What all these readings have in common and what is clearly trying to be pushed here is that there are a lot of different ways to make a nonfiction story with film. From how you film it, who is in it (the subjects), to how you want to illustrate your topic, to how you are in it. Are you the overlord voice in the editing taking people through the story, or just a fly on the wall trying to capture what’s going on without any notice to the camera? I agree with the Bernard article in that it is important to come up with your style of Documentary as soon as you come up with the subject. Doesn’t pay to wait till you are in the editing process. The style changes the questions you ask, how you film, everything.
An un-documentary might be a crappy real life story that’s not well thought out. No obvious stops like in Per Saari article, how he set up his documentary like a road trip. No clear idea of who is in it. This is not just Observational approach or even the interactive approach, but I assume un-documentary to just be blindly following a guy around a house. There are no sequences, scripts, etc.
Morals I got out off all these readings is that the small things matter. Plan out how you want it to go. Even interviewing people seriously matters. Do you interview them one at a time, altogether, outside, inside, what clothes, what colors, what’s in the background. Think about it!!