What do scientific documentary makers study in school?

Factual Questions
1

It takes a village to raise a child…I’m sure it takes a village to put Nature together every week as well. I want to pluck a sample of Nature’s villagers up by the scruff of the neck and poke around at them under a microscope…at least academically.

Finding some way to combine science, conservation, public service, and technology together with a pay check is an ongoing pet project that I’ve had for oh…28 years or so.

So far I’ve completed the BS in Zoology level of the game, followed by about 5 years of employment in the “real world” that has nothing whatsoever to do with what I studied in school. I am beginning to realize that this was a required tangent to convince me that going back to school is actually a good idea.

My research into Scientific Illustration as a possible career has led me to believe that it is easier to get into it as an artist with scientific tendancies, as opposed to a scientist with artistic tendancies. That being the case, my lack of artistic training and portfolio have put this into the “If I go back to school” pile of possiblities.

Getting involved in scientific documentaries would also require a return to the classroom, but I have little insight into the do’s and don’ts of scientific media production. Is it also geared toward professional film-makers who have scientific tendancies? Or are there geeky niches waiting to be exploited with no video editing skills required?

So let’s have it…help me spend my tuition reimbursement…

2

I’m not a documentary film maker. However, as a one-time communications major and as someone who was involved in a science documentary from the side of the scientists being interviewed, I can offer some thoughts.

I would say that if you were going to go back to school, focus on learning television and film production. That’s practical knowledge you really ought to have before you make the plunge into documentaries; there’s no substitute for hands-on mucking around with camera angles, direction, etc., and once you have that you have a lot of freedom to do what you like. Your science degree will have given you a good understanding of the scientific process, which is SO important in delivering a well-balanced and fair presentation to your audience (unlike non-science folk who might be more tempted to play up the dramatic at the expense of accuracy). Particular topics can always be researched with the help of scientists in the field in question.

By the way, for the documentary I was involved in, no one on the production crew had any sort of science training. The producer was a freelancer hired by the BBC to produce the show; from my brief conversations with him, he had apparently produced documentaries on a variety of topics, not all of which were science-related. His production assistant was very much an administrative person (not surprising, really). The remainder of his crew consisted of a camera person and a sound person. What was most disappointing about the entire experience was the producer’s willingness to completely ignore an interesting controversy in favor of a one-sided, heavily sensationalistic program that did not at all accurately portray the issue he was filming about. In my mind, that failing was entirely the result of his lack of appreciation of the science involved. I trust that’s a problem your keen interest in science will help you avoid. :slight_smile: Best of luck to you!

3

Ask Steve Irwin (The Crocodile Hunter); I don’t think that’s quite the type of documentary you’re thinking of, but he is successful and does know his stuff despite the goofy nature of his shows. And wrestling crocodiles, wild pigs, and camels for real on film (and getting slashed up sometimes) does tend to remove the “geekiness” from one’s image and replace it with a rustic side, even though the eccentricities remain.

4

Lemme add to sunfish’s recommendation - do a course (anywhere from three months to four years) in film and TV production. Most will train you up on the full gamut, and let you specialise in the last third of the course. This time is priceless, cos never again will you have access to all the gear and facilities at no charge.

However, as with most tertiary education, you think you know a lot more than you really do when you leave the course, so the next thing is to work on shoots as a runnon or PA, fist electrics, or something similarly menial, and keep your eyes and ears open (and try really hard to get a copy of the shoots you work on). Your bread and butter will most likely be TV ads, but that’ll depend on the production company / professional you hook up with (I’d lean towards hooking up with a gaffer or grips, company (or solo guy), but I guess it depends on how technical you want to be).

Keep your eyes and ears open as much as you possibly can, and watch what other people. Listen, where possible, to the convos between people like the DP, director, and producer. Listen to what they are saying, and check the video splits whenever you get a chance, so you can see what they mean.

Do that for a year (at least), and if you’re smart and attentive, you’ll get up the ladder a few rungs, make friends with people who will be extremely useful later on, and learn invaluable skills (including terminology).

Digital video cameras are so damn good quality these days, you can regularly practise stuff on your own or with friends - a camera and a tripod is all you need! As you go along, you’ll learn what suitable lights are, how to do those camera moves, how to write a script well, how to liaise with the producer, and so on. There’s lots to learn, but if you keep your eyes and ears open, you’ll soak it up like a sponge. It’s really fascinating (look where I ended up - I produce porn! :))

Good luck.

abby

5

Thanks for the suggestions y’all :slight_smile:

A friend of mine was just cast in an independant film that is being shot a few minutes from where I live. She gave me the director’s e-mail address, and I did contact him to offer my voluntary blood sweat and tears toward his endeavor, but I have not heard back from him. I will try and rekindle that networking opportunity.

Another idea I’ve been bouncing around is just busting out on my own with a video camera and pointing it at a friend of the family who just happens to have a PhD in Primatology. He’s also worked for National Geographic for the past 15 years or so.

I also have some ideas for various projects that could involve the Atlanta Zoo. I’d be more interested in the visitors as subjects, rather than the animals, at least for the idea I have at the moment, but I’m sure it is not easy to gain the applicable permissions.

On the other hand, doing less on my own and more in the structure of a class room will help to account for my lazy-ass-procrastinator gene that expresses itself from time to time.

While I cannot deny the importance of attending film and video production classes, I am hesitant to go too far down that path in neglect of skills such as computer graphics and modeling. It is this fusion of illustration and media that I think is key to the kind of documentaries that I enjoy watching the most. A visually engaging and accurate animation of what is being presented is invaluable when it comes to sharing science through a film medium. Animation and modeling held my transitional interests, after I’d decided to explore other options aside Scientific Illustration, and before I started to push passed the mental hump about how difficult film-making was going to be to just wake up and do one day. I’m obviously still pushing…
sunfish: I have to ask…what was the documentary you were interviewed for about? What was your testimony? I also assume that the filmmaker in your case did not come up with the subject matter on his own, or did he? Were there any scientific advisor type folks around at all? Perhaps in post-production?

If becoming a film maker proves to be too long or hard of a row to hoe, (Graphics and Animation are a long and hard row to hoe from scratch as well) I’m clinging to the hope that there is room for science folk somewhere in the mix.

abby: If pr0n is where you are now, but not your original focus, what were you interested in back when your sponge was dry?

6

I’m bumping this on account of the chance that more than 3 dopers might have some insight…

7

I’m returning to school this fall as a communications/journalism major, and here’s what’s expected.

I can take no more than 37 credit-hours of communications courses towards my major. I have to take a minor in something unrelated to the study of journalism, and likely this will be my area of specialty. So, for example, if I choose to minor in early childhood education, I will be qualified to work in children’s television or radio. If I choose to minor in a science, I will be qualified to work in that area.

So, the answer is, yes, go in with a background in television or film production, and take science classes as part of that. The production is what’s important in a documentary; knowing something about science is icing on the cake.

Robin

8

This thread is interesting for me because, once upon a time, it was my dream to become a documentary maker for topic in science, medicine, and health.

I talked to all kinds of people, and found them to be less than open about how to break into the business. There is so much competition to raise money for each venture, that I wonder if they don’t want a new competitor (i.e. me).

9

I can only hope that competetion in such a venue would drive a higher quality product. I’m also hoping that not everyone will want to keep to themselves, and that (at least for some)valuable collaborators sought after to a greater degree than new competitors are feared.

10

Sorry to be getting back to you so late, honeydewgrrl, but I took a break from the ol’ computer this weekend.

The documentary I was involved with was on the Snowball Earth hypothesis, which made a big splash in the geosciences community when it was published (in its most recent incarnation) back in 1998. This hypothesis proposed that climatic conditions during two ice ages, dating back to roughly 600 and 750 million years ago, were so extreme that the world effectively froze over twice. The concept sparked a lot of controversy in the community, in part because the major proponent of the hypothesis - a very charismatic and supremely self-confident individual - went on what could only be described as a campaign to publicize the hypothesis. He also spoke about it as if it were already fully proven, a major no-no to begin with and infuriating to those of us who knew there were serious problems with it.

Given all the hype, I don’t think the documentary producer needed to be prodded too hard into selecting the Snowball Earth as a topic, if he didn’t actually come across it himself. (Just think - the spectre of global catastrophe! A world encased in ice! Life on earth teetering on the edge of total extinction!) As for scientific advisor types… well, the producer had the scientists themselves, probably a couple dozen in total, who were available to give interviews, provide information during pre- and post-production, etc. That is the reason why most of the scientists involved were quite pissed with the final program, because it was SO one-sided and sensationalistic. Complaints to the producer himself elicited the excuse that he had shot several hours of footage and had to whittle everything down to an hour’s length… well, that’s understandably difficult, but completely ignoring all advice to give an even shot to both sides of the controversy was his own decision. I suspect he just didn’t know how to make it interesting to the lay person, and so stuck with just one side of the issue.

(By the way, a popular book on the Snowball Earth hypothesis and the controversy has just come out - just search for “Snowball Earth” on Amazon. That author writes nicely, and paints a very good portrait of the personalities involved, but still gives a somewhat skewed view of the hypothesis and its ramifications - and the author actually has a PhD in chemistry, so it just must be the push to make things sufficiently “exciting” for the general public.)

Back to the question of what you might try to do in the future… it will undoubtedly be difficult, but if you really love what you’re doing it will be worth it. Textbook publishers and museums come to mind as entities that would be interested in scientific illustrations, but I honestly don’t know how consistent (or challenging) such work would actually be. I know someone who has a master’s degree in earth science journalism; she has started getting into television production, and she’s done it by working with non-profit organizations and public television. Not very high paying, but when I talked to her last she was having a ball. If it’s animation and modeling you’re interested in… why not get your hands on the videos of “Walking with Dinosaurs” and the like, check out who did the animation work, and then get in touch with that company to find out what skills they would like in an employee? That would probably be the best way to get a sense of what sort of training you should be spending your time on.

Cheers.

11

Thanks for the response, sunfish.

I have good news. I received a response from the indy film director. They’re rehearsing for a while and will begin shooting soon. He extended a pretty open-ended invitation to come “give a hand” so now I have to figure out which aspects I want to be involved in. I will certainly consider the suggestions that have already been made in this thread, but I’d still appreciate any other suggestions.

12

I found an applicable program at Georgia Tech:

http://www.lcc.gatech.edu/stac/overview.html