q&A forums, etc. also a great place to network. Lots of info about this stuff on the web as well.

Phil

Sorry, I forgot to answer you first question. Final Draft pro software is the standard for writing in film & video.

They have a good product, we have used most of their versions. You can get along without, but if you really want to write a detailed script and use it as a model for your project nothing I have seen compares.

Do a search for final draft. They use to have a demo to play with,

Phil

Futz---Cinema Verite and Direct Cinema are the same thing---Starting in France (Cinema Verite) the concept was to get at the truth by shooting what was happening--no staging involved at all. It started in France and then came to America (Direct Cinema) In America its earliest practioners were the Maysles Brothers, Pennebaker, Drew etc. I should know--I am doing a documentary on one of the above. By the way, for a very good read on the History of the Documentary, check out Erik Barnouws History of the Documentary---it's a classic.

I'll check out, thanks.
So it would be the same, but with different names..(?)
I've heard so many times (at work) about difference involved in the *process* of these two different approaches... And the last one should be about the difference between Cinéma Vérité and Docu-drama (in which you simply use actors to reconstruct actions that may have taken place in the past. Or simply when the "real" subjects don't wanna be in front of the cam)

In a "general book about doing films" though ("the Filkmmaker's handbook", by Ascher and Pincus) they also say it's the same...

Yeah, its pretty much the same thing---The idea (many people think its foolish) is that you shoot reality as it evolves. I recently read a review of the documentary Gimme Shelter (on the Rolling Stones) and the reviewer said "The Maysles (the film makers) "hit the cinema verite jackpot"---The reviewer was saying that the violence precipitated by the Hells Angels at Altamont, made the film as gripping as it was and not just a plain jane doc on a rock band. It's real hard to hit the "cinema verite jackpot" but DV gives you a better shot--Remember those guys were shooting 16mm film in 400' magazines----and it was very expensive. These days you can let the camera run and run and run and run and perhaps luck out.

Now that would be direct cinema, no? These brothers are renowned for that, while Rouch in France (during same years) did cinéma vérité . This reviewer must be confused; at least, he confuses me.

Why invent two different expressions then if we're gonna talk about the same thing?
The last shooting I did, the director *insisted* to get all the action live, as it evolved. "I'm not doing cinéma vérité", "...no re-do/ no staging" she said.
I'm pretty sure about what I said and I didn't mean to get in a "who's right and who's not" discussion. There was a question mark there and as I said, I'm very interested in documentary (and partly put butter on my bread from it) and I *just wanted to point out two different methods, two different approaches to filming* because it involves more things than one might think, especially about schedule. In one situation, you can shoot everything in a week, in the other situation, you might need 2-4 weeks to get the people accustomed to the gear and staff first, then get the sequences you "expected" in the first place.

But this guy actually wants to *write* one and *protect* it...

Whoo-eee, we're getting a little OT now...

Just got this off the web---will try to find a quote from Barnouw but I can't find the damn book:

cinEma vEritE, a style of filmmaking that attempts to convey candid realism. Often employing lightweight, hand-held cameras and sound equipment, it shows people in everyday situations and uses authentic dialogue, naturalness of action, and a minimum of rearrangement for the camera. The style was pioneered in the late 1950s and early 60s by such French documentary filmmakers as Jean Rouch and Chris Marker and has been influential in the work of a number of directors, most notably Jean-Luc Godard. American filmmakers, who sometimes called the style "direct cinema," were quick to adopt the technique. Included among them are Richard Leacock, D. A. Pennebaker, Albert and David Maysles, Frederick Wiseman, and Robert Drew. More recently, such documentary makers as Ken (and Ric) Burns and Barbara Kopple have made cinEma vEritE techniques central to their films