Making the Documentary
This section looks at the making of the documentary, including some of the methods used and further details of limitations.
The original plan for the film was to create a performative documentary, using sections of choreographed and filmed movement in conjunction with the interviews, however, it soon became clear that this would be over-complicated and unnecessary. The performative documentary is a mode of documentary that emphasises the filmmaker’s involvement and personal experience or connection to the subject of the film (Story Arts Centre, 2020, 8:02). I was inspired to use this mode after watching OTRAS by Andrea Olivares (The Place London, 2021): a screendance created in said mode on the experiences of Latin American women living in the UK without legal documentation. Though my voice is still present in the final product, I decided not to be so present in the film. This shifted the documentary more into expository mode, which is often set up with a specific point of view and uses footage that strengthens that argument, as well as a ‘voice of god’ style voiceover (Masterclass, 2020). However, as my voiceovers were still quite personal, the film seems to exist at the border between performative and expository mode and is therefore difficult to define as either. At one point I did create a short clip of myself getting into and out of drag alongside a voiceover in which I talked about my experiences of gender through school. This would have made the film more performative, however, when I placed it alongside the other interviews it broke up the existing structure and took away time from interviews that I wanted to be seen. In many ways, it was easier for me to convey the information I wanted through the voices of others, as they spoke about things concerning gender that I have struggled to articulate throughout my life. I decided that my presence and experience of drag would be made visible on the day of the screening when I would present the film in drag.
The structure of the film arose after much experimentation. It was broken down into five sections: introduction, defining drag, drag and gender identity/self-confidence, politics and discourse, community, and the drag manifesto. In one draft these sections were titled, however, the titles seemed too static and impersonal, so they were switched for voiceovers. The sections emerged from particular questions that I asked. When describing the plan for the film to participants I kept it quite vague, as I wanted their thoughts and experiences to shape the film. Director Michael Rabiger recommends this as it prevents the filmmaker from being backed into a corner when it comes to editing. He also recommends that interviewees are engaged in conversation before filming to note down particular points of interest and form questions (2014, p.449), however due to time constraints my interviews were our first and only conversation. This gave me less scope for creating more specific questions, however, some things were said so genuinely and articulately that I wonder whether it would have been the same a second time. At the end of each interview, I asked each performer for a single line beginning with ‘drag is’ to create a manifesto. Each performer would stop and think for a while, before coming out with a single line. When I asked them to expand upon that line, that was where the magic happened. Each person had something unique to say about drag, which may not have come across the same way had this been discussed before filming.
One regret I have from filming is not shooting cutaways or B-roll. My main reasoning for this was that I wanted the interviewees to be completely at ease during filming, so I would set up the camera in a room with just the two of us and then sit beside it looking directly at them while they responded to my questions. Rabiger suggests that a second camera on the interviewer makes for a useful cutaway should it be needed (2014, p.450), however, I carried out filming alone without my own transport and therefore could not carry that much equipment myself. The lack of B-roll was due to my concerns over permissions and consent. Despite attending numerous drag nights during the creation process, I was unsure about shooting in public settings without the permission of those present. Therefore my B-roll consisted of shots of only two of the six interviewees.