I’ve split my list into two though. The first part is for films that I skipped out of and spluttered with superlatives because they resonated on me with such an immediate level of captivation. The second list is for clever documentaries that I found utterly brilliant, especially as I thought about them afterwards. The two lists are obviously not binary; some films could have made it onto both, and other documentaries are nowhere to be seen, but I still carry them round in my thoughts. Anyways, here it is, docs I’ve loved from 2008’s offerings, with links to what I’ve written about them.

PART 1
1. Mechanical Love
2. Severing the Soul
3. Japan: A Story of Love and Hate
4. Man on a Wire
5. American Teen

PART 2
6. Solitary Life of Cranes
7. The Doctor who hears voices
8. The English Surgeon
9. My Winnipeg
10. The Shock Doctrine

What have you guys enjoyed, hated or been inspired by? Think theatrical, television and festivals, as well as your fave FourDocs ever.

And taking a look at the list of shorts in the competition. Both Eva Weber’s Steel Homes , which just premiered at IDFA, and Finlay Pretsell & Adrian McDowall’s Ma Bar, which recently won a Scottish BAFTA for best short. Both films were made on the Bridging the Gap scheme earlier this year, so congrats!

1. Head to a hostile environment to report on an important political issue
2. Brutally collide camera lens with your topic head on
3. Realise your subject is a victim sprawled open for examination, like a bug in a petri dish, divorced from the context of its being and devoid of individual detail
4. Become depressed and think you’re losing your way with no human narrative to grasp onto, as you drink and talk your frustrations through at night with a bar fixture
5. Leave, and almost give up on the facade of making a film, until you understand the one who propped you up with their near-immunity to the surrounding scenario is the one you must return to
6. Stake down your claim on this surviving social misfit whose eyes dance above a slouching spine, and attach yourself fast for the next 6 months
7. Question the basics until they laugh and reveal their seams
8. Spot the potential drama of their destiny, and divine it

Again, Sean McAllister has cast the most charismatic of characters, in another free-spirited hero, at odds with his society and expected role. Welcome to Naoki and the class of working poor in Japan.

Japan: A Story of Love and Hate was difficult to make, as the confessional and controversial jogging journey dialogue at the start lays testimony to. Misunderstood, misdirected and mistreating his own health, Sean saw the unrealistic expectations for social face, warped work ethics and high suicide statistics, yet was locked out of the society and could not access any emotional theme; he was running in circles with no viable entry to the core for years. The breakthrough was Naoki, an ex-bar owner, an ex-home owner, an ex-brand-new-BMW-paid-in-cash-in-full owner, with ex-wives, and no conceivable assets or family of his own any more. Naoki was living in a capitalist Japanese hell, and provided Sean with a golden ticket into the madness demonstrated so aptly and absurdly with the show of communal exercises done at Naoki’s place of work every morning. The insurance collection officers gather on command to raise their arms in an uninspired union of circles. “It was like watching communism parade as capitalism,” a poignant point in Sean’s stylistic commentary.

The limitation of most films about Japan is their tendency to exoticise, as they paint beautiful portraits of individuals and isolation. In contrast, Sean does not merely show social anomie, but manages to slip inside, sit on the marital bed and split open the shadow hiding the man. This is quite a feat, and part of a poetic quote from near the end of the film that demonstrates Sean’s special skill at building a rapport, and pulling out the essence in people who willingly hold up their arms in delight to be got, at last. Ignored and scorned by society, but legal never the less, they stamp down their foot and maintain their right to be themselves, yet tragically have no one around who wants to see them truly. Like Samir and Kevin in previous films, Naoki marches to his own tune, and once he recognises and accepts that Sean can sense his capacity for living emotionally not rationally, he willing hands over his personality and future.

Naoki lives in a pill-popping, feeling-suppressing society, sharing a partnership and connection only with Yoshie, who is too tired to talk because she’s paid to hear the surface woes of customers rejected by their own wives through convention. Collective customs and rituals over bear individual desires. And here is where a lesser documentary maker would be pulled up and out for intervening and meddling in the development of life playing out. For Sean helps implement change. But not in a manipulative way, and not in an excessive-access-to-unrealistic-resources way. He operates like a friend, offering an ear to hear talk of how it is, and press for how it may be. He dissects relationships, to prompt his protagonists to locate the veins, and ensure their survival, if that is wanted and needed. Which is admirable, and also makes for a proper narrative arc in the film. We get a dramatically satisfying ending that extends the scope of the story, which is great and rare for a documentary that also offers subtle access to a closed and complex political context.

A quick glance at the Storyville home page shows that tonight on BBC4 at 10pm is Prodigal Sons, which follows an old football hero who is now a post-operative transgendered lesbian woman, home for a school reunion, and was the film my festival comrade James Newton recommended most. In next Monday’s slot is Elizabeth Stopford’s touching film I’m not Dead Yet about an inheritance battle within her family, and apparently there is a twist in the middle that changes your perspective on everything. Strangely the film that played in last Monday’s slot, Operation Iraqi Filmmaker, played at Sheffield a whole year ago, and was picked up as an acquisition there, to be aired much later than its festival outing.

The slick opening night film Thriller in Manila is playing on True Stories tomorrow at 10pm, and already played at BritDoc earlier this year. It goes behind the scenes of the famous Muhammad Ali fight with Joe Frazier, from Frazier’s rarely heard perspective of who Ali was and how he operated through intimidation tactics. There is some amazingly strange archive footage unearthed which shows Ali joking with the Klu Klux Klan affectionately. The film really informs how the myth of celebrity can be created and how we can buy into an idea of a sports hero and happily ignore some ugly and brutal truths about their behaviour and attitudes. James Toback’s Tyson documentary, which I saw recently at the London Film Festival not Sheffield, similarly delves behind the headlines propping up a later heavyweight champion. Toback has been close friends with Tyson for over 20 years, but rather than use that relationship as the basis of the film, he decided to go in the opposite direction, and have Tyson’s perspective on himself singularly. There is no denying the charges laid against him, and so the film operates in almost the exact opposite way to Thriller in Manila by reinforcing Tyson’s strength and skill in the ring, despite the activities outside of it.

Next Sunday night sees the screening of Morgan Matthews’ new film The Fallen. It’s an epic tribute to, and about, the people who serve in the British Armed Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. Both Morgan Matthews and the exec Steve Hewitt (who also chairs the Sheffield board of directors) questioned the proposed length, but Richard Klein insisted it should be an expansive three hours, and so it stands proud as the most ambitious single documentary commissioned by the BBC. The film works wonderfully, attention never swaying, and I heard reports that the entire cinema was crying throughout the screening – just to warn you. Touching tales, told compassionately. Lastly, although not screened at Sheffield, I was chatting to Zac Beattie who’s Cutting Edge film Rich Kid, Poor Kid plays this Thursday. It’s about two girls who live on the same street, but lead lives a world apart from each other’s existence etc, and is meant to be very good.

Should films that already have a secured broadcast home dominate film festival schedules? Obviously ones that push boundaries, such as length, form and access, have a deserved place, but it was interesting to note the difference compared to last year. For example, Mum, Herion and Me, Jane Treays recently broadcast Cutting Edge, played. It is an entirely excellent film about how to love a daughter who you can’t force help on, who sleeps homeless down the road from the family home to ensure a better routine for all, and who is unable to enjoy birthday pampering without slipping off for a hit, paid for by mum for a bit of peace. The quality of the film is not under question, but previously a television screening would have voided a festival screening because of premiering status issues, and an opening night film would have been a national, if not worldwide premier. What do people think about this – are strict rules relating to where the film has already played becoming outdated in a bid to play the best films?

My favourite far and away was Bevan Walsh’s nostalgically humorous Love Does Grow on Trees, which I’d actually already seen when it won Best Newcomer Award at Rushes Soho Shorts Festival. (One liner description: a teenage boy’s lust and desire for pornography in a world before the Internet.) This caused a few murmurs in the audience afterwards, because it was emphatically stated that the slate of films were all worldwide premiers.

New talent investment is a funny thing. Organisations give money to people to make films and find their directing voice, and mostly come back with perfectly acceptable safe films that seem professional enough but challenge nothing. This means they can’t be seen as ‘failures’, but is this the same as a success story? Baghdad Express was a perfect example of this. Out of all the films, it was the most confident about what it was, and director Nimer Rashed is the person I would give my money to if I was commissioning television drama. It was a strong story, told and filmed well, with great acting. But is it desirable that the most accomplished films are the ones you can most easily imagine progressing onwards into already established spots in the landscape of production money? What about taking risks and discovering something fresh and exciting that people [distributors] don’t quite know what to do with?

It’s actually a rare occurrence to have a film made by new talent that works filmically and emotionally resonates with the audience. It’s the kind of ‘product’ which is opaque on paper applications because it depends on the magical X-factor that’s hard to predict, and doesn’t come around too often. Certainly not an annual basis in line with funding deadlines. Which is why Love Does Grow on Trees, immediately produced through a local scheme with the borough of Wandsworth, is now being shown off by every funder attached to it – as an example of brave British filmmaking at its best. Even if its screening status isn’t as virginal as promised.

This conversation leads me off in lots of different directions, which I am going to pursue in further blog entries.

1) Taking risks in filmmaking, especially having just seen Terence Davies’ Of Time and The City. I was struck by the frequent comment that it is a crime it’s taken eight years since anyone has funded him – he was considered too ‘high risk’ as his previous film The House of Mirth didn’t do well – yet his new low-fi film has played to critical acclaim at every festival, including Cannes. Risky means high and low returns, not mediocrity… Should certain segments of film funding be cornered off for high risk candidates who may mess up, but who also might shake up our notions of what to hope to expect in a film?

2) The future of film distribution. I went to the very inspiring Power to the Pixel conference last week. Heading up the conference were amazing anarchic filmmakers whose approach is how can I make things work for me [in terms of independent film distribution for the type of film I actually want to make], and be open to individual possibilities instead of being closed and possessive [like old models of distribution and funding are].

The winners were some of my favourite auteur documentary filmmakers, such as James Lees (who won best short at Sundance this year for The Apology Line), Pinny Grylls (Peter and Ben) and Christopher Allen (of the Light Surgeons). He’s done some really exciting site specific film projects at art galleries music festivals.

For me all 4 are perfect examples of tightly bound films that exhibit flow and mood (like music) rather than text and information plowing across the screen.

You can watch all 4 films:

Hearing a Song, Seeing a Smile – Pinny Grylls (music by Jonny Greenwood)

Pockets – James Lees (music by Saint Etienne)

Home – Christopher Thomas Allen and Robert Rainbow (music by Michael Nyman)

King of Laughter – Nick Hillel (music by Nitin Sawhney)

As you may have noticed, the judges of our bursary scheme are looking for strong visual ideas that stand a good chance of being selected at film festivals. We want to help you get your docs made AND seen by folk far and wide, so they need to get played. This means you’d be wise to understand what festival programmers look for when selecting films from the mountains of entries.

I asked Hussain Currimbhoy, the newly appointed programmer at Sheffield Doc/Fest, to offer up some hints for improving your success of making a film that gets picked and played. Here is what he wrote me kindly for your consumption:

There are so many things that make a good festival doc but it’s hard to make a checklist of ingredients. Without doubt, there is always a handful of films that defies all the rules and become a hit! But here are a few tips that can’t hurt:

Go somewhere that has not be explored before! If your subject is really unusual you’ve automatically got a chance at standing out. If your doc does address a subject or issue that has already been covered take the time to watch the predecessors carefully. Take an alternate angle and you’ll nullify a large percentage of criticism about your project in the early stages of pitching.

People always say story, story, story and it’s true – a developed and confident narrative (but not necessarily a standard style, act-driven formula) gets what you want to say across better than desultory shards of info and facts.

Hire a cinematographer. If your budget is too small or the subject is too intimate, get a grasp of the basic principles of cinematography. From a festival point of view we are interested in docs that deliver an experience in cinema. Really shaky cameras, bad framing or colour are not just prosaic but they will leave the audience feeling nauseous.

Remember your soundscape too. Sound really influences the audience interpretation of your film psychologically just as the picture does. Sound is often a last-minute thing in both fiction and non-fiction filmmaking, and can be to the detriment of your film if it’s not loved as much as the picture.
Research your festivals before you enter them. What did the festival screen in the past, what are they looking for now? It will save you some pain and some money and will easily increase your chances of selection if your film and the fest share a direction.

Talk to as many people as you can about your film before you shoot, while you shoot, after you shoot. A doc will be seen by so many different people each with a distinct point of view so you have to take into account people who are and who are not doc-savvy, novices to your subject, men, women, gay, straight, supporters and detractors. Oh, but you also have to do this while remaining true to your vision…

P.S. If I’m stuck on a desert island and can only have seven docs with me I’m taking: Terror’s Advocate (France/B. Shroeder), Hold me Tight, Let me Go, (UK/K. Longinotto) Portrait of Jason (USA / S. Clarke) On the Road: A document (Japan/ N. Tsuchimoto) The English Surgeon (UK/G. Smith) The Seven Sins of England (UK/ J. Bullman), Le Filmeur (France/ A. Cavallier)

The line-up for London Film Festival was announced at this morning’s press launch, after an exhausting list of sponsor thanks. The 2 documentaries I most immediately want to see, having already read much about them, are Alex Gibney’s Gonzo and American Teen.

Gonzo: The Life and Work of Dr. Hunter S Thompson uses Alex Gibney’s forensic skill of finding and weaving archival material together, to illuminate his contradictory life and gonzo approach to writing. Johnny Deep narrates from Hunter’s own words, a wise move following his apt casting as Hunter in Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. The film was immediately more profitable than his previous, Oscar winning documentary, Taxi to the Dark Side. It plays as the Documentary Gala choice.

I have been anticipating seeing American Teen greatly, since it’s rave reviews at Sundance, where Nanette Burstein received the Documentary Directing Award for it. Set in Warsaw, Indiana, the film focus on five students in their final year of high school. Each fits one of the archetypes we know from, well, high school movies. So there is the jock, nerd, cheerleader, loner and rich kid. This cliche has been used to brilliant effect in the poster – a marketing rip off of The Breakfast Club poster.

Nanette Burstein spent a year filming constantly with the kids, to make a verite style documentary that captures all of their key moments and adventures. However, there has been some critics who have question just how authentic parts of the footage is, as the film cuts almost like it’s been scripted, especially phone conversations filmed from both ends and scenes captured with gratuitously good timing of the crew’s presence. Whether this is due to her relationship with her characters is to be discovered – none of the kids captured say they were acting in any way.

Here is one of my favourite docs of this year – and a grand example of the kind of thing that goes down well on the festival circuit.

Pinny Grills’ Peter and Ben is a dreamy and emotional film depicting the friendship between two lonesome outsiders; a man and a sheep.

In contrast to Pinny’s unconstrained use of the camera and beautiful visual style, there is a definite construction of a story. There is an actual narrative arch, rather than just a character portrait.

The soundtrack also really compliments the underlying nature/nature theme, and helps tie the film together.

Peter and Ben has been selected at numerous festivals, including all the big doco ones – SilverDocs, IDFA, HotDocs and SXSW.