Very often subjects for programmers present themselves as ideas which suddenly become obvious. They are frequently to do with contemporary issues such as race relations, urban development, pollution and the environment, medical research. A programme might explore in detail a single aspect of one of these subjects which broadly attempts to examine how society copes with change. Other types of documentary deal with a single person, activity or event – the discovery of radium, the building of the Concorde aero plane, the life of a notable figure or the work of a particular factory, theatre group or school.
Essentially these are all to do with people, and while statistical and historical fact is important, the crucial element is the human one – to underline motivation and help the listener understand why certain decisions were made, and what makes people ‘tick’. The main advantage of the documentary approach over that of the straightforward talk is that the subject is made more interesting and brought alive by involving more people, more voices and a greater range of treatment. It should entertain while it informs, and as it illuminates provoke further thought and concern.
Planning
Following on the initial idea is the question of how long the programme should be. It may be that the brief is to produce for a 30-minute or one hour slot, in which case the problem is one of selection, of finding the right amount of material. Given a subject that is too large for the time available, a producer has the choice either of dealing with the whole area fairly superficially or reducing the topic range and taking a particular aspect in greater depth. It is, for example, the difference between a 20minute programme for schools on the life of Chopin, and the same duration or more devoted to the events leading up to Chopin’s writing of the ‘Revolutionary Study’ directed to a serious music audience.
Where no overall duration is specified, simply an intent to cover a given subject, the discipline is to contain the material within a stated aim without letting it become diffuse, spreading into other areas. For this reason it is an excellent practice for the producer to write a programme brief in answer to the questions ‘What am I trying to achieve?’ ‘What do I want to leave with the listener?’ Later on, when deciding whether or not a particular item should be included, a decision is easier in the light of the producer’s own statement of intent. This is not to say that programmes cannot change their shape as the production proceeds, but a positive aim helps to prevent this happening without the producer’s knowledge and consent.
At this stage the producer is probably working on his own, gradually coming to terms with the subject, and exploring it at first hand. During this initial research he makes notes, in particular listing those topics within the main subject which must be included. This is followed by decisions on technique – how each topic is to be dealt with. From this emerges the running order in embryo. Very often the title comes much later – perhaps from a significant remark made within the programme. There is no formally recognized way of organizing this programme planning; each producer has his own method. By committing thoughts to paper and seeing their relationship one to another – where the emphasis should be and what is redundant-the producer is more likely to finish up with a tightly constructed, balanced programme. Here is an example of the first planning notes for a local radio programme. This radio station serves a coastal region where the trawler fleet has been seriously affected by the loss of fishing rights in international waters:
Working title: ‘The Return of the Trawler men’
| Aim: | To provide the listener with an understanding of the impact which changes in the deep-sea fishing industry over the last ten years have had on the people who work in it. |
| Duration: | 30 minutes |
| Information: | Annual figures for shipping tonnage, men employed, fish landed, turnover and profit, investment, etc. |
| Content: | Historical account of development in the 10 years Technological change, searching, catching, freezing methods. Economic change, larger but fewer ships implication for owners in the increase in capital cost. Social change resulting from fewer jobs, higher paid work, longer voyages, and better conditions on board. Political change, new regulations relating to international waters, size of nets, off-shore limits. |
| Key questions: | What has happened to the men and the ships that used to work here in large numbers? What has happened to those areas of the city where previously whole streets were dependent on fishing as a livelihood? Family life, local shopkeepers, etc., loss of comradeship? How significant were the political factors affecting fishing rights in distant waters or was the industry in any case undergoing more fundamental change? Will the trends continue into the future? |
| Interview | |
| Sources: | Trawler Federation. Docks and Harbor Board? Shipbuilder? Trawler men’s Union. Fleet owner. Skippers – past and present. White Fish Authority. Representative of fish processing industry – oils frozen food. Government-ministry official; members of parliament. Wives of seamen, etc. |
| Reference sources: | Newspaper cuttings. Library – shipping section. Government White Paper. Trawler company reports. Magazine – Fishing News International. Fred Jones (another producer who did a programme on the docks some time ago). |
| Actuality: | Bringing in the catch, nets gear running, ship’s bridge at sea, engine noise, radio communications, shoal radar, etc. Unloading – dockside noises. Auction. |
By setting out the various factors which have to be included in the programme, it is possible to assess more easily the weight and duration which should be given to each, and whether there are enough ideas to sustain the listener’s interest. It probably becomes apparent that there is a lot to get in. It would be possible to do a programme which concentrated solely on the matter of international fishing rights, but in this case the brief was broader and the temptation to dwell on the latest or most contentious issue, such as safety at sea must be resisted – that’s another programme.
There is one final point on planning. A producer’s statement of intent should remain fixed, but how he fulfils that aim may change. He plans initially to reach his goals in a certain way; however, if in the course of the production he unearths an unforeseen but vital fact, he must alter his plans to include it. The programme material itself will influence decisions on content.
Research
Having written the basic planning notes, the producer must then make the programme within his allocated resources. He must decide whether he will call on a specialist writer or will write his own script. Depending on this will rest the matter of further research – perhaps it is possible to obtain the services of a research assistant or reference library. The producer who is working to a well-defined brief knows what he wants and in asking the right questions will save both time and money. The principle with documentary work is always as far as possible to go back to sources, the people involved, eye witnesses, the original documents, and so on.
Structure
The main structural decision is whether or not to use a narrator. A linking, explanatory narrative is obviously useful in driving the programme forward in a logical, informative way. This can provide most of the statistical fact and the context of the views expressed, and also the names of various speakers. A narrator can help a programme to cover a lot of ground in a. short space of time but this is part of the danger; and may give the overall impression of being too efficient, too ‘clipped’ or ‘cold’. The narrator should link and not interrupt, and there will almost certainly not be any need to use a narrative voice between every contribution. There are styles of documentary programme which make no use at all of links but each item flows naturally from one to the next, pointing forward in an intelligible juxtaposition. This is not easy to do but can often be more atmospheric.
Collecting the Material
Much of the material will be gathered in the form of location interviews. If it has been decided that there will be no narrator, it is important to ensure that the interviewees introduce themselves- ‘speaking as a trawler owner. . .’ or ‘I’ve been in this business now for thirty years. . .’ They may also have to be asked to bring out certain statistical information. This may be deleted in the editing but it is wise to have it in the source material if there is no obvious way of adding it in a linking script.
It must be decided whether the interviewer’s voice is to remain as part of the interviews. It may be feasible for all the interviewing to be done by one person, who is also possibly the producer, and for the programme to be presented in the form of a personal investigative report. Pursuing this line further, it is possible for the producer to hire a well-known personality to make a programme as a personal statement – still a documentary, but seen from a particular viewpoint that is known and understood. Where the same interviewer is used throughout, he becomes the narrator and no other linking voice is needed. Where a straightforward narrator is used, the interviewer’s questions are removed and the replies made to serve as statements, the linking script being careful to preserve them in their original context. What can sound untidy and confusing is where in addition to a narrator, the occasional interviewer’s voice appears to put a particular question. A programme should be consistent to its own structure. But form and style are infinitely variable and it is important to explore new ways of making programmers – clarity is the key.
Impression and Truth: The purpose of using actuality sounds is to help create the appropriate atmosphere. More than this, for those listeners who are familiar with the subject, recognition of authentic backgrounds and specific noises increases the programmer’s authority. .It may be possible to add atmosphere by using material from sound effects discs. These should be used with great care since a sound only has to be identified as ‘not the genuine article’ for the programmer’s whole credibility to suffer. The professional broadcaster knows that many simulated sounds or specially recorded effects create a more accurate impression than the real thing. The producer concerned not simply with truth but with credibility may use non-authentic sounds only if they give an authentic impression.
The same principle applies to the rather more difficult question of fabrication. To what extent may the producer create a ‘happening’ for the purpose of the programme? Of course he has to ‘stage manage’ some of the action. If he wants the sound of ship’s sirens, the buzzing of a swarm of angry bees, or children in a classroom reciting poetry, these things may have to be made to happen while his recorder is running. Insofar as these sounds are typical of the actual sounds, they are real. But to fabricate the noise of an actual event, for example a violent demonstration with stones thrown, glass breaking, perhaps even shots being fired; this could too easily mislead the listener unless it is clearly referred to as a simulation. Following the work of broadcasters in wartime it is probably true that unless there are clear indications to the contrary, the listener has a right to expect that what he hears in a documentary programme is genuine material to be taken at face value. It is not the documentary producer’s job to deceive, or to confuse, for the sake of effect.
Even the reconstruction of a conversation that actually happened, using the same individuals, can give a false impression of the original event like the ‘rehearsed interview’, it simply does not feel right. Similarly it is possible to alter a completely real conversation by the switching on of a tape machine – a house builder giving a quotation for a prospective purchaser is unlikely to be totally natural with a ‘live’ microphone present!
Faced with the possibility that reality will elude him, both in an original recording or by a later reconstruction, the documentary producer may be tempted to employ secretive methods to obtain his material.
An example would be to use a concealed recorder to get a conversation with an ‘underground’ book dealer for a programme on pornography. This is a difficult area which brings the broadcaster into conflict with the quite reasonable right of every individual to know when he is making a statement for broadcasting. Certainly the BBC is opposed to the use of surreptitious production techniques as being an undue invasion of personal liberty. If such a method is used, it is as a result of a decision taken at a senior level.
The implications for an organization which broadcasts material which depended on the subliminal or secret are such that this is a question which the producer, staff or freelance, should not take upon himself. He must obtain clearance from his programme boss.
Of course if the subject is historical, it is an understood convention that scenes are reconstructed and actors used. Practice in other countries differs but in Britain a documentary on even a recent criminal trial must of necessity reconstruct the court proceedings from the transcripts since the event itself cannot be recorded. No explanation is necessary other than a qualification of the authenticity of the dialogue and action. What is crucial is that the listener’s understanding of what he hears is not influenced by an undisclosed motive on the part of the broadcaster.
Music: The current practice is to make little use of music in documentary programmers, perhaps through a concern that it can too easily generate an atmosphere, which should more properly be created by real-life voices and situations. However, producers will quickly recognize those subjects which lend themselves to special treatment. Not simply programmers which deal with orchestras or pop groups, but where specific music can enhance the accuracy of the impression – as background to youth club material, or to accompany reminiscence of the depressed 1930s. A line from a popular song will sometimes provide a suitably perceptive comment, and appropriate music can certainly assist the creation of the correct historical perspective.
Compilation: Having planned, researched, and structured the programme, written the basic script and collected his material the producer must assemble it so as to meet his original brief within the time allotted. First, good openings two suggestions which could apply to the earlier example of the programme on the fishing industry are illustrated by the following script of page one:
Example one
| I. Sound effects: enters water | Rattle of anchor chain. Splash as anchor |
| 2. Narrator: | The motor vessel Polar Star drops anchor for the last time. A deep-sea trawler for the last twenty-four years she now faces an uncertain future. |
Outclassed by a new generation of freezer ships and unable to adapt to the vastly different conditions, she and scores of vessels like her are now tied up – awaiting either conversion or the scrap yard.
In this programme we look at the causes of change in the industry and talk to some of the men who make their living from the sea. Or who, like their ships, feel that they too have come to the end of their working life, etc.
Example two
| I Skipper Matthews: | I’ve been a trawler skipper for eighteen years – been at sea in one way or another since I was a lad. Never thought I’d see this. Rows of vessels tied up like this, just rusting away nothing to do. We used to be so busy here. I never thought I’d see it. |
| 2 Narrator: | The skipper of the Grimsby Polar Star. Why is it that in the last few years the fishing fleet has been so drastically reduced? How have men like skipper Matthews adapted to the new lives forced on them? And what does the future look like for those who are left? In this programme we try to find some of the answers . . . etc. |
The start of the programme can gain attention by a strong piece of sound actuality, or by a controversial or personal statement carefully selected from material that is to be heard within the programme. It opens ‘cold’ without music or formal introduction preceded only by a time check and station identification. An opening narration can outline a situation in broad factual terms, or it can ask questions to which the listener will want the answers. The object is to create interest, even suspense, and involve the listener in the programme at the earliest possible time.
The remainder of the material may consist of interviews, narrator’s links, and actuality; vex pop, discussion and music. Additional voices may be used to read official documents, newspaper cuttings or personal letters. It is better if possible to arrive at a fairly homogeneous use of a particular technique, not to have all the interviews together, and to break up a long voice piece or statement for use in separate parts. The most easily understood progression is often the chronological one, but it may be desirable to stop at a particular point in order to counter-balance one view with its opposite. And during all this time the final script is being written around the material as it comes in – cutting a wordy interview to make the point more economically in the narration, leaving just enough unsaid to give the actuality material the maximum impact, dropping an idea altogether in favor of a better one. Always keeping one eye on the original brief
Programme Sequence
There are few rules when it comes to deciding the programme sequence. What matters is that the end result makes sense – not simply to the producer, who is thoroughly immersed in the subject and knows every nuance of what he left out as well as what he put in, but to the listener who is hearing it all for the first time. The most consistent fault with documentaries is not with their content but in their structure. Examples of such problems are insufficient ‘signposting’, the reuse of a voice heard sometime earlier without repeating the identification, or a change in the convention regarding the narrator or interviewer. For the producer who is close to his material it is easy to overlook a simple matter which may present a severe obstacle to the listener. The programme maker must always be able to stand back and take an objectively detached view of his work as its shape emerges.
The ending
To end, there are limitless alternatives. Here are some suggestions:
- To allow the narrator to sum up – useful in some types of schools programme or where the material is so complex or the argument so interwoven that some form of clarifying resume is desirable.
- To repeat some of the key statements using the voices of the people who made them.
- To repeat a single phrase which appears to encapsulate the situation?
- To speculate on the future with further questions.
- To end with the same voice and actuality sounds as those used at the opening.
- To do nothing, leaving it to the listener to form his own assessment of the subject. This is often a wise course to adopt if moral judgments are involved.
Contributors The producer has a responsibility to those whom he has asked to take part. It is first to tell them as much as possible of what the programme is about. He provides them with the overall context in which their contribution is to be used. Second, he tells them, prior to transmission, if their contribution has had to be severely edited, or omitted altogether. Third, whenever possible he lets his contributors know in advance the day and time of transmission. These are simple courtesies and the reason for them is obvious enough. Whether they receive a fee or not, contributors to documentary programmers generally take the process extremely seriously, often researching additional material to make sure their facts are right. They frequently put their professional or personal reputation at risk in expressing a view or making a prediction. The producer must keep faith with them in keeping them up to date as to how they will appear in the final result.
What the producer cannot do is to make the programme conditional upon their satisfaction with the end product. He cannot allow them access to the edited material in order to have it approved for transmission. Not only would he seldom have a programme because contributors would not agree, but he would be denying his editorial responsibility. The programme goes out under his name and that of the broadcasting organization. That, the listener understands, is where praise and blame attaches and editorial responsibility is not to be passed off or avoided through undisclosed pressures or agreements with anybody else.
Programmers in Real Time: A great use of the medium is to unravel the telling of a true story across the same time span as the original. It might be a hospital emergency, a court case, a tropical storm, or a rescue operation. An excellent example is Len Dighton’s ‘Bomber’, a wartime anniversary broadcast by BBC Radio 4. It was about a bomber raid over Germany, but it was done in real time, in chunks over an afternoon and evening. It took us from the initial lunchtime briefing, the take-off and some of the flight to the raid itself by which time everything had gone horribly wrong-and it was interwoven with the personal details and voices of the people in the air and on the ground, on both sides, who had done this for real fifty years before. It was immensely complex, documentary and drama, effects and actuality. You had to stay up until midnight to hear the planes – some of them-returning home. Anguish, death, hope, despair, it was innovative as well as authentic – tremendously compelling radio.
