DocFix

The same is true of stories.

Before I began The DocFix, many of the people I worked with as a story fixer had been making programmes for a long time, very successfully. They've won Oscar, Emmy and BAFTA awards. Over time, they built a set of storytelling tools that they felt comfortable with and which often defined their own style of programme. It was a relatively natural and intuitive process.

But whatever success one has had, anyone can get caught in a loop of trying one thing after another, with no real clue as to why it's just not 'working'.

That's when I was brought in.

Structure is fundamental to a story working.

The deeper you get into understanding storytelling, the more you will realise that meaning is defined by structure. You have to see beyond surface issues of storytelling to know if the structure is where the problems lie.

And when you have found the problem, be able to fix the issues that are sabotaging your story.

Unfortunately, one of the challenges when analysing a story is that storytelling and structure are blended together to produce multiple effects simultaneously.

Separating out their impact is like trying to work out the ingredients of a cake from the finished product. Unpicking all this is a highly analytical process. But it can be learned.

Most of us have the language of structure in our vocabulary - acts, scenes, theme, genre, plot, and so on. Or at least a sense of what they are…

…but not everyone knows how to use them accurately and fluently.

So, what skills are needed to consistently fix your story - and preferably stop it from failing in the first place?

I direct both factual programmes and drama, and the crossover has always fascinated me. I always wanted to find a way to take what appeared to be compatible techniques in drama and apply them to documentaries.

At the time, I thought it might stop me from repeating the same storytelling and directing approaches - when I found something that worked, I tended to use it again and again.

And when that approach didn't quite fit, I got into trouble - trying to make my facts fit with my idea of what a great story needed to be.

Doesn't fiction have the answers?

I remember attending one of Robert McKee's story seminars many years ago (one of the most popular of the story gurus).

I was at the BBC and hoped it would help me as a young factual producer and director. He spoke of structure, three acts, conflict, and a great deal about character. (It was in the line of Aristotle to Lajos Egri) and I came out inspired. I learned that to become a better storyteller, I had to care more.

Dig deeper, mine the truth, look into my soul, find deep conflict.

But, even if that advice is valid on one level, it didn't seem like a good fit for factual programmes. It's not that I wasn't passionate or didn't care. I needed practical advice.

What I learned was that factual and fiction stories have the same elements, but making them needs a very different approach

• Fiction storytellers have an idea or concept and try to create elements that feel real - characters and scenes to express that idea.
• We factual programme-makers take life directly and then structure it to create meaning.

We look around for stories and characters that exist in the real world, noticing events that we feel need sharing. We dig deeply into events and characters, eventually finding a path through the material.

From initial research to the end of the edit, we look at what we have and try to balance what is there with what we want to say.

As we are structuring existing content, we can get away without building an initial working structure. Beginning the edit and creating a rough timeline is comforting but can be highly problematic.

You can create an edit that feels like a story but clearly, on some level, is failing…

…because we are fooling ourselves.

Applying techniques from fiction without understanding when it doesn't help can get you into deep trouble.

McKee was popular at the BBC for a while. Still, towards the end of a three or four-year cycle, you could see producers forcing themselves (or being forced) to make their stories follow the act structure as laid out by McKee, Syd Field and others.

It began to come off the rails when these ideas simply popped up in the commentary ("And then there was no turning back" or "then everything changed" at act breaks were popular ones).

There was something in these concepts that helped (clearly, an attempt at understanding acts and scenes was better than nothing at all), but defining what elements appear to be in a story is different than having a fluent ability to use them.

Over twenty years ago, I was introduced to another theory of story developed by Chris Huntley and Melanie Anne Philips. It's used in fiction as a fundamental way of understanding story structure. It's complicated, and the language can appear arcane - but it's hugely powerful. Their insight is that "the entire story is an analogy to a single human mind dealing with a particular problem".

The DocFix System bridges the gap.

I've spent many years taking my extensive practical experience together with all these approaches, refining and applying them in a unique way to factual programming.

The structural insights I end up with are universal and apply equally to everything from Love Island style reality shows to 'serious' feature docs, art films. Even branding and corporate communication can be enhanced (with a few tweaks).

There is nothing in factual storytelling that cannot be helped with this approach.

Over the years, I've used and relied on this process as the writer, producer or director - or all three. The results speak for themselves.

• SPORT - Netflix's 'F1: Drive to Survive', where I was the Series Editor, and 'Sunderland 'Til I Die.'
• ARTS - 'The Da Vinci Detective', 'The Man Who Stole the Scream'
• SCIENCE - BBC's 'Horizon', PBS 'Nova'
• HISTORY - The Emmy-nominated 'Titanic's Final Mystery'.
• CURRENT AFFAIRS - the Emmy-nominated and RTS-winning feature '9/11 - Life Under Attack'
• NATURAL HISTORY - RTS Nominated 'How to Win the Grand National', writing and story-fixing a film narrated by Sir David Attenborough.
• EDUCATION - 'The Language Master - with Michel Thomas'
• BIOGRAPHY - with Jackie Chan and Joan Chen

and many, many more.

Here's a specific example.

It comes from another Netflix Series, Sunderland 'Til I Die.

I wanted to do something different with a programme and free myself from the usual issue of the subject defining the conflict in the story. By that, I mean just because the subject matter was a football team and a town desperate to win a game, the goal of the programme didn't have to be "winning" (conflict comes from the approach to your material, not the subject matter).

Storytelling is how you use the subject matter, and in many ways independent of the material itself.

So instead, I looked at a different area and chose as the overall story the conflict within the way of thinking among all the main characters.

The backdrop was still football, the city, and the agony of winning and losing. And there was still a vast amount of action on the pitch.

But the story's context was very different - the experience of it felt far more emotionally complex. The plot was now defined by the conflict between all the characters concerning how they thought. Setting this up at the beginning defined the act breaks, the theme, and the genre. It gave me a clue on how to start and end the film. It produced a particular emotional feel.

Above all, it felt meaningful and a little bit different. Everything that was filmed could be used but for a very specific emotional and narrative purpose.

With the right tools, you can look at a programme that isn't working and, within a few hours, see the fundamental structural issues often at the heart of the problem.

It's almost magical.

Above all, it allows you to relax a little. It saves the endless round of working and reworking a cut. That's not to say there are always instant solutions, but at least you can see what needs to be done. You can have honest conversations about what's missing, what's unnecessary, and how much extra interview, archive, or shooting is needed to solve the problem.

When that sense of calm descends, you can step back from the story and be very clear about what it takes to create something meaningful. You can openly state what you want the audience to feel at the end of the programme, what tone, genre, theme, and feel you want to design into a programme.

It's not about one director working one way or an executive wanting something else.

Everyone wants the film to work. They just need a common language to express what "working" actually means in the case of their specific programme or series.

Sometimes, films that had executives very nervous went on to be nominated or eventually won awards after a few weeks of work. And I don't think it's a coincidence that as I developed this system, my work became more regularly nominated for Emmy awards and all the rest.

When your story works, it's evident to everyone: a story that, both logically and emotionally, feels complete - compelling, powerful, and meaningful.

Going back to the engineering analogy, engineers don't get into arguments about structure.

When that works, the architects and designers get to have their fun. And subjectively, that's where the creative discussion and collaboration take off. I love all that intuitive, creative storytelling as well. Still, when I know I'm working with a solid structure, the freedom to experiment is liberating.

Because I give myself this freedom to experiment as a writer and director, some people think that the film works because of the surface impact of drama or suspense; the style of the film.

The solution comes from finding the structure that 'allows' creativity to be used.

This site provides resources for those who want to solve problems in story structure quickly, efficiently and accurately. And the DocFix Program is there if you are in a hurry and want to work with me directly and master these techniques yourself. In whatever current project you are working, and for the rest of your storytelling life.

Please look around, and get in touch if you require any more information.

Nigel Levy
DocFix