Docu-mania: The Introduction to Crafting Contemporary Documentaries and Docuseries for Global Screens

By Phoebe Hart.

Crafting Contemporary Documentaries and Docuseries for Global Screens delves into the processes by which the study participants, all creative practitioners, learn skills and acquire inspiration and mastery, and specific rituals and habits of practice.”

Since its inception, the documentary film has steadily grown in form and reception, guided by artists and members of the documentary-making community. The twenty-first century heralded a new ‘golden age’ in the popularity and demand for documentary films and docuseries, which have long purported to achieve a level of attention to detail and uprightness than other fleeting forms of factual news media cannot (O’Hagan 2010; Fennessey 2018; Del Barco 2019). From the 2000s onwards, audiences have flocked to see documentaries in the theatres, and on television; a multitude of non-fiction forms enjoyed global attention and even fame for those who creatively helm those projects, and their real-life subjects (Pierce 2017). The introduction of online streaming platforms has only helped in the gathering momentum as the ‘streamers’ began acquiring documentary one-offs, series, and factual formats for their slates, playing a key part in helping broaden the appeal of longform documentaries, and ‘offering thrilling and emotional real-life stories that are as dramatic as anything that fiction could dream up’ (Dams 2021).

However, the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 seemed to harken a darker time for the media and arts industries, impacting significantly on movie production (Morgan 2021) and coinciding with interference to public health systems and supply chains, and environmental, economic, and geopolitical uncertainty. While some doors slammed shut, others opened, and the documentary form enjoyed an all-time high of audience interest on the streamers as viewers binged factual films and docuseries online during lockdowns in the relative safety of their homes. Time magazine termed the phenomenon ‘docu-mania’ and connected the boom to ‘the twin explosions of prestige true crime content and podcasts’ alongside ‘a profound collective thirst to see wrongdoing exposed’ (Berman and Shah 2021, 96). During this time of docu-mania, factual screen producers and documentarians have sought out viable projects in archival footage, and other existing materials, and languishing documentary projects have finally found the light of day after being produced and edited remotely.

Yet not all contemporary non-fiction screen content being produced are hard-hitting investigations and the uncovering of misconduct, nor are they all deep dives into the archive. Audiences have also craved a diverting reprieve from desperate times via bizarre real-life stories in docuseries and one-offs created under controlled conditions. For example, HBO’s The Rehearsal, an American docu-comedy whose season finale documentary royalty Errol Morris dubbed ‘metaphysical clickbait’ (2022), allows ordinary people to prepare for ‘life’s biggest moments by rehearsing them in carefully crafted simulations’ (HBO 2022). The docuseries, created by writer, director, and star Nathan Fielder, left many critics pondering whether The Rehearsal is a documentary film at all (Wilkinson 2022; Horton 2022).

Fielder’s offering emerges at a time when the craft of documentary filmmaking appears to be at its peak, yet how does the ‘golden age’ of documentaries play out for those who are actively involved in the making around the world? For me, as a practitioner and researcher of documentary filmmaking based in Australia, the key questions of how films are made and get in front of an audience are ones that I believe are of great substance. Noting the multitude of platforms and pathways to audiences, the competition for ‘eyeballs’ in a saturated mediascape, the challenges of having ideas commissioned or acquired, then risks and opportunities to realise documentaries in engaging and edgy ways, leads me to ask several questions around the viability and critical nature of the practices of documentary filmmakers. Who are the makers, and what are their desires and dispositions in this current moment?

For some, it may be a boon, while others may be still waiting to board the gravy train. Certainly, the stage of career for an independent practitioner—be it early, middle, or late—and the navigation of that career is a factor, as well as an individual’s access to markets and other socioeconomic factors that ensure the sustainability a working life (Wallis, van Raalte, and Allegrini 2020). Some risks and opportunities that face this population of creators at each stage of the making (production phases) are perennial, whereas others are changing or developing. While some find employment in large production companies, broadcasters, or studios, many others remain fiercely ‘independent,’ making work they believe in and for, which there may not be a clear path to distribution. For those diehards who stay in the game for many years, enduring constant change and rejection, the question of commitment and when ‘enough is enough’ is relevant.

For example, the ethical demands during the documentary goldrush, in a market that is constantly seeking novelty, may be troublesome for some. While some makers court controversy, claiming that the publicity and negative backlash creates a conversation, others have long defended their truth-claims vigorously (Aufderheide, Jaszi, and Chandra 2009). Large sums of money now available for non-fiction filmmaking, and compacted delivery timelines have not been without their perils. A damning US-centric article from The Hollywood Reporter alleged some bendy morals on the part of some producers, accused of paying documentary participants, and short-cutting post-production by not allowing editors the time to review footage, and ‘frankenbiting’ or cutting together various parts of an interview grab to fabricate a line of dialogue (Galuppo and Kilkenny 2022).

Further, what are the factual screen stories we are telling right now beyond influential production centres such as those in the United States? As our world becomes more globalised, documentary film and television programs tell more cosmopolitan stories of the world’s social, political, and cultural situation. Ib Bondebjerg (2014b) noted the influence of social media networks on documentary films and co-productions between makers and their audiences, as well as the heightened access viewers have to documentary content via digital global networks and various websites. Capitalism, consumerism, and global discourses and social practices may have ‘glocalising’ effects on the local environment and produce homogenisation (Robertson 2012, 205), leading to a certain sameness in everything that is produced. Indeed, what are the creative explorations on the local level for various documentaries, and what do they have to teach the world more broadly? Currently, large distributors look to local production spaces for new content, and expenditure on entertainment and media increases most swiftly in developing countries, such as Turkey, Argentina, India, and Nigeria (Ballhaus, Chow, and Rivet 2022).

I feel these are significant questions for several reasons, primarily because documentaries are powerful, and have a definable change-making impact on public policy, and social and environmental movements (Terry 2020; Borum Chattoo 2020). Nowadays, many organisations partner with documentary filmmakers to further their political and social goals, and the resulting works often address imbalances and seek solutions to ‘wicked’ problems (Nash and Corner 2016). Documentary impact and the packaging of key messages in films can mobilise individuals and communities to act in a variety of arenas (McLagan 2012). Industry insider Mandy Chang noted that while demand was high for documentaries, the situation was still volatile; income streams for most filmmakers are still tenuous, and achieving cultural diversity aims on and behind the screen remain a key priority (Wissot 2022).

Humans fundamentally enjoy experiencing and sharing stories via art (Most 2017). People like to see themselves in stories, so representation and diversity are important. In fact, stories are fundamentally good for humans and our learning, development, well-being, and mental health; one study links stories with increased oxytocin levels and positive emotions for children in hospital (Brockington et al. 2021). Other research demonstrates how teenagers viewing films changes attitudes towards particular social issues for the better (Kubrak 2020). I would argue that if humans as a species have more self-awareness, we are less likely to damage ourselves, others, and the planet. Documentaries have a fundamental role in both developing identity and shaping how people perceive the world—and I contend it is important to know how they are made, how they could be made, and by whom.

As a documentarian, I enjoy talking with other documentary filmmakers about their work, whether highly commercial or contrived, or an exercise in artmaking or activism. The subject of work, work as play, work as cognitive process, and work as lived experienced fascinates me. Why we choose this creative work, and the satisfaction with which we engage in our work of documentary filmmaking, the realisation of our personal missions and talents, is of concern also, I believe, for those entering or exiting the industry. Where and how we choose (or are obliged) to work is also of interest, and often points towards broader global shifts.

As a maker based in Australia, I often aspire to tell local stories with a global reach. Over a career of three decades since I graduated from my university undergraduate degree specialising in film and television, I have had the opportunity to work in many aspects of non-fiction screen production, including in employment with broadcasters and large production companies, as well as an independent filmmaker. My work has spanned from making factual content for children and young adults, through to more mature offerings on a range of topics. Much of my work has been informed by a deeply personal aim to change the world, if only in a small way.

Since the early days of my career, I have expanded my network to include documentary filmmakers from around the globe. Practitioners (like me) participate in a variety of work for a variety of reasons and for a diversity of platforms and audiences. We make artistic and commercial presentations in numerous documentary genres, themes, and topics, including but not limited to nature, sports, science, history, arts, music, biography, social issues, and politics. Some are classical documentarians in their stylistic approach to a subject; others are experimental and provocative in their approach. In this book, I have attempted to record the thoughts of practitioners not only from geographically and culturally diverse backgrounds but working with different work situations and producing various products for many different purposes.

Via interviewing the primary sources for this study, I found some persistent themes were recurrent. Most resonate was a theme centred on a love for the craft of documentary filmmaking balanced against the persistent challenge of finding financial compensation and funding for projects. The profound impact of the COVID-19 pandemic from which many were still reeling at the time of being interviewed, which disrupted the production and distribution of so many films.

This book looks primarily at longform documentary—feature-length films and docuseries—as length of production often corresponds with a level of aptitude and expertise that is useful for this enquiry. For myself, I did not begin by making a feature film. My career was incremental, influenced by my confidence to undertake ever more complex assignments. I worked for many years in field directing, assisting and researcher roles with local Australian broadcasters before moving into the independent sector (and later, academia), when I began working as a credited writer, director, and producer of longer documentaries.

Some of the cases in documentary filmmaking post-COVID I have examined in this book have achieved outrageous fortune and global recognition, and the appetite and tolerance for voices outside dominant paradigms is increasing. However, many makers struggle continuously to find recognition because of various contemporary limitations on creativity, creative practice, work, mobility, and access. The paradox of global film and media entertainment industries is that it is often thought of as a behemoth, and while narrative films are often well resourced with large teams, the typical documentary crew is relatively underfunded and a small team struggling courageously on the local level to make engaging and innovative content. My own practice, for example, has often struggled with the constraints of a limited budget, which allows for a very small production crew. To save money, I often work alone, managing several roles at the same time.

This book uncovers dominant themes around crises and triumphs of independent documentary filmmaking right now, which, if one is to follow popular belief, is a halcyon period. Where are the spaces and places that innovations in documentary form, practice, and dissemination are emerging? How do regional dialogues, politics, and practices influence global conversations and debates? I have underpinned this interrogation with in-depth interviews with makers from various production centres around the world. While not exhaustive, these carefully curated voices highlight a raft of issues, and potential solutions, that lead to recommendations for future directions in the screen industry and beyond.

Furthermore, this book serves to reveal filmmaker intentions and unique entry points into factual screen storytelling, which can help nullify the argument that documentarians are unworthy of any serious support. Admittedly, there may be some ego in documentary filmmaking; success is often measured by prestigious awards, such as those offered by various academies and organisations. However, the makers I have interviewed were by and large very humble and strove to make critical works that improve the world in which we live. The work is difficult—some would say the most difficult one can do—and the road very often long and time-consuming; by consulting experts in the field alongside current knowledge of the craft, I propose ways to improve the practice and the perception of it, so that ultimately the work of documentary filmmakers is less stressful and more hopeful for those who choose it or are called to take it on.

DEVELOPMENT OF DOCUMENTARY AND DOCUMENTARY STUDIES

A fundamental objective of this book is to explore how filmmakers find their way in the current context and their definitions of success. The research examines how various practitioners best achieve technical, aesthetic, and cultural distinctiveness of the content they produce in a rapidly changing and global marketplace and provides a refreshing insight to the modes and methods of making factual screen content. However, the contemporary moment is rooted in a long history of documentary filmmaking, which has informed the influences of makers today, and is underpinned by the previous scholarship of documentary studies.

Although preceded by novelty exhibitions of brief, filmed events before the turn of the 20th century, the first official ‘documentary’ was, according to most, Robert Flaherty’s silent film Nanook of the North (1922). The ethnographic film followed an Inuit hunter and his family on the Ungava Peninsula in northwestern Canada but was criticised, even at the time of its release, for fictionalising and staging events with the Indigenous participants (Skare 2016), which were performed to ameliorate the expectations of the non-Indigenous audience (Huhndorf 2000). Since the making of Nanook of the North, the cannon of documentary films has expanded exponentially, periodically enjoying periods of great recognition. Similarly, the theories and methods guiding the analysis of the form as well as the craft of documentary filmmaking have waxed and waned in popularity and productivity (Milliken and Anderson 2021).

Filmmaker John Grierson (1898–1972) termed the non-fiction film as ‘a creative treatment of actuality’ (cited in Winston 1995, 11), and lauded photography as a scientific apparatus available to capture the moment faithfully, unfettered by emotions or personal bias. The idea that documentaries offer an objective presentation of evidence to make truth claims has long ago been discounted (Chanan 2007, 37; Beattie 2004, 10). Proponents of the direct cinema and cinéma vérité movements of the 1960s also believed that they were much better placed to observe life objectively, armed with lightweight cameras, ethical zeal, and scorn of the pompous orations of their forebears’ works (Winston 1995). In their films, artists dismissed (as anathema) the role of performance, or the deliberate orations and actions of participants or even of the filmmaker him or herself, failing at the same time to acknowledge the filmmaker’s influence on both subject and situation (Bruzzi 2000). Documentaries are in fact are highly subjective, authored narratives that blend ‘the categories of fact and fiction, art and document, entertainment and knowledge’ (Shaprio 2002, 80), and the proliferation of hybrid documentary forms continues to develop to this day (Munro 2018; Robertson 2016; Svetvilas 2004).

The 1960s and ‘70s also saw the emergence of movements such as feminism, and gay and civil rights. Filmmakers were influenced by the apparent deconstructions of class, race, gender, and sexuality, and began to rethink the ways of relating narratives, and expressing one’s individual voice in documentary (Renov 2004). These ‘new’ documentaries were made by filmmakers aware of their impact on what was ‘happening’ on the screen, and thus embraced performance within the documentary’s framework as it rendered transparent ‘the construction and artificiality of even the non-fiction film’ (Bruzzi 2000, 154). As the feminist rallying cry asserts, the personal was political, and therefore these filmmakers adopted a transparent subjective stance on the material. According to documentary scholar Michel Renov, the resultant texts had a powerful effect on audiences, and fed the ‘engine of political action’ (2004, 177).

Following this cultural movement forward, feminists and proponents of the women’s movement ‘thought long and hard about the politics of people filming people’ (Walker and Waldman 1999, 13). Some feminist examinations are inclusive of women of differences and disability (Oleson 2000), and use embodied experiences to resist patriarchal structures, offering alternative versions of truth and reality (Tedlock 2000; Smith 1993). Documentaries created by feminist filmmakers introduce an opportunity for linguistic leverage over the verbal and non-verbal language used by the dominant echelons of society (Welsch 1994). By placing themselves in the frame, feminist documentarists make evident ‘the public rhetorics, institutions, and conventions to which the self is subject’ (McHugh 2005, 108).

The late 20th century marked a rapid proliferation of non-fiction genres docusoaps, factual entertainment, video diaries, and a myriad of reality television formulas (Ellis 2021). On these programs, people from all walks of life contribute their private voices in the public realm, ‘proclaiming and celebrating their own “freakishness”, articulating their most intimate fears and secrets, performing the ordinariness of their own extraordinary subjectivity’ (Dovey 2000, 4). Amongst these ‘personal’ works were the autobiographical and autoethnographical documentary films, which have become a medium of expression for queerness, among other gendered, embodied, and sexual identities (Russell 1999).

The field of documentary studies, from which this study draws, examines documentary as a cultural form, genre, and historical artefact. Bill Nichols challenged the view of documentary films as ‘discourses of sobriety’ (1991, 3). The contemporary documentary is more nuanced and complex than simply existing as an educational or instructive text. It is a storytelling craft whose practitioners deploy an array of production processes across a variety of mediums and platforms that may be understood, replicated, and refined. As such, Nichols subsequently listed the field’s topics of inquiry as:

• the ethical, political, and ideological implications of the different modes of documentary production;
• the quality and value of individual filmmaking oeuvres;
• the usefulness of documentary film as a disciplinary (anthropological, sociological) or personal (autobiographical, poetic) form of knowledge and power;
• the social efficacy of specific films and different modes; and the challenges of historical representation and contemporary observation. (Nichols 2016, 16)

While other academic monographs in the fields of documentary studies focus on film analysis and critiquing the final product, this book proposes to engage with the documentary form and the making of it. Many books offer practical tips and advice on documentary filmmaking offering case study examples (Rabiger 2015; Chapman 2007; Trump 2018; Eckhardt 2011). Others focus on the change-making possibilities of documentaries to inspire a new generation of makers (Fitzgerald 2012). Some identify new opportunities, technologies, and pathways for bringing a longform documentary idea to fruition, often bridging theory and practice (de Jong, Knudsen, and Rothwell 2014; Fox 2018).

Jeff Swimmer, a documentary educator at Chapman University in Orange, California, detailed the stories of how Oscar-nominated documentary filmmakers came to realise their visions, find finance, and their tenacious creative processes in Documentary Case Studies (2015). Sheila Curran Bernard also draws from conversations with top documentarians and her own extensive practical experience to chart the crafting of a creative non-fiction screen narrative from inception through to editing in Documentary Storytelling (2011). The collection of essays in Contemporary Documentary (Marcus and Kara 2016) analyses the advent and scope of digital documentary production, collaboration, distribution, and exhibition, and occasionally draws on interviews with filmmakers.

In contrast, this research is interdisciplinary and engages with creative practice theory, economics, psychology, and documentary studies for understanding the scope of current documentary filmmaking practice and the motivations of makers, who come from a broad field of practice. While some tips may be gleaned, the primary objective of this book is to capture those practices and the thoughts and feelings that various filmmakers hold about their own or collective implications, values, utilities, efficacies, and challenges via expressions of their lived experiences. My research takes a broad view of what might be considered an achievement for professional documentary filmmakers in their quest have their work recognised.

DOCUMENTARY, GLOBAL DIGITAL PLATFORMS, AND QUALITY TV

In discussing the contemporary landscape of non-fiction filmmaking, it is almost impossible to understate the disruptive impact of digital streaming platforms in terms of their role in the ecology of documentary practice, distribution, and participation on all forms of screen-content production (Hennig-Thurau, Ravid, and Sorenson 2021). While terrestrial television continues to be an important pathway for audiences to view documentary content (Roscoe 2004, 289; Pierce 2017; Fennessey 2018), profits are shrinking (Ballhaus, Chow, and Rivet 2022), and broadcasters almost universally offer online and streaming capabilities nowadays to capture “cable cutters” or households that no longer receive cable or signal. At the same time, the COVID-19 pandemic profoundly impacted factual feature films at film festivals and in theatrical distribution, as audiences ceased coming to physical cinema spaces for health reasons (Morgan 2021), although a post-pandemic recovery is expected (Ballhaus, Chow, and Rivet 2022). Throughout the pandemic, however, digital OTT (over the top) streaming services have flourished by offering affordable access to libraries of screen content available on demand, whose subscribers in 2022 watched 164.9 billion minutes of content per week according to the Neilson report (Hayes 2022).

Netflix, as possibly the most well-recognised brand in global streamed entertainment, is a good case study in this regard. Like Amazon Prime, Netflix monetises via subscriptions (streaming video on demand, SVOD) without constant advertising breaks (Hennig-Thurau, Ravid, and Sorenson 2021). In 2019, the US-based streamer, which debuted in 2007, was already experiencing a period of stratospheric growth, generating $20.156 billion US in worldwide revenues throughout the year, an increase of 28% from 2018 and boasting just over 167 million paid subscriptions at the end of the year (Netflix 2019). Netflix’s consolidated revenues at the end of 2020 had increased a further 24% in a year, with an additional 36.573 million paid subscriptions globally (Netflix 2020). During COVID, in the first three months of 2020 alone, Netflix added 16 million subscribers, and viewership of controversial breakout docuseries hit Tiger King reached 64 million households (Thomas 2020). Interestingly, Europe, the Middle East, and Africa accounted for the largest number of new members in this period, with almost 7 million new subscribers.

However, as predicted, with the relaxation of pandemic lockdowns around the world and the subsequent economic slump, Netflix’s fortunes began to wane. Netflix still added 18.2 million subscribers in 2021, but this was roughly half the number who had signed up for the service in 2020 (BBC News 2022). Further, in the second quarter of 2022, Netflix recorded an exodus of 1 million subscribers (Paul 2022), and the company sought to stablise the decline of its predominantly younger audience, a population likely to ‘churn’ or unsubscribe when they finish watching the latest season of their favourite show (Sherman 2022).

Undoubtedly, Netflix’s reversal is due in large part to competition entering the OTT market from multinational mass media conglomerates such as Apple TV+ and Disney, which finalised takeover of 20th Century Fox in 2019 in preparation to take on Netflix in the streaming market (Sims 2019). There has also been a proliferation of boutique streamers targeting niche audiences and free AVOD (advertising video on demand) streamers and social media platforms such as YouTube, all of which vie for finite numbers of eyeballs, subscribers, and advertisers. Analysts predict the sector will continue to generate large revenues, however ‘the assumption that throwing large sums of money at content creation to feed direct-to-consumer offerings will be enough to produce both massive growth and profit at scale is now in doubt’ (Ballhaus, Chow, and Rivet 2022).

In terms of content creation, Netflix began ordering original content in 2013 and has positioned itself as a purveyor of ‘Quality TV,’ in that original programming is often ‘rich, riveting, moving, provocative and frequently contemporary’ (McCabe and Akass 2007, 21). As a well-resourced transnational broadcaster, Netflix seeks out screen content that favours transnational history over national histories, global intertextuality, transnational values, language, and multilingualism, and then releases all episodes of a season at once for the purposes of ‘binge watching’ (Jenner 2018). In the factual space, docuseries, and in particular the factual genre of true crime, ‘do well’ for streamers like Netflix. The streamer bought the rights to the true crime docuseries The Staircase in 2018, which quickly became very popular on the platform globally (Adams 2023) and hits such as Sins of our Mother entice audiences with ‘a grimly fascinating, awful story… expertly structured and full of twists and turns, [that] leaves that slightly grubby feeling of getting sucked into other people’s suffering for the purposes of entertainment’ (Nicholson 2022).

Serials including docuseries have long thrived in the mass media and demonstrate a long history of ‘the commodification of leisure’ (Allen and Berg 2014, 2). Serialising screen content encourages audience loyalty via ‘the repeated, regular consumption of instalments over extended periods of time’ (Krutnik and Loock 2017, 3). Netflix, like traditional television, encourages viewership via cliff-hangers and previews episode-to-episode, while also reengaging audiences with new seasons via teasers and trailers (Jenner 2018). Netflix additionally uses machine learning and a proprietary complex recommendations system to predict what individual viewers might like based on interactions with various titles in comparison with other members with similar tastes, habits, and interests, although such algorithms often ensure much of the streamer’s back catalogue is never seen by subscribers at all, unless a subscriber searches for a specific title (Gomez-Uribe and Hunt 2016).

For content creators, knowing what ideas to pitch Netflix or any streamer for that matter is not straightforward nor particularly intuitive. Television producers typically find ways to ‘hook’ commissioning editors and thereby audiences with screen ideas (Dalgarno 2022) but Netflix (and other streamers) use data analytics to inform the content it acquires, and therefore does not rely solely on the intuition of studio executives or decision makers (Dans 2018). Additionally, for those producers who do manage to sell their ideas to the streamers admit that while they often enjoy a level of creative freedom, they do not receive insights or metrics to the audience engagement of the output, as the streamers are notoriously secretive, even when a show is cancelled (Smith 2020; VanArendonk and Adalian 2022).

In response to disparagements, Netflix began to share more of its analytics, publishing a daily-updated ‘Top 10 by Country’ and ‘Global Top 10’ English and non-English films and TV shows (Littleton 2021). However, some critics have commented that the lists ‘lack the granularity needed to adequately assess how well individual titles performed in specific territories’ (Tran 2021). In some cases, analytics have been leveraged across much broader industrial processes, perhaps most controversially the creation of content itself (that is AI [artificial intelligence] content) although many proclaim that analytics should not replace creativity, leading many to urge for a wider and more collaborative approach between distributors, producers, and enhanced regulatory support (Behrens et al. 2021).

The case study of Netflix, its content curation and delivery models, its interactions with content creators and the individualized viewing experience of subscribers arguably exemplifies post-modern shifts and cultural and social trends and changes. Contemporary notions of self, work, agency, representation, and the ethical and aesthetic dispositions of creators and their audiences have a flow-on effect of influencing the economies of story production and distribution (Constable 2015). The current wave of popular documentaries available on streaming platforms has further invigorated the field to examine truth claims in a time of ‘alternative facts,’ and the desire of many for entertainment over education has led toward a breakdown of the barriers between high and low artforms (Milliken and Anderson 2021). This book focuses on the creative approaches of documentarians, influenced by the current advent of digitisation yet informed by documentary histories and cultural moments; therefore, understanding, and theorising creativity is a key concern.

CREATIVE PRACTICE: THEORY AND METHOD

Documentaries, and in particular independent documentaries, frequently convey powerful political, cultural, and historical discussions and demonstrate the execution of inspired artistic processes (Zimmerman 2000). Crafting Contemporary Documentaries and Docuseries for Global Screens delves into the processes by which the study participants, all creative practitioners, learn skills and acquire inspiration and mastery, and specific rituals and habits of practice. Pragmatic notions of creative practice theory underpin this research, and is a lens by which we can decipher the experiences of documentary filmmakers, and ‘how we learn and become knowledgeable about the world and ourselves, and . . . with what it means to be human and how we can understand the relationships between subjects and social worlds’ (Elkjaer and Simpson 2006, 5) These insights often ‘not only offer insights into art and the practice of art as it occurs, but can throw new and unexpected light onto a range of topics including cognition, discourse, psychology, history, culture, and sociology’ (Skains 2018, 84).

Human creativity is in of itself a fascinating topic. Creativity can be defined ‘variously as an act, a process, a concept, a strategy or even as an ideological tactic . . . it exists on a continuum’ (Steers 2009, 128). Cognitive theory often positions creativity as a form of problem-solving and suggest creative thinking may be very different from traditional intelligence (Runco 2007). Psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi termed ‘flow’ as the pleasurable state of being creative, often for long periods of time, and he directly linked flow to happiness, stating that creative individuals enjoyed ‘exemplary lives’ (1996, 125).

The ability of documentary films to generate empathy in audiences is a draw for creators, who wish to illuminate new perspectives and activate powerful emotions, which makes them key to instigating transformation.”

In my own work, I have very much enjoyed experimenting with the craft to test the potential ethical and aesthetic screen-based responses to homophobia and misogyny. As a person with an intersex variation who experienced some measure of injustice being exposed to the stigma and shame of bodily difference, I have pondered long and hard on how affective, loving interventions can fight shame and discrimination through screen production. Many of my own creative practice outputs have often used filmmaking to express something about myself, my past, and my experiences through understanding how the world works.

As such, creative practice as a recent and stimulating arena of scholarship in the field of creative arts research is vital. Creative practice research is a crossover between scholarly, practical, and technical knowledge and debates, which has both theoretical and methodological dimensions. Creative practice research may be artists researching their own work or it could be research on the craft of various artists in a particular creative field, such as documentary filmmaking (Piotrowska 2020). Creative practice research may be practice led (research on making) or research-led (making inspired by research), and often relies on the tacit knowledge of those who understand art-making processes intimately to discern and articulate research findings (Niedderer and Roworth-Stokes 2007). Valuable information may be found in both the creative work, or by examining the creative practice itself, which ‘can lead to specialised research insights which can then be generalised and written up as research’ (Smith and Dean 2009, 5). Within creative practice research, filmmaking-researcher enquiries into screen production practices have been successful using filmmaking research as a primary research method, or as a craft or technique that warrants closer attention (Batty and Kerrigan 2018; Kerrigan 2013).

This research utilises case studies drawn from in-depth interviews undertaken in 2022 with emerging and established documentary directors, producers, and screenwriters from around the world. I believe, as do others, that as interviews are an appropriate tool for gathering rich data and to elicit information, experiences, feelings, opinions, and attitudes (Matthews and Ross 2010; Crouch and McKenzie 2006). For the purposes of scope, this publication will focus on longform factual filmmaking and the making of documentary features (one-off films longer than 60 minutes), and documentary series (or ‘docuseries’) more than two episodes in length.

Although many of the participants of this research have the ‘quality control’ assurance of having their work recognised by prestigious awards and prizes, that was not a determinant for participant selection. The potential contributors I approached to interview were simply filmmakers practicing their craft in the current moment around the world. I acknowledge that generalisations cannot be made based on a limited number of interviews, however throughout this book I will attempt to link the views expressed by the interviewees with theoretical and empirical work emerging in the field.

Some researchers urge for interviewers to come from a similar background as the interviewees and therefore be privy to ‘insider meanings’ (Anderson 2006, 389). I accept that while being a practitioner interviewing other practitioners means there was a certain level sympatico, this situation could also lead to some awkwardness, and I used a range of strategies recommended by McDermid et al. (2014) for mitigating any negative consequences when both researchers and participants share the same roles (i.e., documentary filmmakers). My aim throughout this study was to practice reflexivity by acknowledging and creating an awareness of how my research values and assumptions affect the collection and interpretation of data.

This awareness was achieved by critically regarding my role and being aware of potential influences. For example, I realise that my cultural disposition as a white English-speaking Australian woman is a limitation in terms of the scope of this project. All the interviewees are English speakers or have English proficiency. I also have my own understanding and experiences—good, bad, and indifferent—of documentary filmmaking, which often influenced my line of questioning, but I hope that my self-awareness rendered any undue biases somewhat void. My intention was to develop participant trust by allowing for participants to ask questions and raise concerns and foster a sense of rapport by interviewing in privacy and allowing the participants to feel relaxed, which I contend positively influenced the nature, length, and ease of conversation.

At the conclusion of interviewing, I used thematic analysis to code the transcripts and reveal recurrent risks and opportunities for practitioners. Thematic analysis methodology is a foundation of qualitative analysis that occurs over several phases of gathering, organising, and describing experiential data (Braun and Clarke 2006). In this case, I read the interview transcripts for depth and breadth before coding them inductively (words, elements, actions, contexts) and deductively (broader concepts) to trace, explore, and evaluate recurring topics and relationships (Mills, Eurepos, and Wiebe 2010). The results interpret latent understandings of reality, or ‘the realities of lived experience that moral inquiry is intended to examine and critique,’ through discourse and by integrating new and known information (Schwartz 2020, 142).

For the purposes of creative practice research, thematic analysis is very useful in that it methodically unites theory and the artefacts and understandings produced by makers, ‘potentially providing a rich and synthesised account of the creative experience’ (Lin 2019, 153). Pragmatic creative practice takes ‘a dynamic, constructivist stance that centres on understanding human action as a social and agentic phenomenon’ and addresses other important organisational issues such as power, ethics, and aesthetics (Elkjaer and Simpson 2006, 13). Ontologically, I contend that our experiences are shaped by culture, language, and other factors, and therefore I can only ever partially know the reality of my interviewees, as there are multiple constructed realities and not a single knowable reality. No one version is more true than other versions, hence why I favour a style of bricolage style of research that attempts to interweave multiple perspectives to create a specific portrait of the current moment for documentary filmmakers around the world.

I also assert that neoliberalism and post-feminism are important ideologies when considering the data more broadly. Naomi Klein, in her book This Changes Everything (2014), stated that the three policy pillars of neoliberalism were the sale of the public sphere, deregulation of the corporate sector, and the lowering of income and corporate taxes, paid for with cuts to public spending. Although Klein was referring to institutional inaction on the climate crisis, these are factors which are detectable in many fields of endeavour, such as in the digitsation of contemporary media and entertainment industries or in academia and higher education post-COVID.

At the same time, the constraining factors of neoliberalism and postfeminism may be viewed as opportunities for empowerment. For example, postfeminism at its most provocative challenges hegemonies of heteronormativity, whiteness, and late capitalism (Banet-Weiser, Gill, and Rottenberg 2019). Many of this research project’s interview participants are women, queer people, and staunch allies, and while many seek out professional and economic success balanced with familial concerns (chosen and/or by blood), almost all the makers I talked to hope to elicit change. Collectively, they sought to empower marginalised voices, and their aims could be defined broadly as humanistic in character.

While each of the documentary filmmakers interviewed for this book exhibited a variety of work processes within multifarious practice environments, some of which are unique to individual makers, a raft of common themes emerged. Many of these commonalities relate to the negotiation and compromise of documentary and docuseries filmmaking during all production phases, within the frame of professional practices and emergent careers. The contributors attributed the process of making documentaries as a continual, collaborative process which may be both creative and destructive at times, often simultaneously, and which comes at an emotional cost for documentary filmmakers. All the research participants opted to embrace the difficult work of co creating their work for the purposes of delivering content for various platforms and audiences, often battling for the preservation of core principles and themes.

When pressed, the documentary filmmakers deployed a range of techniques to ‘move on’ from what Denzin and Lincoln described as the triple crisis of representation, legitimation, and praxis (2000). Like many professionals from the fields of arts, education, and humanities, documentarians struggle to understand how best to represent the stories their participants share. They must find ways to demonstrate their authenticity to the world, where they strive ‘to exert positive influence on everyday activities’ (Anwaruddin 2019, 717). For documentary filmmakers, this laudable intention has a practical dimension of having their creative ideas thwarted by gatekeepers and by a myriad of barriers, which may be geographical, social, cultural, physical, psychic, or political in nature. The self-efficacy developed by the documentary filmmakers I interviewed in facing setbacks is illuminating, and often their persistence and perseverance were rewarded with what they defined as their version of ‘success.’

THE INTERVIEWEES

Alessandro Angulo Brandestini (Bogota, Colombia) is a renowned film director and producer who studied film and video at the School of Visual Arts in New York and New York University. Angulo Brandestini has produced more than 10 documentaries for Caracol Television, Colombia’s largest television broadcaster, including Buenaventura, no me dejes más (2014) and The Path of the Anaconda (2019), which was acquired by Netflix.

Amy Ziering (Los Angeles, California) is an American film documentary producer and director. She and her collaborator Kirby Dick (also interviewed) run Jane Doe Productions; they co-directed Derrida (2002), Allen v Farrow (2021), and the HBO docuseries Not So Pretty (2022). Ziering received an Academy Award nomination for Best Documentary Feature in 2013 for producing the Dick-directed film The Invisible War. She is also the recipient of a Peabody and Emmy Award.

Besty Kalin (Orlando, Florida) is an award-winning director/producer/writer and founder of Itchy Bee Productions. Her Emmy-nominated documentary Vision 2030: Future of SoCal (2019) premiered on Spectrum News. East LA Interchange (2015) documents the struggle of the Boyle Heights community against freeway development and gentrification and won 10 jury and audience awards. Kalin is in development with her upcoming title Dreaming in Somali.

Chris Amos (London, United Kingdom/Gold Coast, Australia) has produced and directed independent short films, promos, and documentaries. Amos debuted his first feature-length documentary Dressed as a Girl (2015) at Sheffield DocFest, and he won Best Director Feature Documentary at the Australian Directors Guild Awards for Hating Peter Tatchell (2020), a critically acclaimed biography of a controversial human rights activist, which is now available on Netflix.

Dante Alencastre (Los Angeles, California) is a documentary filmmaker and LGBT community activist, based in West Hollywood. His filmmaking focuses on the overlapping issues of transgender, Latino/a and gender-nonconforming sub-tribes. In 2018, Alencastre became the executive director of the California LGBT Arts Alliance. Some of his notable feature documentary credits include Raising Zoey (2016) and AIDS Diva: The Legend of Connie Norman (2021).

Felicity Morris (London, United Kingdom) is a BAFTA Award-winning producer, director, and writer with UK independent production house, Raw TV, which makes documentaries for BBC, Netflix, Discovery, CNN, Channel 4, Nat Geo, ITV, History, A&E, TLC, and ID. Her first directing credit was the Emmy-Award nominated Netflix smash hit The Tinder Swindler (2022). Morris also produced the popular Netflix docuseries Don’t F**k with Cats: Hunting an Internet Killer (2019).

Jessica Lee Chu En (Singapore) oversees development and produces at Beach House Pictures, Asia’s largest independent production company. Her past credits include working at VICE’s production office in China and she was a researcher on award-winning shows for National Geographic Channel, Discovery Channel, HGTV, CCTV, and Channel News Asia. In 2020, Lee directed the documentary Shades of Love, on female sex workers in Singapore.

Julia Willoughby Nason (New York, New York) founded The Cinemart in 2011 with Jenner Furst. Her producing credits include Emmy-nominated Time: The Kalief Browder Story (2017) and Rest in Power: The Trayvon Martin Story (2018). Nason directed and executive produced the ‘scam-fluencer’ documentary Fyre Fraud (2019) for Hulu, then directed and executive produced Netflix docuseries The Pharmacist (2020) and LuLaRich (2021) on Amazon.

Karina Astrup (Oslo, Norway) is the senior producer of House of Gary, an independent documentary production company. Astrup has made five award-winning features, including Morgana (2019), Despite the Gods (2012), and 6ft Hick: Notes from the Underground (2010). She is currently shooting her next feature on traditional reindeer herding practices in Norway, entitled The Hunt, directed by her husband Nils Astrup.

Karina Holden (Sydney, Australia) has made content for broadcasters such as Netflix, National Geographic, ABC TV, SBS, Arte, PBS, BBC, Discovery Channel and Animal Planet. She is head of Factual at Northern Pictures and is known for her natural history feature documentary Blue (2017), SBS docuseries See What You Made Me Do (2021), and reality TV docuseries Employable Me (2018) and Love on the Spectrum (2019–).

Karl Malakunas (Hong Kong, China) is a filmmaker and journalist who has covered environmental issues, conflict, natural disasters, and political upheavals. Malakunas is the Asia-Pacific deputy editor in chief for Agence France-Presse (AFP). His first independent feature documentary film Delikado (2022) follows forest defenders in a battle to save the ecology of the island of Palawan in the Philippines from the ravages of illegal logging.

Kirby Dick (Los Angeles, California) is a two-time Emmy-award winning and two-time Academy Award-nominated documentary film director for directing Twist of Faith (2004) and The Invisible War (2012). Dick has directed several features and docuseries, including The Hunting Ground (2015) and The Bleeding Edge (2018), working with Amy Ziering (also interviewed).

Peter Murimi (Nairobi, Kenya) is an award-winning documentary director focussed on hard-hitting social issues. He won the CNN African Journalist of the year in 2004 for his piece Walk to Womanhood, that deals with issues surrounding FGM (female genital mutilation). His feature-length documentary I Am Samuel (2020) tells the story of a gay Kenyan man’s struggle for acceptance and has been shown at more than a dozen film festivals, including Hot Docs.

Rintu Thomas (New Dehli, India) is an Academy Award nominated filmmaker, a 2021 IDA Courage Under Fire Award honoree, an IDA Logan Elevate grantee, and a Sundance Fellow. Her feature documentary, Writing with Fire (2021), is a double Sundance Film Festival winner. In 2009, Rintu co-founded Black Ticket Films, a production company invested in the power of storytelling with her husband and co-director, Sushmit Ghosh.

Sara Dosa (Los Angeles, USA) is a documentary director and Peabody award-winning producer whose film work explores the human relationship to non-human nature, often through tropes of allegory, myth, and magic realism. Dosa directed Fire of Love (2022), which premiered on opening night of the Sundance Film Festival and was acquired by National Geographic Films and Neon. Other directing titles include The Last Season (2014) and The Seer & The Unseen (2019).

Veronica Fury (Brisbane, Australia) is a producer, executive producer, and principal of Wildbear Entertainment, with Bettina Dalton and Hugh Marks. Some of her recent shows include a feature documentary for Netflix called Iron Fists and Kung Fu Kicks (2019), Network Ten and Discovery docuseries Demolition Down Under (2020–), docuseries Just Animals (2018–) for ZDF, and feature documentary Hating Peter Tatchell (2020) directed by Chris Amos (also interviewed).

Yilmaz Vucuru (Vienna, Austria) attended Temple University’s film program before working in the Canadian TV industry as a producer/director. He currently resides in Austria with his family and boasts numerous award-winning films and documentaries to his name, including the feature documentary The Sea in Me (2012) set in a small fishing town on the Black Sea. Vucuru was shooting his second feature documentary in Lisbon, Portugal, at the time of his interview.

ABOUT THE BOOK

Crafting Contemporary Documentaries and Docuseries for Global Screens maps out new intersections between the theory and practice of documentary filmmaking. In the first chapter, Crafting Careers, I probe the ways in which practitioners find their feet, both in the industry and creatively. The roads to becoming a documentary filmmaker—be it a director, writer, or producer—are many and varied, and much must be learned before mastery is obtained. Professional sustainability is explored: indeed, Ford Foundation program officer Chi-hui Yang noted in 2020 the need for qualitative data on the current income streams, risks, and opportunities and ‘understand how the current system is harming filmmakers’ (Maiti 2020). The chapter teases out the thoughts and motivations of documentary filmmakers to begin making films and applies the lens of cognitive theory and vocational psychology and theory of work adjustment (TWA) to understand how a long and fruitful working life may be achieved.

Chapter 2 is entitled Ideas That Land. While there may be an element of ‘right time, right place’ for pitching ideas to investors and funders, documentarians are always exploring new avenues to predict trends and develop successful proposals. For example, creators nowadays look to popular journalism and podcasting for surefire story documentary adaptations, much like narrative film producers acquire the rights to exploit the intellectual properties of bestselling books to make blockbusters with assured audiences. But how do personal taste, discovery, and passion to develop one’s own idea fare when documentary creators encounter the coalface of market realities? This chapter of Crafting Contemporary Documentaries and Docuseries for Global Screens investigates timely case studies of makers that innovated and found ideas that work in the current mediascape, as well as a few that have ‘missed the mark.’

The third chapter is playfully called A Fine Romance, as it examines the relationships that exist between the creators of documentaries, who typically occupy the role of writers, directors, and producers on various productions, and their backers, crews, subjects, and supporters. Undoubtedly, these relationships can make or break the success of a project, and there is a tendency for creators to perceive these people as a vexation rather than an aid to realising the makers’ visons. This chapter of Crafting Contemporary Documentaries and Docuseries for Global Screens delves into understanding these relationships, and the gains and losses crucial associations bring to documentarians in their quest to have their film made. The case studies in this chapter explore ‘best-case scenarios’ as well the unforeseen and even the shockwaves of critical decisions and discussions in the development process through to post-production and distribution.

Right Tool for the Job is the fourth chapter, and it delves into the varied techniques practitioners deploy to realise their visions. There is an adage in documentary filmmaking that bigger may not necessarily be better. This axiom highlights the fact that the technology used to record a documentary must differ from project to project, especially when documenting intimate subjects, nervous participants, or travelling to far-flung corners of the globe. The case studies in this chapter of Crafting Contemporary Documentaries and Docuseries for Global Screens consider why and how creators come to use the cameras and recording equipment they use in the field. The chapter investigates ingenious uses of modern technologies in both the production and post-production phases, to create engaging and singular audiovisual impressions, and how creators think and feel about these tools and their use.

The fifth chapter, (Re)writing Documentaries, refers to the well-known maxim amongst the factual film community—a documentary film is written again in the edit room—where it takes many weeks, months, or even years to craft the story, meanings, and messages from many hours of footage. However, filmmakers must often ‘kill their darlings’ by re-editing and shortening their carefully completed long-form masterpiece as part of contractual obligations or for the benefit of the audience. This chapter presents how makers approach the challenge of editing a documentary, and how the challenges of crafting narration, tone, style, character and narrative arcs, and thematic treatment play out towards preserving the primary intentions of documentary filmmakers.

Recording Impacts is the sixth and penultimate chapter. It seeks to understand the ripple effects of documentary impacts on audience and the distribution efforts of their makers. Some documentary films and series enjoy global success, favourable critical attention, and meme-worthy notoriety. Yet even the ‘modest majority’ of finished factual screen projects may achieve significant audiences and influences for the documentary subjects and their situations if distributed and promoted carefully. This chapter of Crafting Contemporary Documentaries and Docuseries for Global Screens surveys the consequences of several case studies that have either achieved the dream of accolades, fame, and fortune or whose trajectory has been less dazzling but have secured identifiable impacts nonetheless—social, political, or otherwise. Throughout the chapter, I survey the ways in which the creative work, upon release, changes the lives of the creators, their subjects, and the world more broadly.

The conclusion of Crafting Contemporary Documentaries and Docuseries for Global Screens isentitled A Good Time to Be Making? and recalls the many insights this research has revealed about the people and processes who supply the demand for contemporary documentary screen content. Common themes spanning all chapters will be discussed, and future directions explored; and indeed, it seems as though it is a good time to be making documentaries, for some. The book concludes with the creators, and how their work and experiences have changed their perceptions and productive lives. Finally, I argue for greater support for filmmakers and understanding of creative processes. Indeed, for the documentary filmmakers, while the timing for success is ripe and welcome, the desire to turn a profit may be a secondary consideration. The ability of documentary films to generate empathy in audiences is a draw for creators, who wish to illuminate new perspectives and activate powerful emotions, which makes them key to instigating transformation.

The above is excerpted from Crafting Contemporary Documentaries and Docuseries for Global Screens: Docu-mania by Phoebe Hart (Rowman & Littlefield, 2024; all rights reserves).

References

Adams, Tim. 2023. “Their Trauma, Our Entertainment: What Happens to Documentary Subjects When the Cameras Leave?” The Guardian, February 12, 2023. https://www.theguardian.com/film/2023/feb/12/the-staircase-margie-ratliff-documentary-subject-hoop-dreams-square-wolf-pack.

Allen, Rob, and Thijs van den Berg. 2014. Serialization in Popular Culture. Vol. 62, Routledge Research in Cultural and Media Studies. New York, NY, USA: Routledge.

Anderson, Leon. 2006. “Analytic Autoethnography”. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 35(4): 4373-4395.

Anwaruddin, Sardar M. 2019. “How Language Teachers Address the Crisis of Praxis in Educational Research.” Oxford Review of Education 45 (6): 715–730. doi: 10.1080/03054985.2019.1612342.

Aufderheide, Pat, Peter Jaszi, and Mridu Chandra. 2009. “Honest Truths: Documentary Filmmakers on Ethical Challenges in Their Work.” Washington, DC, USA: Center for Social Media, School of Communication, American University.

Ballhaus, Werner, Wilson Chow, and Emmanuelle Rivet. 2022. “Perspectives from the Global Entertainment & Media Outlook 2022–2026.” Price Waterhouse Cooper. https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/industries/tmt/media/outlook/outlook-perspectives.html.

Banet-Weiser, Sarah, Rosalind Gill, and Catherine Rottenberg. 2019. “Postfeminism, Popular Feminism and Neoliberal Feminism? Sarah Banet-Weiser, Rosalind Gill and Catherine Rottenberg in Conversation.” Feminist Theory 21 (1): 3–24. doi: 10.1177/1464700119842555.

Batty, Craig, and Susan Kerrigan. 2018. “Introduction.” In Screen Production Research: Creative Practice as a Mode of Enquiry, edited by Craig Batty and Susan Kerrigan, 1–10. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.

BBC News. 2022. “Netflix Faces Rocky Road after Pandemic Wins.” BBC News, 20 January. https://www.bbc.com/news/business-60077485.

Beattie, Keith. 2004. Documentary Screens: Nonfiction Film and Television. New York, NY, USA: Palgrave Macmillan.

Behrens, Ronny, Natasha Zhang Foutz, Michael Franklin, Jannis Funk, Fernanda Gutierrez-Navratil, Julian Hofmann, and Ulrike Leibfried. 2021. “Leveraging Analytics to Produce Compelling and Profitable Film Content.” Journal of Cultural Economics 45 (2): 171–211. doi: 10.1007/s10824-019-09372-1.

Berman, Judy, and Simmone Shah. 2021. “How Docu-Mania Took Streaming by Storm.” TIME Magazine 197 (13/14): 95–97.

Bernard, Sheila Curran. 2011. Documentary Storytelling: Creative Nonfiction on Screen. 3rd ed. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Focal Press.

Bondebjerg, Ib. 2014b. Engaging with reality: Documentary & Globalization. Bristol, UK: Intellect.

Borum Chattoo, Caty. 2020. Story Movements: How Documentaries Empower People and Inspire Social Change. New York, NY, USA: Oxford University Press.

Braun, Virginia, and Victoria Clarke. 2006. “Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology.” Qualitative Research in Psychology 3 (2): 77–101. doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.

Brockington, Guilherme, Ana Paula Gomes Moreira, Maria S. Buso, Sérgio Gomes da Silva, Edgar Altszyler, Ronald Fischer, and Jorge Moll. 2021. “Storytelling Increases Oxytocin and Positive Emotions and Decreases Cortisol and Pain In Hospitalized Children.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 118 (22). doi: 10.1073/pnas.2018409118.

Bruzzi, Stella. 2000. New Documentary: A Critical Introduction. London, UK: Routledge.

Chanan, Michael. 2007. The Politics of Documentary. London, UK: British Film Institute.

Chapman, Jane. 2007. Documentary in Practice: Filmmakers and Production Choices. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

Constable, Catherine. 2015. Postmodernism and Film: Rethinking Hollywood’s Aesthestics: New York, NY, USA: Columbia University Press.

Crouch, Mira, and Heather McKenzie. 2006. “The Logic of Small Samples in Interview-Based Qualitative Research.” Social Science Information 45 (4): 483–499.

Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly. 1996. Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention. New York, NY, USA: Harper Perennial.


Dalgarno, Paul. 2022. Jennifer Collins, Head of Factual at ABC: ‘Documentaries Shape Our Lives.’ ScreenHub. https://www.screenhub.com.au/news/features/jennifer-collins-head-of-factual-at-abc-documentaries-shape-our-lives-1484276/.

Dams, Tim. 2021. Audience Demand for Documentary Features Grows across Platforms. Variety. https://variety.com/2021/film/festivals/documentary-features-1234955518/.

Dans, Enrique. 2018. “How Analytics Has Given Netflix the Edge over Hollywood.” Forbes, May 27. https://www.forbes.com/sites/enriquedans/2018/05/27/how-analytics-has-given-netflix-the-edge-over-hollywood/?sh=4bab37a46b23.

de Jong, Wilma, Erik Knudsen, and Jerry Rothwell. 2014. Creative Documentary: Theory and Practice. 1st ed., Harlow, UK: Pearson.

Del Barco, Mandalit. 2019. The Documentary Is in—and Enjoying—an ‘Undeniable Golden Age.’ In All Things Considered. Washington, DC, USA: NPR.

Denzin, Norman K., and Yvonna S. Lincoln. 2000. “Introduction: The Discipline and Practice of Qualitative Research.” In The Handbook of Qualitative Research, edited by Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln, 1–17. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage.

Dovey, Jon. 2000. Freakshow: First Person Media and Factual Television. London & Sterling, UK: Pluto Press.

Eckhardt, Ned. 2011. Documentary Filmmakers Handbook. Jefferson, NC, USA: McFarland.

Elkjaer, Bente, and Barbara Simpson. 2006. “Towards a Pragmatic Theory of Creative Practice.” Re-turn to Practice: Understanding Organization as It Happens, Mykonos, Greece, June.

Ellis, John. 2021. “How Documentaries Mark Themselves out from Fiction: A Genre-Based Approach.” Studies in Documentary Film 15 (2): 140–150. doi: 10.1080/17503280.2021.1923144.

Fennessey, Sean. 2018. “‘We’re in This Amazing Golden Era of Documentary.’” Spotify, Last Modified Jul 24, 2018, accessed May 15, 2019. https://www.theringer.com/movies/2018/7/24/17607044/documentaries-box-office-three-identical-strangers-rbg-wont-you-be-my-neighbor-mister-rogers-cnn.

Fitzgerald, Jon. 2012. Filmmaking for Change: Making Films That Transform the World. Studio City, CA, USA: Michael Wiese Productions.

Fox, Broderick. 2018. Documentary Media: History, Theory, Practice, 2nd ed. New York, NY, USA: Routledge.

Galuppo, Mia, and Katie Kilkenny. 2022. “Inside the Documentary Cash Grab.” The Hollywood Reporter, September 16. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-features/documentary-streaming-age-filmmaker-debate-ethics-payments-1235221541/?fbclid=IwAR3R4eQbpvnWIK4ijfDfNhu61JKK5KCJ9EmyUA_GDKkeakSK7cqYtdhjSRI.

Gomez-Uribe, Carlos A., and Neil Hunt. 2016. “The Netflix Recommender System: Algorithms, Business Value, and Innovation.” ACM Transactions on Management Information Systems 6 (4): Article 13. doi: 10.1145/2843948.

Hayes, Dade. 2022. “Time Spent Streaming Has Risen 18% over the Past Year, Nielsen Says.” Deadline, April 6. https://deadline.com/2022/04/time-spent-streaming-has-risen-18-over-the-past-year-nielsen-says-1234995563/.

HBO. 2022. “The Rehearsal.” accessed October 19, 2022. https://www.hbo.com/the-rehearsal.

Hennig-Thurau, Thorsten, S. Abraham Ravid, and Olav Sorenson. 2021. “The Economics of Filmed Entertainment in the Digital Era.” Journal of Cultural Economics 45 (2): 157–170.

Huhndorf, Shari M. 2000. “Nanook and His Contemporaries: Imagining Eskimos in American Culture, 1897–1922.” Critical Inquiry 27 (1): 122–148.

Jenner, Mareike. 2018. Netflix and the Re-invention of Television, 1st ed. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.

Kerrigan, Susan. 2013. “Accommodating Creative Documentary Practice within a Revised Systems Model of Creativity.” Journal of Media Practice 14 (2): 111–127.

Klein, Naomi. 2014. This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate. Melbourne, Australia: Allen Lane.

Krutnik, Frank, and Kathleen Loock. 2017. “Exploring Film Seriality: An Introduction.” Film Studies 17 (1): 1–15. doi: 10.7227/FS.17.0001.

Kubrak, Tina. 2020. “Impact of Films: Changes in Young People’s Attitudes after Watching a Movie.” Behavioral Sciences 10 (5): 86.

Lin, Fabia Ling‐Yuan. 2019. “Using Thematic Analysis to Facilitate Meaning‐Making in Practice‐Led Art and Design Research.” The International Journal of Art & Design Education 38 (1): 153–167. doi: 10.1111/jade.12177.

Littleton, Cynthia. 2021. “Netflix to Reveal More Viewership Data as Streamer Changes its Internal Metrics.” Variety, October 19. https://variety.com/2021/tv/news/netflix-squid-game-bridgerton-viewership-metrics-1235092822/.

Maiti, Rounak. 2020. “How to Build Values-Based Documentary Funding Strategies.” Documentary Magazine, April 10. https://www.documentary.org/blog/how-build-values-based-documentary-funding-strategies.

Marcus, Daniel, and Selmin Kara. 2016. Contemporary Documentary. London, UK: Routledge.

Matthews, Bob, and Liz Ross. 2010. Research Methods: A Practical Guide for the Social Sciences, 1st ed. New York, NY, USA: Pearson Longman.

McCabe, Janet, and Kim Akass. 2007. Quality TV: Contemporary American Television and Beyond, 1st ed. London, UK: I.B. Tauris.

McDermid, Fiona, Kath Peters, Debra Jackson, and John Daly. 2014. “Conducting Qualitative Research in the Context of Pre-existing Peer and Collegial Relationships.” Nurse Researcher 21: 28–33. doi: 10.7748/nr.21.5.28.e1232.

McHugh, Kathleen. 2005. “History and Falsehood in Experimental Autobiographies.” In Women and Experimental Filmmaking, edited by Jean Petrolle and Virginia Wright Wexman, 107–127. Urbana and Chicago, IL, USA: University of Illinois Press.

McLagan, Meg. 2012. “Imagining Impact: Documentary Film and the Production of Political Effects.” In Sensible Politics: The Visual Culture of Nongovernmental Politics, edited by Meg McLagan and Yates McKee, 304–319. New York, NY, USA: Zone Books.

Milliken, Christie, and Steve F. Anderson. 2021. “POP DOCS: The Work of Popular Documentary in the Age of Alternate Facts.” In Reclaiming Popular Documentary, edited by Christie Milliken and Steve F. Anderson, 1–12. Bloomington, IN, USA: Indiana University Press.

Mills, Albert J., Gabrielle Eurepos, and Elden Wiebe, eds. 2010. Encyclopedia of Case Study Research. Edited by Marion Weatherbee. Vol. 1. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA.: Sage Publications.

Morgan, Blake. 2021. “What Will the Movie Industry Look Like after Covid?” Forbes, July 12. https://www.forbes.com/sites/blakemorgan/2021/07/12/what-will-the-movie-industry-look-like-after-covid/?sh=4a5e2eb752df.

Most, Stephen. 2017. Stories Make the World: Reflections on Storytelling and the Art of the Documentary. New York, NY, USA: Berghahn Books.

Munro, Kim. 2018. “Hybrid Practices and Voice Making in Contemporary Female Documentary Film.” In Female Agency and Documentary Strategies, edited by Boel Ulfsdotter and Anna Backman Rogers, 70–83. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press.

Nash, Kate, and John Corner. 2016. “Strategic Impact Documentary: Contexts of Production and Social Intervention.” European Journal of Communication 31 (3): 227–242. doi: 10.1177/0267323116635831.

Netflix. 2019. “Netflix Annual Report.” https://s22.q4cdn.com/959853165/files/doc_financials/2019/ar/2019-10-K.pdf.

Netflix. 2020. “Netflix Annual Report.” https://s22.q4cdn.com/959853165/files/doc_financials/2020/ar/8f311d9b-787d-45db-a6ea-38335ede9d47.pdf.

Nichols, Bill. 1991. Representing Reality. Bloomington, IN, USA: Indiana University Press.

Nicholson, Rebecca. 2022. “Sins of Our Mother Review: This True-Crime Series Gets More Shocking with Every Episode.” The Guardian, 15 September. Accessed June 7, 2023.

Niedderer, Kristina, and Seymour Roworth-Stokes. 2007. “The Role and Use of Creative Practice in Research and Its Contribution to Knowledge.” IASDR07, Hong Kong, November 14.

O’Hagan, Sean. 2010. “Camera, Laptop, Action: The New Golden Age of Documentary.” The Guardian, November 7. https://www.theguardian.com/film/2010/nov/07/documentary-digital-revolution-sean-ohagan.

Oleson, Virginia L. 2000. “Feminisms and Qualitative Research at and into the Millennium.” In The Handbook of Qualitative Research, edited by Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln, 215–55. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage.

Paul, Kari. 2022. “Netflix’s Slump Continues as Company Loses 1 Million Users in Second Quarter.” The Guardian, July 20. Accessed June 8, 2023. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/jul/19/netflix-slump-earnings-call-second-quarter-2022.

Pierce, Eve. 2017. “The Rise and Rise of the Documentary.” Raindance, February 3. https://www.raindance.org/rise-rise-documentary/.

Piotrowska, Agnieszka. 2020. Creative Practice Research in the Age of Neoliberal Hopelessness. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press.

Rabiger, Michael. 2015. Directing the Documentary, 6th ed. Waltham, MA, USA: Focal Press.

Renov, Michael. 2004. The Subject of Documentary. Minneapolis, MN, USA: University of Minnesota Press.

Robertson, Roland. 2012. “Globalisation or Glocalisation?” The Journal of International Communication 18 (2): 191–208. doi: 10.1080/13216597.2012.709925.

Robertson, Zoë. 2016. “Hybrid Film: Blending Fact and Fiction, and the Act of Memory as Authenticity.” Point of View Winter (100).

Roscoe, Jane. 2004. “Television: Friend or Foe of Australian Documentary?” Media Culture and Society 26 (2): 288–295.

Runco, Mark A. 2007. Creativity. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier Inc.

Russell, Catherine. 1999. Experimental Ethnography: The Work of Film in the Age of Video. Durham, NC, USA: Duke University Press.

Schwartz, Robert. 2020. Pragmatic Perspectives: Constructivism beyond Truth and Realism. Vol. 20, Routledge Studies in American Philosophy. New York, NY, USA: Routledge.

Shaprio, Ann-Louise. 2002. “How Real Is the Reality in Documentary Film? Jill Godmilow, in conversation with Ann-Louise Shapiro.” History & Theory: 80–101. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/0018-2656.00032.

Sherman, Alex. 2022. “Netflix’s Earnings Results Mark Pivot Point for Streaming Giant, for Better or Worse.” CNBC, July 20. https://www.cnbc.com/2022/07/20/netflixs-earnings-results-mark-pivot-point-for-streaming-giant-for-better-or-worse.html.

Sims, David. 2019. “Hollywood Makes Way for the Disney-Fox Behemoth.” The Atlantic, March 21. https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2019/03/disney-fox-merger-and-future-hollywood/585481.

Skains, Lyle. 2018. “Creative Practice as Research: Discourse on Methodology.” Media Practice and Education 19 (1): 82–97. doi: 10.1080/14682753.2017.1362175.

Skare, Roswitha. 2016. Nanook of the North from 1922 to Today: The Famous Arctic Documentary and Its Afterlife. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: PL Academic Research.

Smith, Gerry. 2020. “Netflix Won’t Share Crucial Data, So TV Producers Are Piecing It Together Themselves.” Concord Monitor, October 5, Entertainment. https://www.concordmonitor.com/Netflix-won-t-share-crucial-data-so-TV-producers-are-piecing-it-together-themselves-34268375.

Smith, Sidonie. 1993. Subjectivity, Identity, and the Body: Women’s Autobiographical Practices in the Twentieth Century. Bloomington and Indianapolis, IN, USA: Indiana University Press.

Smith, Hazel, and Roger T. Dean. 2009. “Introduction: Practice-Led Research, Research-Led Practice: Towards the Iterative Cyclic Web.” In Practice-Led Research, Research-Led Practice in the Creative Arts, 1–38: Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press.

Steers, John. 2009. “Creativity: Delusions, Realities, Opportunities, and Challenges.” International Journal of Art & Design Education 28 (2): 126–138.

Svetvilas, Chuleenan. 2004. “Hybrid Reality: When Documentary and Fiction Merge to Create a Better Truth.” International Documentary (June 2004): 20–24.

Swimmer, Jeff. 2015. Documentary Case Studies: Behind the Scenes of the Greatest (True) Stories Ever Told. New York, NY, USA: Bloomsbury Academic.

Tedlock, Barbara. 2000. “Ethnography and Ethnographic Representation.” In The Handbook of Qualitative Research, edited by Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln, 435–454. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage.

Terry, Mark. 2020. The Geo-Doc Geomedia, Documentary Film, and Social Change, 1st ed., Palgrave Studies in Media and Environmental Communication. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.

Thomas, Zoe. 2020. “Netflix Gets 16 Million New Sign-ups Thanks to Lockdown.” BBC News, 22 April. Accessed June 8, 2023. https://www.bbc.com/news/business-52376022.

Tran, Kevin. 2021. “Netflix’s New Top 10 Lists Project the Illusion of Transparency.” Variety, November 16. https://variety.com/vip/netflixs-new-top-10-lists-project-the-illusion-of-transparency-1235113186/.

Trump, Maxine. 2018. The Documentary Filmmaker’s Roadmap: A Practical Guide to Planning, Production, and Distribution. New York, NY, USA: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group.

VanArendonk, Kathryn, and Josef Adalian. 2022. “‘I Don’t Know How My Show Is Doing’ Streamers Run on Data, but That Doesn’t Mean They’re Sharing It with Showrunners.” Vulture, July 7. https://www.vulture.com/article/streaming-showrunners-data-transparency-tv-ratings.html.

van Raalte, Christa, Richard Wallis, and Dawid Pekalski. 2023. “More Than Just a Few ‘Bad Apples’: The Need for a Risk Management Approach to the Problem of Workplace Bullying in the UK’s Television Industry.” Creative Industries Journal: 1–18. doi: 10.1080/17510694.2023.2182101.

Walker, Janet, and Diane Waldman. 1999. “Introduction.” In Feminism and Documentary, edited by Janet Walker and Diane Waldman, 1–35. Minneapolis, MN, USA: University of Minnesota Press.

Welsch, Janice R. 1994. “Bakhtin, Language, and Women’s Documentary Filmmaking.” In Multiple Voices in Feminist Film Criticism, edited by Diana Carson, Linda Dittmar and Janice R. Welsch, 162–175. Minneapolis, MN, USA, and London, UK: University of Minnesota Press.

Winston, Brian. 1995. Claiming the Real: The Documentary Film Revisited. London, UK: BFI Publishing.

Zimmerman, Patricia Rodden. 2000. States of Emergency: Documentaries, Wars, Democracies. Edited by Michael Renov, Faye Ginsberg, and Jane Gaines. 16 vols. Vol. 7, Visible Evidence. Minneapolis, MN, USA & London, UK: University of Minnesota Press.

Phoebe Hart is associate professor at the Queensland University of Technology and a documentary filmmaker based in Brisbane, Australia.