Via comparative-case study and semi-structured interviews, this project explores the digital production, editing, asset management practices, and perceptions of the digital documentary field for a sample of 14 documentary filmmakers and identifies key sites of contextual metadata for their recent digital works. Data were gathered via online, guided interviews with filmmakers and via identification of the websites, digital marketing, and social media platforms associated with the most recent films. As a comparative-case study, results were analyzed holistically as a collection of cases. Case boundaries were defined as follows: one discrete case consists of 1) filmmaker interview data and 2) the digital infrastructure and sites of production (websites, tools, and platforms) associated with their most recently-screened
documentary.
Open-ended interviews generally followed a formal interview guide, intending to achieve detailed conversations about the following broad topics (See Appendix 3 for the detailed
interview script.):
1) descriptions of the most recently-completed films, concept development, and general overviews of the production workflows for the films;
2) key decisions made about digital tools, software, and hardware;
3) descriptions of how the films were distributed digitally, including digital marketing and social media;
4) perceptions of the challenges and benefits of using digital production and distribution protocols (software, hardware, and cloud platforms);
5) strategies related to data/file management and backups;
6) perceptions of the challenges of preserving/archiving digital media; 7) closing questions about the future direction of digital documentaries.
Conversations with the 14 participant filmmakers delved into the ways in which
documentary production and distribution workflows have become infused with decisions about digital tools, storage, backups, and use of cloud services. Filmmakers were asked to discuss at a fine-grained level their data and file management practices (naming conventions and organizing strategies) and challenges related to self-archiving digital media. They were asked to describe how they currently care for the digital media created in the moviemaking process and the extent to which they are aware of risks to that media.
The resulting interviews generally aligned with the semi-structured interview guide but also included related sub-topics of particular interest to the filmmakers’ unique backgrounds and career trajectories. I aimed to conceptualize the digital landscape using the filmmakers’ most recent documentaries; however, if there was a current film in progress or other relevant works completed, the filmmakers were welcome to speak about those films as well.
To identify potential filmmakers, I first developed a database of approximately 330 films, including their associated filmmakers, that screened in the last two years at a subset of five documentary-focused film festivals in the United States. The film festivals included the following venues:
1. Atlanta DocuFest (Georgia)
3. Boston GlobeDocs (Massachusetts)
4. Chagrin Falls Documentary Film Festival (Ohio) 5. Full Frame Film Festival (North Carolina)
In selecting the film festivals, I sought broad coverage of the documentary festival market, avoiding selecting films from only one festival or geographic location. I also tried to select festivals that had current, active websites and published complete programs from which to draw film titles and filmmaker names. From the festival programs of each site, I identified a mix of feature-length and short films and their associated filmmakers, and from this data created a working spreadsheet of contacts and films from 2017 and 2018. I sent the first set of invitations to a sample of 269 filmmakers whose films had screened at the selected festivals in 2018. After confirming several interviews with respondents from the 2018 cohort, it was clear that to reach saturation; additional filmmakers would need to be identified. I then drew a second, smaller sample of 60 additional films/filmmakers from 2017 programs. Because it was necessary to contact the filmmakers via email, I had to exclude those for whom I could not locate email addresses or who only had social media handles. The final list of cases/participants interviewed is summarized in Appendix 4.
Approved descriptions of the study were included as part of the formalized interview request, and I scheduled all interviews via Skype with consenting participants on a rolling basis. (See the Appendices for consent scripts and invitation emails.) After extending an initial set of invitations to the 2018 sample of 269 filmmakers, eight participants responded affirmatively and completed Skype interviews. One of these filmmakers introduced a ninth respondent as a
personal referral via email. Three respondents were identified and confirmed from the 2017 cohort, and the last filmmaker was a personal (local) referral. Interviewees hailed from a variety
of geographic regions around the United States, including East Coast, West Coast, Southeast, and Northeast. Interviews took place via recorded Skype video calls between March and August 2019 and were transcribed using a commercial software program, Temi. The average interview length was approximately one hour. For one of the interviews, a filmmaker’s colleague was consulted briefly to determine answers to specific technical questions; these were offhand questions that did not warrant the colleague’s inclusion as an interviewee.
Interviews for the project were recorded and stored using best-known research data archiving practices; currently, three complete versions of the interview data exist on two separate devices, with one copy in a secure, cloud-based location. Interview files were imported into MAXQDA along with complete transcripts. Data were organized, managed, coded, and analyzed using MAXQDA, a commercial software program designed for qualitative and mixed-methods data analysis.
As part of the interviews and subsequent exploration of film festival and individual filmmaker websites, I noted possible sources of contextual information for the participants’ films, including websites created specifically for the purposes of marketing films, filmmaker blogs/websites, and social media platforms. The existence of these contextual materials depends on the documentary; however, in general, filmmakers tended to generate a wide range of digital materials and artifacts for each completed film. Film cataloging and film metadata standards (EN 15744) suggest minimal metadata such as title, country, format, language, genre, producer and other key staff, and festival screenings; some of these data points are available on festival websites and elsewhere. Notes on production and distribution methods were elicited, as
available, in addition to information about how the films were exhibited/shared online – via the website, live screenings, or social media.
Section 2. Study Limitations
Qualitative research, and case studies, in particular, require a wide cone of interpretation on the part of the researcher. As this is a limited sample size of 14 respondents, generalizations to the entire universe of documentary filmmakers and the moving image industry as a whole are not possible. The presence of the researcher in data collection drives interaction with
respondents; bias is unavoidable. Qualitative research facilitates a fine-grained, deep analysis of a phenomenon; however, it cannot provide the breadth of analysis of a survey or the distant reading of a data set containing thousands of data points. In that sense, the conversations between researcher and respondent are organic, nuanced, and highly interpretive. Limitations imposed by time and geographic distance also prevent more depth of detail in documenting workflows. Alternative methods of investigation would be warranted; for example, following an individual filmmaker over the course of the full production and distribution lifecycle would provide more directly-observable data than the remote, time-limited interviews achieved for this research.
In addition to contact challenges, it was difficult to locate filmmakers whose approaches fit the experimental/interactive definition, and the one respondent included in the set of
interviews is likely insufficient to describe the i-docs domain fully. After reaching out to several filmmakers in this category with only one affirmative response, it was clear that the sampling methods were insufficient for connecting with web-based/interactive filmmakers. In addition, I was surprised to find that only a few of the respondents who did complete interviews were aware of any interactive documentaries or filmmakers who worked in that space, and none felt that i- docs would be a significant part of the documentary genre’s future; this was a surprising result,
to be sure. Still, existing i-docs will require curation by film archivists going forward; with fewer time and scope constraints, I hope to revisit this genre with more of a focused approach.
A fully-transparent, reflexive approach to research is a core value reflected in this approach. Lincoln and Guba’s guidelines (1985) for qualitative research focus on ensuring credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability. To ensure conceptual credibility, I shared an early version of the documentary lifecycle model with filmmakers for feedback. I provided time during the interviews for the respondents to ask questions about the project and welcomed them to connect after the interview if there were any additional concerns. Questions related to methods and data have been addressed with participants in a transparent manner; each interview session provided time for filmmakers to assent a second time to being recorded. All data collected for the study have been and will continue to be maintained in confidential, password-protected servers. Full disclosure of the intended purpose of the data and risks to confidentiality were provided to all respondents. Copies of the final report will also be provided to participants.
CHAPTER IV. RESULTS