my strategy for answering the four questions set by sue ball of maap is to answer one a day for four days.  today is day two and my motivation to complete the answer is the bluesky and sunshine i see through the window.  a walk beckons.

todays question is …

2) You are in dialogue with 1) the building 2) with staff/people and their activity 3) with yourself as the filmmaker. How was this expressed in the last tranche of films? How could this be taken forward?


a deep breath as i consider the question.  while i was filming i did all of these in an unconcious manner.  the question is good as its getting me to consciously consider my process.

once again i might refer to the essay starting on page 68 of document edited by julian stallabrass.  the essay is entitled documentary is/not a name//1990 by trinh t. minha-ha.

looking back at the question i’m being told i was in dialogue with the building the people and myself so thats all good.  however the crunch comes when i need to understand this and be able to express it in order to help me inform what comes next.



my dialogue with the building … i scratch my chin look out the window, reach for my tea.

this is hard to formally answer.  while on site in and around the building my conversation with the building was more pronounced in areas where the building was the the main subject of the conversation.  for example the area between the mill and the blast wall of the electricity substation.  this space currently has the container for an rb 211 engine.

from my research about the development plans for the building i knew this area is earmarked for development.  knowing this i went out into the area and filmed while thinking about what the area might be like in the future.  i wanted to get a sense of the space in 2017 that can be looked at in 2020 and beyond as …. i pause.

i reflect about …. am i in writing this starting to get emotional and sentimental ?  for the record i did and stopped to regain my composure.

the day i filmed this area there were workmen still dismantling the weeping window exhibition.  i wanted to have a reference to the installation being at the silk mill without heavily featuring it as it was there but for a glimpse in the overall history of the building.

today writing this i feel a respect for the building, specifically focussing on the area in question.  historically i think the area would have been with water and a wheel and formed the main power source of the mill.  fitting i suppose that an engine features and continues to be featured in that area.

i take a moment to think …

i see i can’t isolate the conversation with myself from the building and the people.  each and every time i went into the building to film the conversation with myself was pretty non stop.

i felt a certain responsibility / pressure to record as much as i could to give a sense of what was happening in the mill during the period of filming.  this was with structure –  found in the moment of filming – informed by the conversation with myself.

returning to focussing on the conversation with the mill, i knew that all the areas i went into will look different as a result of the upcoming works.  the stairs and the goods lift felt really important to me.  the lift because of the sounds it makes.

i feel today my conversation with the building was in part attempting to represent the building’s voice at a time prior to it getting a make over and having something different to say.  i listened while the building spoke and i did my best to get as much of what it said into the final version of this tranche.

wow, i have developed a relationship with the building that i’m only now formally recognising.  importantly it’s one where there is no need to become overly sentimental as the plans are so fantastic.

its a dynamic relationship.

part of my conversation with the building is to be able to give a voice to be listened to by those who have found memories of the rb211 when they visited it while at school.

my conversation with the building also gives a voice to be listened to by those who are interested in what came before in this area of the building.

i have another moment to think.

while filming aspects of the building my conversation with myself as filmmaker is being visually captured in what i shoot.  at a personal level i often felt excitement and playfulness at being able to be in the building at such an important time.  the conversation with myself over flowing into at times a physical conversation with the building and objects within it.

the placement of the camera capturing this playful curiosity from a first person point of view.

i take a moment to further reflect on an aspect of the answer to question one.



shot framing and the close up.

in question one in which technical things were considered i was asked about lens choice.  in the you tube video  i’ve used my smartphone to get close to the engine and feature certain aspects of it.  for the second tranche of the film i have kept a constant angle of view and used my distance from the subject to alter the framing.

i see today how this technique has had a positive impace for the viewer as i’ve reduced to some extent the hand of the film maker upon what is seen.  i see this a very positive aspect of the project.



taking a moment i read again the question.  how is my dialogue with the staff / volunteers and the activities expressed in this tranche ?

the question actually infers this tranche and the first.  if this is the case then there is big progress here.

in the second tranche i wanted to feature more people than the first.  the first being a grounding for the tranches.

i knew form my research with the project staff there was going to be a range of activities being undertaken by volunteers under the leadership of the staff.  with the building mostly closed during the filming period i wanted to show what was happening in preparation for a successful funding bid.  the result was not going to be known until sometime in early october.

what we see of the activities, especially the ones where there are less participants are a result of spending time chatting about the project and giving those involved time to become comfortable with me being in their space.

i very much wanted the activities to happen as though i wasn’t there.  what i filmed was what they were doing as they were doing it.  my role was merely to observer, moving the camera enough to keep the shot alive.  i tried to keep movement fluid and in keeping with the mood of the room.  i was trying to capture the wellbeing aspect of the activities.

and finally to the big question – how to take all of this forward ?

how to keep the dialogue with the building, people, activities and myself going ?

i draw on what i know so far  – the building is going to be cleared of collections and made ready for works.

from the first to second tranche i got close to the people involved in the project both volunteers and those delivering it.  i feel drawn to hearing individual voices but unsure as to how this might work and what i want to hear.  what might they want to say ?

i’m interested in the building when cleared.  might my continued relationship with the building be and what it has to say when laid bare – to explore and walk around in ?  in doing this i am focussing on what i want to do and film but what of the viewer ?  might this tranche be very short ?  in the overall timeline of the building and the museum of making the laid bare time will be a blip.

there will need to be conversations.  with the producers, with the staff in the museum – now there will be external contractors too.

how do i feel about this coming time ?  i am starting to consider it a fresh and expect that i might have to wait to be invited into the building and shoot what i see – as i have done with the second tranche.

this answer has taken me sometime to put together and i think its time well spent.

i”ve begun to challenge my preconceptions about the third tranche and wait for the upcoming conversations to happen …



things are starting to get a little more serious.  i want to submit shimmering place to doc fest 18 and this is requiring me to look at and consider questions set as a result of a meeting with part of the producing group.

the questions are designed to push my understanding and help underpin the thinking for a third tranche of the project.

the book accompanying me in the forthcoming posts is documentary edited by julian stallabrass, part of the documents of contemporary art series by whitechapel gallery.

back in november i read one of the essays and this was the basis of a conversation with producer sue ball.  following this, four questions were posed and as hard as they appear to answer i am going to answer in some way through this blog platform.


so here goes starting with question 1.


1) You are interested in depicting a ‘true’ document of the Museum in its transformation over time. If this is so, what formal qualities or technical devices have you adopted in your last tranche of filming (equipment, use of sound/recording audio, lens, particular shots….). Maybe refer to the article by Trinh T. Minh-ha, Documentary Is/Not a Name that we read.


ok. a lot going on within this question and a lot inferred too.  going into this tranche the most important aspect of me being present at the activities i  filmed was that i wasn’t there.  i wanted those working, making, doing to be as authentic to their process as possible.

i did this through a process of getting to know them and talking with them about what i was wanting to do and listened to their reactions.  in no way did i set out what i wanted them to do for the sake of the filming.

my choice of technical equipment also helped this.  using wearable technology i was able to move amongst them without needing to carry anything bulky that might distract their attention.  i did require to make some noise at the beginning of filming as i choose to record moving image and audio on separate devices.  i did this in as a subtle manner as possible.

each time i set up to film i watched / looked at / walked around the subject as much as i could and shot as much as it felt necessary to capture what was happening at the time.  this was done with the available light at the time.

what i was setting up to film was informed by a knowledge of what was happening in the building through ongoing dialogues with members of the project staff.

drawing on past linear film projects i have an understanding of how panning and moving – non static shots – are more interesting for the viewer so worked at making the shots as fluid and interesting as possible.

fluid movement has been the biggest technical improvement upon the first tranche.  new equipment being brought to the filming to allow much more stabilised video shots.

this stabilisation was used in conjunction with a less wide angle lens than the first trance.  this narrower angle view being more in keeping with normal vision.

for this tranche i worked at getting more sound into the project by producing sound clips that continue once the video has completed.  technically they loop around so in a viewing context like an exhibition these sounds will punctuate the silence in the gallery.

shot duration was a consideration when filming.  as time duration increases so does the file size.  large files makes post production slower.  from experience i know about what you might describe as editing in camera.  this is being selective about what is shot and for what duration.  being in and around the activity gave me a feel of what to record and for how long.  i always made sure i left each session with what felt like enough material to work with.  this was informed by knowing what i was going to shoot and a sense of what i needed to get to fulfil my expectation of what i might need.

now i need to read the essay again to be able to reference anything said within it.


reading the essay to the end of he first paragragh of page 70, minh-ha covers several tings that i’ve touched upon in this post.  the one aspect that minh-ha doesn’t write about is the nature of non linear documentary and how that impacts upon the notion of documentary.

for me non linear implies that there is no preset meaning i want to get across to the viewer.  in fact i invite the viewer to choose what they goto next and for how long they stay with that.  they watch as i did what happens in front of them, my role maybe becoming a guide through the building that they are free to vary from as their mood takes them.

minha-ha talks of how the technical aspects of the production shouldn’t impose themselves on the production, for example the sound being synchronised with the pictures.  this basic need remaining the same today as when the essay was written.

it then strikes me that there is one documentary component that is not present in shimmering place.  i’m considering the narrative voice over.

the non linear format opens up the storey so there is no need for a preset voice over.  i would much rather the voice over be made up at the point of viewing, as a dialogue might develop between visitors while looking at an exhibit in the museum.

i read on a few paragraphs.

minha-ha covers theorectical models of documenatry film making.  i read about Cinéma vérité and see it described as observational cinema.

so documentary has a value in social commentary and informing the viewer.

so how does this aspect emerge in shimmering place ?


within the museum of making there is a connection with past, present and future through the inspiration of the makers of the past informing what makers do today and in turn how this empowers makers of the future.


shimmering place made in the present, becomes the past and waits to be viewed in the future and in so doing becomes the present.





i really must clean the front room windows, the puppy has been doing her nose art thing again and the view of the outside is muted because of it.

i’m looking for the words to begin my post about my recent progress in the process.  i’m surprised i’ve not written about this project for sometime.  this is very much an indication of just how busy the summer was for me.  time to do with not much for reflection.

today i have the excited feeling of looking forward to doing more in the post production process for the film tomorrow.

since picking up the project on monday i’ve experienced the unfamiliar feeling all the way through to the feeling of owning it.

the work i had already done has seen me make progress with knowing what the concept of the film is a bit more clearly.  i was thinking about this as i drove to a forest school session this afternoon.  at the very beginning of this iteration the concept of what the realised project was was so big i didn’t know where the bounds of the concept were.

through filming and reviewing, i’m slowly discovering what the concept feels like.  this morning the keywords that drive the non linear film appeared clearer  as assembly of narrative units started to number more.

i’m writing this before dinner so please bare with me if my words get a little tangled.  i hear the cooker timer beep, i’ll continue to write for as long as i can,

i’m enjoying the feeling of owning the film and i’m talking about  that arms out swagger feeling good kind of ownership.

taking a moment to reflect about when this feeling began i can safely say it was after watching the nick cave documentary and something he says in that documentary lighting me up towards a title.

since having a title …

…. i take a moment to avoid writing a very cliched account.

it’s getting dark so i pause to put on the room light.  once again the laptop keyboard is in focus, the sky outside looks like the middle a grey scale tonal card.

getting back to the title thing…  all summer i made notes for ideas of titles.  they were all ok yet none of them had that frisson of excitement i wanted.

with the title in place the rest has begun to follow.

one aspect of non linear film making i always seem to overlook is the large number of decisions needed to be made in the edit and authoring processes.  very much like how the museum of making research was an iterative process, the making of this non linear film is also very iterative.  each new narrative unit adding to the fine balance of keywords with existing units being edited to become more in line with where the make up of the project currently is.

i’m sorry i don’t have any images to share with you yet of the project.  i’m simply not quite at the jpg editing phase yet.

one thing i’m really hoping to do soon is get a working draft on line so i can share it with my group at the museum who i share such things with.

time for food now :)


i’m several weeks into the filming of the second iteration and i feel i’ve not shared with you how my process and journey has been ….

so in the style of a recap ….

previously in the process …


feel – think – do  features in the arts and heritage strategy of the museum of making hlf bid

work continues in the museum with the collections.

over the summer i’m working as a part time lifelong learning programme assistant and bobbing in and out of the volunteer activities, chatting, researching and filming what’s going on.

and in post production … the process begins tomorrow.



with hundreds of visitors currently outside until sunday, small groups of volunteers are working on the upper floors with the collections team to photograph, measure and record hundreds of objects to increase the collections team’s knowledge of what the museum stores hold.  in some cases the museum database might say something like “box of thirty seven thingy ma bobs.”  together the box is explored and each item added to a register.

this second non linear film is concentrating on the activity of the silk mill beyond the public gaze.


i’ve looked over the rushes so far and i’m pleased with how they look.  for this project i’ve been supported by the museum to upgrade my equipment to address the concerns there were about the content quality in the first iteration.

while filming for the first i was also facilitating an outreach project at a derby hospital and when i reflected about this realised i would have liked more time to review and reflect.

with this project the production period is longer and this immediately makes it less intense than the first.

there are production elements i want to try to add based upon the feedback and experience from the first.

the non linear film itself will have a slightly different format.  i’m going to research a version that allows for continual viewing in an exhibition setting, this is based on experience of seeing the first being viewed in the museum gallery space.

the making of the first has informed this second production and already it’s feeling much less “arms in the air running around in wiggly lines.”  that’s a technical appraisal of how internally i felt during the making of the first where there were set public activities happening that i wanted to have included in the production.

reflecting now i see the second as being a much more considered piece as there is so much consideration happening on the upper floors of the building at this time.

with enough footage to begin the first phase post production process, i’m excited at the thought of putting a first draft together soon.  with this framework in place the next stage of filming will have a structure enabling me to see what and where i want to add more content into the film.

reflecting about where this iteration began, it was a lot less obvious what to do than with the first.  working with what i discovered to be happening, i do feel now that i’ve got through the most challenging period and from here am looking forward to it  becoming more intuitive.