Blogging History Makers: The Future of the Television Documentary

Bill Nemtin makes introductions at the 2009 History Makers Consortium

Costing more than $1,000 for entry, the History Makers Consortium brought together broadcasters and producers to explore the state of programming related to history and current events. The audience consisted of a select group of well-funded producers and industry folks.

Interested in learning more about international co-production, and the differences between US and foreign funding models, I was hoping to make some contacts to help in the completion and distribution of my film, and looking toward my future projects and where they may fit into established funding and broadcast models. I’m also interested in the level of cultural production -- seeing how broadcasters and producers recognize their profound power in determining “history” and how market and funding priorities influence how history is told.

Below are introductions and highlights to some of the panels that provided the most insight into the future documentary filmmaking and how the media is affecting the way the opinions of the public are shaped.

Panel One: World War II, Will its Popularity Ever Die?

Description: It has been 63 years since the end of WWII, yet documentary programs and feature films continue to draw substantial audiences despite the fact that the number of veterans dwindle by the day. Ken Burns' The War and HBO’s The Pacific are recent examples of high visibility WWII documentary and drama. Other conflicts do not seem to attract similar audiences to WWII subjects -- i.e. Vietnam, Korea, Desert Storm and Iraq -- even though the stories are compelling and news coverage of these events was and in some instances remains extensive. What accounts for the enduring fascination with WWII?

Participants:
Laurence Rees—writer, filmmaker, and historian
Jack Jacobs—national security analyst, NBC
Dr. Geoffrey Wawro—General Olinto Mark Barsanti professor of military history, University of North Texas

Producer/Moderator:
Charlie Maday—senior vice president of programming, The History Channel

About the panel:
The first panel pointed to a trend that seems to be rampant -- the obsession with World War II, a subject that has been endlessly documented by all forms of media, including narratives and documentary.

Commercial and public programming have very different perspectives on WWII, with commercial programming only showing aspects of the war that they are confident will produce high ratings.

For example “inconvenient truths” that explore the ambiguity of WWII do not rate well with the American commercial viewer, such as: history of US involvement in the Pacific, the Japanese bombings, questions about why Americans didn’t get into the war until later, and why the US didn’t make an effort to save the Jews. On the other hand, commercial audiences never seem to bore of stories with clear moral perspectives.

There is more interest these days in looking at backstories that may not deal directly with the battlefield, for example, stories of military manufacturers.

The panel also addressed the difference in audiences. Young people, for instance, prefer learning about the war as a game or a mystery that unfolds; they are also more open to ambiguity and moral complexity as well. Because of the moral complexity of US involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, commercial audiences may become more interested in stories about Vietnam -- another ambiguous war.

As one of the panelists said: “People love a backstory, that’s why MSNBC spends as much time on Lindsey Lohan’s pierced body parts than on national security.”

Taking these points from a general perspective provides great insight into the kind of documentary stories audiences are looking for, not just about World War II, but on any subject. Audiences want a look inside a topic that they cannot read about in their high school textbooks.

Panel Two: 20th Anniversary of the Fall of the Berlin Wall

Description:This year marks the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin wall, an event that dominated the news and changed the political map of the world. Now what can history tell us that news of the time could not? How can documentaries capture that earlier drama and excite an international audience? How do commissioning editors ensure they are getting more than the typical and predictable anniversary programming? What are commissioning editors are looking for when it comes to big events?

Participants:
Ulrich Brochhagen—head of documentaries, Department of History and Current Affairs, MDR-TV
Kristina Hollstein—director of documentary co-production, ZDF Enterprises
Susan Werbe—vice president of programming, The History Channel

About the panel:
When I walked into this panel late the ballroom seemed particularly crowded, with a much greater attention and energy than the earlier panels I had been in, and when I saw the man at the podium, I discovered why. It was Tom Brokaw.

He was invited to speak of his experiences in Berlin when he reported on the fall of the wall. In person his voice has a very deep, booming resonance, and I watched him in that state of recognition that one feels when seeing a celebrity in person -- a kind of stunned moment where the real world fuses together with the televised images of daily life.

His speech was brief, but it gave the sense of a generation that was steeped so deeply in a dualistic cold war ideology that the fall of the wall represented something that they never believed would happen. A feeling one could only get from hearing someone speak of it first hand.

After his handlers whisked Brokaw off stage, the moderator took the stage, gleeful that Brokaw was able to attend.

The rest of the session was filled with great information on new programming from Europe about the fall of the wall. It seems that many stories of the fall have not been told, especially the stories from the East, and stories of family separations.

We saw excerpts from programs in progress. One I found particularly interesting was about a peaceful demonstration in Leipzig where local people rose up against the government a few days before the fall of the wall. The film revolves around a few interviews and a great deal of reenactment presented in a 24-hour-crime-style series in order to attract younger audiences.

In general I was surprised by the formal elements of the mostly German programming we were shown. There was a lot of reenactment, a few talking head interviews, and the stories were guided by extremely dramatic music. I’ve been noticing that most news and history programming (even the Weather Channel!) are relying increasingly on dramatic music to push the story along and I find myself wondering how long this trend will last.

Panel Three: What I Hate About Indies and What I Hate about Commissioning Editors

Description: What are the things that drive commissioning editors crazy? The 300-megabyte proposal you sent to their Blackberry at the start of their holiday or the 52-part series on Hitler's pets? What about that cracking idea you sent them on “Who Do You Think You Strictly Dance Like.” It worked for BBC1 and BBC2 therefore it must be perfect for BBC3.

Commissioning editors give tips to avoid getting your proposal filed straight into the recycling bin. But independent producers fight back and ask: How do we know that “I love it, this is a must do” means “Don't ever call me again?” Why does it take six months, 14 phone calls and more emails than a Viagra salesman sends to get a “no?"

Participants:
Caroline Behar—head of acquisitions and international coproductions, Groupe France Télévisions
Jared Lipworth—director of science programs, Channel Thirteen/WNET
Phil Craig—executive producer, Furnace Limited
Kristine Sabat—senior vice president of production, Kralyevich Productions, Inc.

Producer/Moderator:
Richard Melman—channel director, The History Channel (UK)

Producer:
Lilla Hurst—founder, Lillavision Ltd.

About the panel:
This was undoubtedly the most entertaining and informative panel for independent producers. I found all the presenters to have a very positive approach and commitment to quality programming and good relationships between producers and commissioning editors. The balance of producers and ‘commies’ (yes, they called commissioning editors commies!) on the panel gave for a great opportunity to hear some conflicting perspectives, and to recognize the challenges on each side of the desk.

The producers’ general complaint was a lack of clarity about what commissioning editors are really looking for. Kristine Sabat said that each outlet seems to ask for programs that are "edgy, immersive and that pop" -- but that the definition greatly depends on who you are pitching to.

The commissioning editors are clearly experiencing information and work overload, with complaints of 800 emails a day. One of the producers complained: “You can be stuck in e-commissioning hell -- a new cruelty perpetuated upon producers. We all know that the inbox will get fuller and fuller and the office intern will just press delete all.”

The moderator asked if anyone in the room had a successful application done through e-commissioning? Nobody raised their hand.

The commissioning editors expressed that they like to be open to new producers, but prefer to go with producers that they are confident will deliver. Jared Lipworth explained: “Our job is to recognize it when we see it. I know there are certain producers and I know the work is going to be thoughtful and creative and a fresh take and I’m doing my job well if I’m recognizing that.”

If they are excited by a project from a novice they might even connect a new producer with a preferred supplier so they will be confident the project will be delivered.

The commissioning editors spoke of the nervousness and heart pounding when entering a rough cut screening with a new producer, afraid that the project might not come to fruition and their job and reputation will be at risk.

I had a few questions of my own for the panelists: What amounts of money do the commissioning editors have to offer independents?

Jared Lipworth said that it is impossible to give numbers, as they are always different, but Caroline Behar offered an example saying that French 5 puts in between 50 and 75 Euros, which works out to around $65 and $100. Richard Melman said the History Channel (UK) usually puts in around 30 pounds per hour of programming or around $40.

I also questioned the panelists as to what kind of story structure they are looking for because I’ve been thinking a lot lately about a notion that has been circulating in the documentary community: that documentaries must have a three-act structure. I’ve been having some conversations about it with Fernanda Rossi, the Documentary Doctor, and wondering how the documentary form grows, and what kind of role the television documentary has in that evolution. Do commissioning editors think a lot about form? Or do they rely on pre-fabricated notions?

Jared from WNET said: “At Channel 13 we are a 52-minute hour. I don’t really care about a three-act structure; I care about a narrative arc -- a thought to how the film should be structured. If I see a nightmare rough cut, I wonder how did they see that film and not see that that structure doesn’t work? I’m not labeling the structure, but one that feels right for the story.”

Some general advice offered by the panelists:

Don’t pitch a commissioning editor while in the toilet (it really happens).

If you take a commissioning editor out to lunch, don’t tell him he’s brilliant, he won’t trust you.

If you take a commissioning editor out to a meal, don’t pitch until pudding.

Research if the project you are proposing has already been made!

Wrap up:

I learned a lot at the conference and was provoked to think about the realities of the lives of those who make “history” in the wealthy Western countries. I met some great filmmakers who have learned to navigate the funding/broadcast world, and I was very inspired by their example. Some of the commissioning editors seemed to really love their jobs, and approach their work somewhat like a documentary-maker does -- with a real eager curiosity for learning and exploration. And obviously, there are large swaths of this sector that are seeped in old-paradigm thinking, limited to repeating the same form and content that they are confident will spike their ratings, while they enjoy their power but complaining about the stupidity of the masses for choosing to watch simplistic subject matter. I decidedly am idealistic and hope that they will recognize their responsibility in building up audience palettes, slowly introducing content that rates, while exploring new territory and helping audiences prepare for an increasingly complex world. After all, we need history to help us grow.

Link to this page: http://www.independent-magazine.org/