In this section of my website, I will summarize some of my key learnings and reflect on how this has shaped my filmmaking practice. 

• Anatomy of a Story

• Collaboration is Key

• Ethical filmmaking

• Editing for Emotion

 “This was the end of someone’s life, but he was finishing well and there was no regret for me”

 These are the words of Jody talking about her dad, Jack, who had received care on the Conservative Kidney Management pathway. I was honoured to film Jody as part of my final project for my Master’s in Film.  Her dad had passed just a few weeks before and the emotion easily surfaced during our interview. The hair on my arm stood on end, and I knew then as I filmed Jody that I had something captivating that would draw the audience in. 

If you are emotionally engaged with someone onscreen, you mirror those emotions (pearlman)

Just as your heart beats extra fast when you are watching a scary movie, film can make your mirror a range of emotions.  Jody was feeling a mix of sadness that her dad had passed, contentedness that he had a good death, and I guess pride that she had felt strong enough to support her dad’s wishes to be on Conservative Kidney Management rather than dialysis which may have slightly prolonged his life but made him substantially more miserable. 

When we are emotionally engaged with a story, we are more likely to remember the content (Graesser et al)

In fact, it is six years since I created that film, but those words that Jody spoke are still ingrained in my brain. I did not have to play the film to check their accuracy, I just knew. 

The aim of the film was to convey the value of Conservative Kidney Management to:

1. Patients and families who have been told about this option by their clinician but want to hear the views of people who have followed this treatment pathway;

2. Healthcare professionals who are trained to believe that the more interventional route of should be the preferred treatment for all patients, even though research data shows that dependent on age and other comorbidities, dialysis may not lengthen life of those with chronic kidney disease, but instead reduce quality of life by numerous hospital visits, feelings of fatigue, and so on.

There’s a whole lot more information conveyed in Jody’s story about the value of Conservative Kidney Management but that sentence that I chose as the opening statement of the film provides intrigue, it is a hook (Billinge) to draw the audience to get them to keep watching, and I’ll bet that me saying that sentence at the start of this film got you to keep watching too.

Researchers and clinicians are taught of the value of rigour and objectivity

The idea of telling personal stories to convey information about health research or how clinical treatment feeds into concerns about how the plural of anecdote is not data (Davidson) but that overlooks the value of story. 

Olson urges us to “Think of stories as facts wrapped in emotion” and that is crux of my process.  I identify key messages from the research, stakeholders and audience members, and through editing of people’s testimonies, craft a story that addresses those key messages.  In that way, the stories I create are vehicles for key messages, just told in a way that is engaging. 

And while story may seem unscientific, there is a lot of knowledge on what makes a good story, what is important in science communication, and why storytelling works.  In this short story I am telling you now, I have followed the traditional narrative arc.  There was the hook or something to get you interested, the exposition or scene setting, an obstacle, in this case anecdote vs data, and a resolve as I tell you why storytelling works. (Rabiger; DeJong, Rothwell & Knudsen)

From an evolutionary perspective, we are wired for story

Little sensory details peppered into stories, such as how the hairs on my arm stood on end, make it more real for the listener (Buster).  People connect with familiarity of experience and when they see themselves in a character or person on screen.  Emotion or humour engages us in with the story (Medina). Information told through story is more likely to result in recall of information (Graesser) and less likely to counter argue.  People are also more likely to act when there is a call to action in a story. 

Stories in science or health research add the “so what” to the data and the “why” as an audience member should I care.  We care about real people and experiences like Jody and Jack, and I as a filmmaker in the health research sphere, am honoured to tell the stories. I am proud to help make a real-world difference and make sure that your research findings reach the people who will be impacted by them.

To discuss commissioning a short film, please contact Clare here.

I am a great filmmaker and storyteller.  But the stories that I am telling are not mine. 

They are the stories of data generated from research, the knowledge of clinicians, the lived experiences of patients and families.  To make sure that I honour these stories, collaboration with key stakeholders and target audience members is crucial. 

From a knowledge translation perspective:

Matching key messages with audience learning needs is the basis for effective dissemination (Graham).  Obtaining viewpoints from a range of stakeholders and audience members helps me to understand the different terminology that different groups use, what information is important to them, and what is likely to make the target audience want to listen to the message.  It is the key to creating a final product that is fit for purpose. 

From a filmmaking perspective:

This requires the confidence to relinquish some control that would normally be under the purview as director.  The idea of collaboration within documentary filmmaking is not new. Many filmmakers have “critiqued [the] auteurism” of the classic director and instead recognized the value of engagement of communities and social and political issue films (Zimmerman & DeMichiel).  Different collaborative filmmakers have different approaches to this. I, a former research Project Manager, favour the view of Gaudenzi who views the filmmaker as “ruling as a benevolent dictator” to orchestrate the actions of various collaborators.  In my process, collaborators are engaged to provide me with a wealth of information that I use to create the story, piece by piece.

So where does collaboration come into my process?

Pre-production

 Once you commission me to create a film, I will request an initial hour meeting with the commissioning collaborator/s.  During this meeting I will work to understand:

• The overall aim of the film.

• The audience being targeted.

• The key messages from your perspective as researchers/clinicians.

I will also ask you to put me in contact with a range of stakeholders and target audience members to complete further pre-production research (interviews, questionnaires or focus groups as appropriate) to further define the key messages.  The key stakeholders will depend on your project but may include clinicians, scientists, academics, policymakers, charities, and of course, patients.

I will synthesize all the information to create a list of key messages and return to the commissioning collaborator/s to confirm and finely tune these messages.  These key messages will inform the approach to the film, the interview questions that I ask, and the covering shots (b-roll) that I shoot, therefore buy-in is super important.

 Filming

Filming, with the lights and cameras pointing at you, can be a daunting experience for anyone, particularly patients and family members who are being vulnerable in sharing their personal experiences.  It is my job to make the person being interviewed feel as comfortable as possible in the circumstances.  Sometimes this may mean sitting in a particular chair in their house that makes them feel at ease, or a preference to the backdrop of their interview displaying items that are important to them or conversely not showing certain items that may be in their homes.  Sometimes, it may be as simple as how tight they are in the frame and how they look on screen.  Perhaps they decide to re-apply their make-up or change their shirt.  I always work with the person to understand how they want to be represented, and show them how they will appear on screen, so they have an opportunity to adjust anything that they are not happy with.

Many of the people who agree to participate in my films do so as they have a story they want to share, information they want to give to others. However, this may still be an emotional and vulnerable experience for the person. I am clear that if they are not comfortable with a particular question then we can skip it, we can return to a topic later in the session if they want time to think about it, we can take a break, or we can stop all together.  I reassure them that it is their story that I am interested in, and there is no script as to what they should or shouldn’t say.  Not only does this help to build trust and relax the person in the moment, but they are also more likely to give a more genuine narrative.

I always check whether there was anything that they expected to be asked that I hadn’t asked them.  This helps make sure that their voice is heard and some of the most insightful comments, stories or anecdotes can come from this “free for all” question.

I include the person in the planning of covering shots.  Perhaps they want to show a particular hobby that represents them, or there is something about their healthcare process that is fundamentally important to them to depict.

Post-production

Editing is where the real craft of creating the story, piece by piece, begins.  You can read more on my process here. From a collaboration perspective I will engage with stakeholders at key timepoints.  I will ask the commissioning collaborator/s and any people who appear in the film to view the initial cut, second cut and fine cut to check that:

• The key messages are included.

• If there is anything missing.

• If there is anything included that they don’t want to be.

• The information conveyed is accurate. 

I will also engage with the wider stakeholder group to obtain feedback at either the second cut or fine cut stage.

It is imperative importance to me that I have accurately represented and honoured someone’s personal story.  Interviews may be up to an hour and half long but the individual’s testimony in the film is just a few minutes in length.  Obviously, in such a short timeframe there is a limit to the depth and scope of the story told, but I always check with onscreen participants that I have accurately and warmly captured the essence of their story and experience.  Participants can choose how engaged they are in the feedback and editing process.  Some are happy to leave it to me as filmmaker.  For some it may just be covering a certain bit of interview where they don’t like the expression on their face or want a section removing where they fumbled their words.  For others, they want to ensure a particular photograph that is very meaningful for them is included, or a certain story that they have told is in the film.  This may be a general discussion or recommendation or requesting to see the whole transcript from their interview and selecting certain phrases that they want to ensure is included. 

Bringing it all together

Managing the requests of various stakeholders can be a bit of a process of negotiation particularly when different factors such as the length of the film, the rhythm and narrative arc of the story, and preference for content.  This is where my experience as a filmmaker really comes into play.  We have open discussions about why I think changing an aspect of the film will or won’t work, and we can play around with different edits to see what they will look like. 

Through this process, the final piece fulfils the key aims of the project and should be something that all the stakeholders are happy with.

So, what are you waiting for? Let’s collaborate! Contact Clare here

“At best we are brave storytellers. At worst, we become Machiavellian” (Houseman)

Coming from a research background (many years ago I was the student representative on the University of Sheffield Research Ethics Board), I have a strong sense of ethics, and interacting with patients in a way that is approached with sensitivity and does not cause them harm.

Despite the discussion of emotive topics with patients who may often be vulnerable, filmmaking sits outside the purview of the ethics board.  Documentary filmmaking release forms are usually catchall and once some has signed off from a legal standpoint the filmmaking can use that footage in any way they see fit.  Either for a good, noble purpose, or to cause havoc with a sensational film if the filmmaker is cunning, deceitful, dishonest, or in other words, Machiavellian. 

My interest in film comes from a wish to do public good and to improve healthcare using patient story as the vehicle for this. 

While the testimony that interviewees provide is much longer than is ultimately included in the film, I want to portray them warmly and accurately and represent their truth through their story.

As there is no agreed ethical code of conduct for documentary filmmakers, it is up to each filmmaker (or filmmaking company) to navigate their way.  While very familiar with ethical requirements for research, I decided that I needed to explore this topic more from a filmmaking stance as part of my Master’s.  As part of this, I read a fabulous book, Adventures in the Lives of Others: Ethical Dilemmas in Filmmaking , which remains one of my favourite books to this day.  It is a compendium of essays written by filmmakers and producers on their ethical standpoint in filmmaking. Not only do filmmakers have “different values and ethical standards, and different ways of seeing things” (Broomfield)  but each filmmaking is different and therefore necessitate a different decision to be made as each filmmaker feels appropriate.

I feel that my filmmaking style and ethical outlook is in line with that of Maguire who believes that it his responsibility to portray his “characters as fairly and as kindly as possible.”  He goes on to say that “I have a duty of care towards them, and I would not put something out there which I feel would be damaging”. This is very much my ethos. I am upfront in the aims of project and explain where the films will be used.  I offer participants the opportunity to review and comment on rough cuts and remove anything that they are not comfortable with. I try to make sure that I represent them authentically.  

Beyond the impact of final finished product, there are other aspects of ethics to be considered.  First, as I am introducing myself and my camera into the lives of patients and family members, I need to consider my justification for doing so.

“with all good filmmaking, the two most important decisions you make are working out what you’re going to point the camera at, and why it is there in the first place – why it’s ok to intrude into the personal and professional lives of others” (Ford)

My justification is based on the vision that it will do public good by being part of the process that opens dialogue about health services.   This is in line with Dovey whose justification of their filmmaking is to “help make the world better”. My other justification is that the people involved are willing participants.  Obviously, in research coercion is not acceptable and the same should be true here.  Bourne notes that people either participate as they have something they want to say or “because I managed to persuade them it would be a good idea to take part and be given a voice”.  Reading this statement made me feel spectacularly uncomfortable, and I know that, certainly working with patients or other vulnerable people that I would never encourage someone to participate who was not willing.

Access to Patients

I always request that the key collaborator makes an initial introduction to the patients and family members who they think would be good participants in the film.  I then take time to explain what it will involve and where the film will be used.  Sometimes, in the course of this process, it become apparent that the person agreed to be in the film because their care provider asked them to, but they have reservations.  I make it clear that the decision to participate is completely up to them and sometimes there is palpable relief when they realise that they don’t have to. Obviously, this is not to say that the care provider had acted any way inappropriately, just that the patient felt a sense of duty towards them.  Having a stranger (i.e. me) say “it’s ok if you don’t want to do it” removes that sense of responsibility.  I do this both from an ethical standpoint but also the knowledge that if people are reserved then they are unlikely to make good film participants where an open, honest, and often vulnerable conversation on camera is required.

During Filming

The actual filming process can be quite emotional.  Many people find it cathartic to have an opportunity to talk about their experiences, but I am conscious of not causing too much distress.  This is a super tricky balance.  On the one hand, showing emotion in screen, revealing intimate details about themselves, etc, is at the basis of what makes a good story which is obviously what we are trying to achieve. On the other hand, I do not wish any harm to the interviewee.  Rabiger states, “don’t catch them when they fall” as offering comfort changes the relationship between the interviewer and interviewee. For me, there is value in remaining quiet after the interviewee pauses. This often results in further thoughts being shared which are often more poignant and with a raw honesty then the interviewee’s initial answer.  But ultimately, I agree with Steel whose standpoint is ‘human beings first and filmmakers second”.  I may remain quiet in the moment to fully allow the interviewee an opportunity to fully express their thoughts, but once that moment has passed, I will check that they are ok, inquire whether they want to stop, to take a break in filming, get a glass of water, etc. Graham discusses the quandary of when to stop filming, acknowledging that “there is no hard and fast rule” and therefore it is a balance between getting the emotions which are part of the narrative and not letting people get too much in distress.

Editing

The final place where filmmakers may become Machiavellian is how the film is edited and framed.  For each film I create, I may have an hour to an hour and half of interview footage with an individual but only a few minutes makes it into the film.  My storytelling and editing is guided by the pre-production research with a variety of stakeholders, but even so, there are innumerable ways that I could choose to order the spoken words.  I am committed to honouring the patient’s/family member’s voice, and this is reflected in my process of editing, where I check that I have accurately and warmly represented them, and that I have not included anything that they don’t like.

So where do ethics come into my process?

The discussion above highlights some of my thoughts and considerations to ensure that I engage in ethical processing.  Here is a summary of what this means in practical terms for the filmmaking process:

• Asking the commissioning collaborator to make initial contact with potential film participants and requesting permission to pass on their contact details to me.

• Providing an overview of the process of filming, their time commitment and where the content will be used to potential participants (similar to a research informed consent process) and clearly stating that it is entirely their decision whether they wish to participate.

• Requesting that film participants sign a release form but with the assurance that content will not be finalised until they have had an opportunity to provide feedback and let me know anything that they are not comfortable with which has been included in an edit.

• During filming, reassurance that they don’t have to answer any questions that they are not comfortable with

• During filming, offering to halt the filming or have a break if I have concerns that they are distressed.

• Working collaboratively with the participant in editing to check that I have accurately represented their voice and story.

• Offering the participant the opportunity to provide feedback at different stages of the editing process to remove anything that they don’t like or don’t think accurately represents them.

Those unfamiliar with the filmmaking process naively think that once the footage is recorded that most of the work of filmmaking is done. In fact, it is only just begun.

Editing is “the most critical aspect of the production process” where films are given “their feelings, energy and impact”. (Billinge)

My Documentary Approach

In documentary film, the editor’s primary focus is in understanding the film’s central argument and using this to inform decisions of the story to be told across the film.  In my work doing knowledge translation for the health industry, the term “the central argument” would be the key messages agreed in pre-production that become the cornerstone of patient stories and information sharing for medical purposes.

Mastery of Editing is Everything

Sounds simple, right? It’s not. Editing involves the ability to focus at both a macroscopic and microscopic level: identifying what shots to include in the film; how long to hold them; what narrative to tell; what to omit (De Jong, Knudsen & Rothwell); how to build the narrative arc; how to juxtapose shots; and rises and falls in tension. It is also considering how to put together covering shots so that they not only tell a story but have a natural flow to them so that changes in eye gaze are not jarring to the viewer. It also includes colour correction, fixing little glitches in sound, and making the film accessible to those with hearing impairments through addition of closed-captioning. 

Editing is everything. It is about feeling the emotion to craft the story but also being super practical and getting into the mechanics of it.  It is all encompassing. The outside world does not exist when I am in the editing zone. Editing is also the area of filmmaking that I am most grateful to have focused some of my Master’s on. 

Pearlman describes how editors intuitively edit rhythmically using a combination of expertise, implicit learning (for example, knowledge gained from watching films), judgement, sensitivity, creativity and rumination.  She puts forwards the viewpoint that editors should learn the theory of cutting rhythms then allowing it to subconsciously guide their decisions through the editor’s intuition. 

Want to skip straight to my step-by-step process?  Click here.

Keen to keep geeking out with me on editing theory with me, keep reading.

Adopting Editing Lessons from my Master’s

 Billinge suggests that a film should be edited in three ways to tell the story through image, sound, and emotion. Pearlman agrees identifying that a critical part of this is the movement in the story, emotion, and images.  Murch likens the process to orchestrating a symphony and involves finding a balance when juxtaposing shots between highlighting contrast and similarity. 

“A symphony can last for an hour or more because the composer and the performers have developed a harmonic argument, musical questions and answers and contradictions, affirmations, resolutions, all tumbling together in continually surprising and yet ultimately self-evident way.  A film is really trying to do the same thing, by bringing together all the different cinematic crafts including music” (Murch)

Pearlman believes that films should have contrast to allow “cycles of tension and release” which will “synchronize the audience to the movement in the film”.  Editing is therefore selecting, placing, and cutting shots in the right place to achieve this.

In the early edits, aside from following the three-act structure (see Anatomy of a Story), this is achieved through editing for emotion.  Rabiger notes that when editing you should be tuned into your emotional reactions to the raw material contained within the rushes as the audience will likely have a similar reaction. Pearlman further describes this phenomenon, attributing our mirror neurons to the ability to have kinaesthetic empathy, i.e. tuning “the awareness of the movement in the film to the rhythm of our own bodies”. 

Editing For Emotion

 I am acutely aware of this when I am editing, I am paying attention to what makes me feel a surge of emotion, the lump in the throat, or a pang of heartache, as the audience will likely feel the same.  Conversely, are there scenes where my mind starts to wander, or I lose focus, if I am not fully engaged then it’s an indication that the viewer may also be bored.   The literature agrees, Pearlman states “shaping event rhythm relies on knowing when and how the audience know enough about one event and are ready for the next”.  If the placement is wrong then the audience has the potential to lose interest as a result of confusion or boredom.  Murch, believes that too much information encourages “the audience to become spectators rather than participants”, and this is a quick way to disengage someone. 

Scenes are cut based on their story, emotional content or rhythm. No matter what the cut is based on, juxtaposing shots should create an energy that propels the film forwards.  The placement of the cut, the timing and duration can all affect this energy, but when good selections are made, the audience is given the “impression that the energy an action in the first shot causes the responsive motion seen in the next shot” (Pearlman).

Different editors have different ways of knowing exactly where to cut a scene.  Murch described it as in a “blink of eye” stating that “the blink is something that helps and internal separation of thought take place, or an involuntary reflex accompanying mental separation”, believing that the sense is completed when the subject’s thought is completed.  Pearlman looks for other tell-tale signs including “pauses… hesitations, shifts in position, glances, twitches, smiles, sobs, sights, startles [and] shivers”.  Ultimately, it is about paying attention to the subject on screen and learning to identify their natural rhythms and cutting the film to reflect this, and Pearlman is quite correct, once you know the theory letting your intuition takeover is fundamental to this process.

Making The Cut in The Approach to Short Film

If a scene does not contribute to the overall narrative, according to Billinge it has no place being in the film. This is sage advice especially when creating a short (typically five to eight minutes) film is the aim.  Sometimes the people who I interview tell me the most wonderful stories that tug at the heart strings, but their presence in the film would detract from the main message and narrative of the film. Given the aim is to communicate key messages on a given topic, diversions would be an error.  And so, regrettably one must “cut their darlings”.   

Finding Flow & Rhythm

How to organize the different shots within a scene also requires thought.  Continuity editing allows several shots to be put together that tell a story.  I favour this technique when for example, showing a patient taking medication where there are several sequential steps (1. Open the medication bottle, 2. Take out a tablet, 3, Place in mouth, 4. Swallow with water).  Montage on the other hand allows unrelated images to be brought together to advance an idea or story. 

 The flow of these shots also requires some thought.  Pearlman identifies the “collision-linkage” spectrum.  In linkage, the flow of shots should be connected by considering eye trace (i.e. the action of the next shot should start at the same point in the frame as the previous one ended), tone, contrast, shot size etc.  The aim is to prevent individual shots from standing out and instead creating a smooth flow image which “immerse, influence and convince” the audience. Collision, on the other hand, involves juxtaposing shots which contain opposites – light vs dark, direction of music, wide shot to close-up.  Eisenstein believed the cuts between shots should be a little jolt to the audience to energize them and keep them engaged in the film. Both are needed within films, without this heterogeneity in shots, “there would be no rhythm, just a continuous hum a custard-coloured world”.

 So, after that whirlwind tour of some of the theory that guides my editing, you may be interested in my practical process that I employ when editing films.

 Step by Step Process to Allegorical Alchemy Editing

We capture the stories and raw film and materials within its own process. But when all information, interviews and details are gathered, and general film plans are approved, the theory of film making above becomes a thoughtful process of art and science.

Stage 1: the paper edit

First, I transcribe the interview/s in full.  I print them out, and while consulting the agreed upon key messages, I highlight relevant sections of the interview.  The highlighted section may pertain to a key message, a particularly emotive narrative, or something that helps to provide context. If I have more than one person speaking in the film, I highlight their transcripts in different colours. Next with my trusty little scissors, I cut out all the highlighted sections. 

On my big dining table, I take my little strips of paper, and first categorize them by theme.  After this, I start to physically build the story.  I look for an opening hook to draw the audience in, then details that introduce the person on screen and the circumstance to provide exposition for the film.  Next I look for elements that contribute to rising tension or a key incident, before finally selecting elements that resolve the story, and where relevant, include a call to action.  I often move my strips of paper around multiple times, until I get something that I am happy with.  Normally only about half of what I have selected makes the final arrangement for the paper edit, as I may have multiple instances of someone basically saying the same thing.

Once I have the story that I am happy with, I stick the strips of paper to fresh pieces of paper, and this is my paper edit complete.

Stage 2: The initial cut

In Adobe Premiere Pro, I create an initial edit of the film based on my paper edit.  Sometimes the edit will be identical to that which is on paper but, more often than not, I make additional tweaks at this point in time.  This may be editing for story, emotion or rhythm.  With regards to story, perhaps on seeing it on screen, I think there needs to be a little extra context, or I have included something that is not relevant, and its inclusion is causing me to lose interest.  Perhaps, the interviewee had a voice crack, a pause, a sob, or a laugh which shows their emotion and helps me engage with the story which I could not appreciate when the edit was on paper.  Perhaps, the interviewee had a run-on sentence and I was unable to cut where I had initially envisaged because the rhythm of the cut would be all wrong and it would seem like there was an unfinished thought.  Once I have made these little edits, my initial cut is done and ready for sending to those who appeared in the film and the commissioning collaborator/s for their feedback.

Stage 3: Feedback on initial cut

At this point the film is only very loosely edited together with no covering shots and the transitions between scenes clunky.  I seek feedback from the commission collaborators and interviewee/s on the narrative told, whether the film addresses all the key messages, if there is anything missing, or anything included that should not be.  In addition, I check with the interviewee/s that the narrative I have selected represents the essence of them and their story. 

Stage 4: The second cut*

Using the feedback from the initial cut, a second cut is created either adding or removing sections or restructuring as discussed with the collaborators. 

Stage 5: Feedback on second cut*

Collaborators are given an opportunity to provide further feedback on the film at this stage.

Stage 6: Fine cut

The second cut will form the basis of the final film with minimal edits to the narrative beyond this point.  The fine cut involves adding covering shots (b-roll), photos, and titles.  The aim of the B-roll is to add movement into the film to keep it visually engaging for the viewer and to provide more elements of relevant story.  For example, it may show a carer looking after their spouse who has dementia, or a patient taking their medication, or a doctor examining a patient.  Photographs help to provide insight into the interviewee’s life.  The covering shots and photographs also enable a finer editing of the film.  They can be strategically placed to cover awkward cuts and enable fine tuning of the narrative. Unless you are a super confident public speaker with a ton of PR training and scripted sentences that roll off the tongue, it is highly unlikely that raw footage recorded of an interview is anywhere near what the final film will look like.  People naturally to go off at tangents, they forget words, repeat themselves, have little verbal tics like “um” or “ahh”.  Many of these can be removed, streamlining the story and reducing the length of the film.  Colour corrections will be made, and any disruptions in the audio addressed.

Stage 7: Feedback on fine cut

The fine cut is sent to a wide group of collaborators (who participated in pre-production research) for their feedback. 

Stage 8: Finalization

Any further edits are made based on the feedback received in stage 7.  Closed-captioning is added. Credits and titles are added. And the film is finalized.  With permission, the film is made public on Vimeo, and Allegorical Alchemy’s website, and the final film files provided to the commissioning collaborator via Google drive. 

*A second cut is a common required practice. Some projects may not require it while others may require more than two cuts. Projects are generally quoted based on cooperation and collaboration and a clear process as outlined. When more than two-cuts are required, we must review the contract and evaluate the benefits of a third or further cut before continuing.

 Next Steps

As you now understand, the process of making a short film is not short at all. Rather it’s a commitment to honouring the theory and process of film to ensure that the ultimate goal, translating knowledge of the medical community in order to engage an audience to care and act, combines science, art, ethics, empathy and instinct. This diligence and focus on the purpose and process of film at Allegorical Alchemy is also why we are valued for our work.

To discuss a potential film project, contact Clare here

 References (anatomy of a story)

• Billinge, S. 2017, The Practical Guide to Documentary Editing : Techniques for TV and Film, Focal Press, Milton

• Buster, B. 2013, Do Story: How to tell your story so the world listens, The Do Book Company.

• Davidson, B. 2017 Storytelling and evidence-based policy: lessons from the grey literature.Palgrave Commun 3, 17093

• De Jong, W., Knudsen, E. & Rothwell, J. 2013, Creative Documentary: Theory and Practice, Routledge, New York.

• Graesser, A. C., Woll, S. B., Kowalski, D. J., & Smith, D. A. 1980. Memory for typical and atypical actions in scripted activities. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 6(5), 503–515.

• Medina quoted in Gallo. Gallo, C. 2016, The Storyteller's Secret: From TED Speakers to Business Legends, Why Some Ideas Catch on and Others Don't, St Martin's Press, New York.

• Olson, R. 2009. Don’t be such a scientist: talking substance in an age of style. Washington, DC, U.S.A.: Island Press

• Pearlman, K. 2016, Cutting rhythms, Second edition edn, Focal Press, New York, NY

• Rabiger, M. 2015, Directing the Documentary, 6th Edition edn, Focal Press, New York.

Back to Anatomy of a Story

References (Stop, Collaborate and Listen)

• Gaudenzi, S. 2014, "Strategies of Participation: The Who, What and When of Collaborative Documentaries" in New Documentary Ecologies: Emerging Platforms, Practices and Discourses, eds. K. Nash, C. Hight & C. Summerhayes, Palgrave Macmillan, , pp. 129-148.

• Graham, I. 2012, Guide to Knowledge Translation Planning at CIHR: Integrated and End-of-Grant Approaches.

• Zimmermann, P.R. & De Michiel, H. 2017, Open Space New Media Documentary: A Toolkit for Theory and Practice, 1st edn, Routledge, Milton.

Back to Stop, Collaborate and Listen

 References (Ethics in Filmmaking)

• Bourne, S. 2015, "Personal Filmmaking" in Adventures in the Lives of Others: Ethical Dilemmas in Factual Filmmaking, ed. J. Quinn, I B Taurus, New York, pp. 81-90

• Broomfield, N. 2015, "Making Choices;" in Adventures in the Lives of Others: Ethical Dilemmas in Factual Filmmaking, ed. J. Quinn, I B Taurus, New York, pp. 251-256.

• Dovey, J. 2014, "Documentary Ecosystems: Collaboration and Exploitation" in New Documentary Ecologies: Emerging Platforms, Practices and Discourses, eds. K. Nash, C. Hight & C. Summerhayes, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, pp. 11-32.

• Ford, S. 2015, "Crime" in Adventures in the Lives of Others: Ethical Dilemmas in Factual Filmmaking, ed. J. Quinn, I B Taurus, New York, pp. 129-134.

• Graham, A. 2015, "Factual Formats" in Adventures in the Lives of Others: Ethical Dilemmas in Factual Filmmaking, ed. J. Quinn, I B Taurus, New York, pp. 203.

• Houseman, R. 2015, "Editing" in Adventures in the Lives of Others: Ethical Dilemmas in Factual Filmmaking, ed. J. Quinn, I B Taurus, New York, pp. 233-242.

• Maguire, L. 2015, "Sex" in Adventures in the Lives of Others: Ethical Dilemmas in Factual Filmmaking, ed. J. Quinn, I B Taurus, New York, pp. 101-110.

• Quinn, J. 2015, Adventures in the Lives of Others: Ethical Dilemmas in Factual Filmmaking, I B Tauris, New York.

• Rabiger, M. 2015, Directing the Documentary, Sixth edition. edn, Focal Press - M.U.A.

• Steel, E. 2015, "Taboo Subjects" in Adventures in the Lives of Others: Ethical Dilemmas in Factual Filmmaking, ed. J. Quinn, I B Taurus, New York, pp. 45-54.

Back to Ethics in Filmmaking

 REFERENCES (EDITING FOR EMOTION)

• Billinge, S. 2017, The Practical Guide to Documentary Editing: Techniques for TV and Film, Routledge.

• De Jong, W., Knudsen, E. & Rothwell, J. 2013, Creative Documentary Theory and Practice, Routledge, New York.

• Murch, W. 2001, In the Blink of an Eye, 2. edn, Silman-James Press, Los Angeles.

• Pearlman, K. 2016, Cutting rhythms, Second edition edn, Focal Press, New York.

• Rabiger, M. 2015, Directing the Documentary, Sixth edition. edn, Focal Press - M.U.A.

Back to Editing for Emotion