But is this series a real fly-on-the-wall documentary, when they use all these techniques?
With the help of them the director is manipulating the viewer’s response. Moreover the viewer gets a wrong image of the hospital and its surroundings.
The hospital is standing right next to the university, and it is not right, that it is so dangerous, that you cannot even get a pizza delivered. The hospital plays a leading role in research of … and belongs to the university, which was not mentioned in the series.
In essence fly-on-the-wall films are supposed to be a record of 'real people' and their activities in which there was an attempt to capture the truth of their lives and experiences. The documentary style dictated certain conventions - the use of real people and locations rather than actors and artificial sets and as little scripted speech as possible. Most of these film makers also believed that their films should serve society by revealing to the general public the plight of the poor, the dispossessed or the badly housed.
Actually fly-on-the-wall filming consists of long, unedited sequences in which the subject is not affected by the presence of the camera. Therefore small cameras and installed hidden ones are chosen, because people tend to become increasingly oblivious as filming goes on, though they never forget that the camera is there. The cameraman must provide long, uninterrupted tracking shots and capture fast- moving scenes without any chance of a re-take.
Actually this documentary should show real people in real situations without the use of voice- over, to guide the viewer’s response, and without non- diegetic sound or music, because of the authentic. The filmed people are, in theory, allowed to speak for themselves and the viewers are left to interpret the images and scenes as they wish.
The fly-on-the-wall technique is meant to be the most ‘natural’ form of documentary filming.
The programmes are popular, because they take viewers ‘behind the scenes’ to observe institutions, such as an ambulance team in ‘Blues and Twos’. And they also tended to have natural drama and humour from real people rather than that of actors or staged scenes.
As soon as one begins to think carefully about this theory, particularly when applying the ideal to the highly technical and artificial process of film making, one realizes that the ideal of truth in documentary is an extremely controversial one.
You hardly ever find real fly-on-the-wall documentaries, because many directors tend to use voice- overs, reconstructions and interviews, to make their themes more interesting. The film could be manipulated easily by the director, like Pawel Pawlikowski, a prize-winning documentary;
‘I make no bones about manipulating my subjects. I do it through choices in photography, sound, music, editing and narrative devices … I go as far as setting up scenes.’
But could you mind? Who wants to look a film or program, which is protracted and boring? And the viewer often needs further information, to understand the theme, or the problem with which the film is dealing.
To do a fly-on-the-wall documentary, you have to think about some significant things. The problems, which occur to the producer and the film crew, can be shown on an example of a fly-on-the-wall series called ‘Head on the Block’.
This series is about the start of a new opened school in north London, named ‘Islington Arts and Media School’.
The first thing a producer has to do is select a place, where he thinks he could show his subject or problem best.
This certain school was chosen, because it was pretty sure, that there will be problems. ‘Islington Arts and Media’ was opened on the site of George Orwell School, which had been closed after being judged to be failing its pupils.
Then you have to think of the situations of the cameras. Where are the interesting focuses?
The series also includes a fight between two students, which escalates into violence involving up to 40 students, and the police had to come to calm the situation.
Though violence is entertaining and dramatic, is it representative?!
Moreover won’t the parents be pleased to see their children fight. You have to get permission to film children under 16. So, how can you get the consent?
Is it Exploitation if you film them in a dramatic situation, to entertain other people, and will there be repercussions?
The aim of fly-on-the wall is to show the real behaviour of people, without the affection of cameras, but this you can only achieve, if the cameras seem to be invisible, and therefore you need very small microcams, which could worsen the quality of the footage. Moreover you have to make sure that you crew is not affecting the kids.
You have to make sure, that you take places, where you could get interesting footage, because reconstruction is not real, and is not the type of fly-on-the-wall.
Schooldays are long; you cannot show the whole footage you have filmed, so you have to select which scenes are interesting to the audience and significant for the subject.
And you have to work out a structure for the film, or more over a narrative to guide the audience through it.
Maybe to make the whole thing more interesting you could add music or sound effects, for more excitement, and a voice-over for further information.
Each film is marked by the distinctive style of its author/s, but they all share a common sense of purpose that distinguishes the best practitioners of the 'fly-on-the-wall' documentary, a desire to lift the lid on society, to expose its iniquities and illuminate its truths.
