AboutMickey Grant Expertise How to produce, direct, write,edit, and market documentaries
This would include which camera is best for a particular project and aspects of how to approach story telling of your documentary. Also, it is becoming even more critical to have a buyer at a major network such as the BBC (they are called Programme Editors there) to interact with during your production. It's really important to know the market and the major players to know who you are.
Experience Over 30 years of working on various aspects of documentaries with my primary function today of shooting and directing them.
You can find out a great deal about my films and background at my website at www.creativehat.com
Also, several of my films are on Google Video and can be found by going there and typing Mickey Grant in search. They include my latest film, INJECTION which is 80 minutes and shot on HDV. Also, THE CU CHI TUNNELS, which previously was distributed by BBC Worldwide and has played on major broadcssters in over 50 countries.
Organizations In the past I've been a member of many organizations such as NABET union but don't find it necessary in today's market place.
Publications About.com
Education/Credentials BFA from SMU in 1971 in Film
Masters in film from UNT in 1986
Awards and Honors Gold Award, Best Feature Length Documentary, Houston International Film Festival
Golden Star Halo Award, Southern California Motion Picture Council
Honorable Mention (twice), Chicago Film Festival
Second Place, Sinking Creek Film Festival
Question QUESTION: I've just started getting serious work done on a non-fiction feature. I still have no underwriters but I've managed to get interviews with a few subjects who have significant contributions to the topic I'm covering.
However I am also interested in getting testimony from academics and professionals in psychology and the sociology field. One snag I keep running into is that I'm often asked what "production house" or "news agency" or "channel" I work for, as if my request for an interview would not be legitimate without "backup". I have no credits to my name yet, but of course, everyone has a first time, and I intend to use this project to launch potential future credits.
I usually respond with the truth, saying I'm an independent feature director. Many potential subjects say they'd like to know my "supervising producer", not realizing that I'm the only one I answer to.
How do I put to ease the minds of potential interview subjects, especially somewhat high-ranking pundits and professionals, who may be less inclined to talk to someone without this "back up"?
I appreciate your help.
ANSWER: I think this is the second time I've answered this one. What I forgot to include in the last answer is that I suggest you have your release form printed well with your name and address at the top and do it correctly. There are a lot of forms on-line and some books with release forms in them. During my over 30 years of work I own nearly every book written on the subject. I suggest you start your collection and buy a couple of books on doc producing and film business. There books on every aspect including film law, interview technique, etc. I also learned this material by spending over 15 years working for great and talented producers. All of this will teach you a lot.
---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------
QUESTION: Hello, sir
Thanks for getting back with me and for your detailed answer. I've actually already read through the documentary books and have printed out the standard release forms. For all interviews where people actively consented to be on camera, I've made sure to get their signature afterwards.
The problem I was addressing though were those odd instances where it's clear the producer (I mis-used the term "independent filmmaker" before, but I think you understood what I was trying to say) means to say something critical about an organization or business or some kind of system out there. Naturally the producer should remain neutral and professional in his dealings, but nevertheless he may find himself in an adversarial position when addressing people on camera--those who aren't obligated to maintain professional composure at all. This is especially true when it turns out the documentary has an expose intent. (Think about Michael Moore's work and Fred Wiseman's TITICUT FOLLIES)
Did all of those people who came out badly also sign on the dotted line later on, even when it was obvious that they came out badly on camera? (I think about Dick Clark kicking Michael Moore out of his van in COLUMBINE. Surely he didn't just drive back later on and say, "Okay fine I'll be in your movie.")
Or what about the film STREETFIGHT where the producer also got kicked out of a campaign rally and his camera lens fended off by bodyguards? (Voices crying out "no cameras allowed here!" are clearly audible.) Surely these angry people--who did make it onscreen in the final cut--didn't come back trying to find the documentarian later and say, "Can I be in the movie, where do I sign?"
Is there a rule I hadn't heard of in which it's permissible to put onscreen people in the public?
Please understand, I really do appreciate your help, and if my examples sounds a mite too facetious, it's only because I don't want to sound vague. I'm not trying to be a troublemaker; I really want to make sure I still follow the rules. Anyway I hope I explained enough. If not, do let me know and I'll try to phrase my question differently. I thank you for your help so far.
ANSWER: Before you do any shooting, you get the release signed. It's that simple. When I perceive that I'm going to ask questions that could even lead to a fight, I always bring one or 2 people with me. There are hundreds of successful documentary film makers. It always amazes me when someone cites the "flavor of the day" folks, Moore or Wiseman. This is simple stuff. Just use common sense. Of course you need a release. I'm often very friendly all the way up to asking them why they are guilty of some crime. Sometimes I spend hours asking questions they like until I spring the real question I came for on them. Frequently, prior to this question I'll get everything I don't need out of their house or office so I can make a quick getaway. But the first thing I give them with a smile is the release.
---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------
QUESTION: Thanks for your response. I admit I've only had scant experience in non-fiction features, so the only models I have to go on are the works of past documentarians. I cite their past projects because they have succeeded in getting their work completed and exhibited and acclaimed by intelligent audiences. I'm sure that's how you've guaged your own success and that of your colleagues in this field.
I'm not sure how you're amazed that Michael Moore and Fred Wiseman fit the "flavor of the day" model, since Moore has been working since at least 1989 and Wiseman has been making features since the late 60's and is currently in production on his latest as we speak, so why dismiss them? Why not learn how they achieved their results? Which other documentary producers do you suggest whose working method I should be better off following?
I've just always wondered if it would look suspect requesting a release signed before the interview. I'm not saying it wouldn't work, but if anyone did the same to me, I'd see myself thinking, "we'll see"--as in, "I'll give my written approve on you showing the public what my answers are on camera, but only after I answer the questions, and obviously having heard them first", a reasonably cautious move I've assumed most people take. In your own documentary producing experience, have you found people more inclined to sign before the interview, than to be presented with the release afterwards (which sounds more fair to the interview subject)?
I appreciate your help.
Answer I don't dismiss them. Both of them are friends of mine. What bothers me is that there are at least 300 or so competitive doc makers around now and the public only knows the names of about 4 or 5. Gets frustrating.
You never should get a release signed after the interview. You never know if someone will get mad or bent out of shape over some innoucuous comment. Don't take the chance.
