29-07-2009, 08:48 PM
John - whilst being bold and ambitious, it's essential always to remember the strengths and weaknesses of different media.
The material contained in Dick Russell's The Man Who Knew Too Much could in and of itself fill a six-part documentary series, if the aim was to communicate all (or most of) the information in the book.
However, if I was making a documentary about Richard Case Nagell, I would limit myself to 50, or at most 90, minutes of screen time.
Before shooting a frame, I'd spend an incredibly long time in crafting the narrative lines, the dramatic twists and turns, the visual and textural metaphoric language, the journey I wanted to take the viewer on.
Then, once the film was made, if the viewer was sufficiently intrigued and engaged by the film to want to know the evidence in all its minute detail, I would humbly suggest that they buy Dick Russell's book.
Book and film are complementary, not interchangable.
This is because text and documentary are fundamentally different in what they do, and in how the reader and viewer, the member of the public, engages with them.
A great example is the documentary filmmaking of Adam Curtis, and of my good friend and colleague, David Malone. Their work makes arguments through filmic storytelling, through metaphor, through juxtaposition, through the dialectic of ideas. But it does not provide the exhaustive, footnoted, level of evidence that a book would do.
A great film should send the viewer scurrying towards library and bookshop. It cannot replace the library...
The material contained in Dick Russell's The Man Who Knew Too Much could in and of itself fill a six-part documentary series, if the aim was to communicate all (or most of) the information in the book.
However, if I was making a documentary about Richard Case Nagell, I would limit myself to 50, or at most 90, minutes of screen time.
Before shooting a frame, I'd spend an incredibly long time in crafting the narrative lines, the dramatic twists and turns, the visual and textural metaphoric language, the journey I wanted to take the viewer on.
Then, once the film was made, if the viewer was sufficiently intrigued and engaged by the film to want to know the evidence in all its minute detail, I would humbly suggest that they buy Dick Russell's book.
Book and film are complementary, not interchangable.
This is because text and documentary are fundamentally different in what they do, and in how the reader and viewer, the member of the public, engages with them.
A great example is the documentary filmmaking of Adam Curtis, and of my good friend and colleague, David Malone. Their work makes arguments through filmic storytelling, through metaphor, through juxtaposition, through the dialectic of ideas. But it does not provide the exhaustive, footnoted, level of evidence that a book would do.
A great film should send the viewer scurrying towards library and bookshop. It cannot replace the library...
"It means this War was never political at all, the politics was all theatre, all just to keep the people distracted...."
"Proverbs for Paranoids 4: You hide, They seek."
"They are in Love. Fuck the War."
Gravity's Rainbow, Thomas Pynchon
"Ccollanan Pachacamac ricuy auccacunac yahuarniy hichascancuta."
The last words of the last Inka, Tupac Amaru, led to the gallows by men of god & dogs of war
"Proverbs for Paranoids 4: You hide, They seek."
"They are in Love. Fuck the War."
Gravity's Rainbow, Thomas Pynchon
"Ccollanan Pachacamac ricuy auccacunac yahuarniy hichascancuta."
The last words of the last Inka, Tupac Amaru, led to the gallows by men of god & dogs of war