archived-videos Documentary On Politics From A Students View
- Thread starter MarcusBonnick
- Start date
Okay, feedback -- I hope you understand that I'm not trying to cut you down, just trying to mention things that I think need your most immediate attention.
Put your camera on a tripod, and once you've set up a shot, leave it be. Frame it up to get a good almost-but-not-straight-on shot of your interviewee. Nobody cares about the interviewer. Get him out of the shot. Your interviewer is not a celebrity. Nor is he Brooke Burke.
Unless you're making "Wild On", or something to that effect, you should only be collecting straight interview footage, and lots of it.
Use sound-bites. We don't need to see 60-seconds of almost-raw footage, for each interview. We should race back-and-forth between related sound-bites, from seperate interviews, that once pieced together will form a narrative. You should be saying something.
What are you saying, with this documentary? You should always be saying something. Specific. Focus.
Put your camera on a tripod, and once you've set up a shot, leave it be. Frame it up to get a good almost-but-not-straight-on shot of your interviewee. Nobody cares about the interviewer. Get him out of the shot. Your interviewer is not a celebrity. Nor is he Brooke Burke.
Unless you're making "Wild On", or something to that effect, you should only be collecting straight interview footage, and lots of it.
Use sound-bites. We don't need to see 60-seconds of almost-raw footage, for each interview. We should race back-and-forth between related sound-bites, from seperate interviews, that once pieced together will form a narrative. You should be saying something.
What are you saying, with this documentary? You should always be saying something. Specific. Focus.
From a content perspective:
I'm not sure of the message. I would not be attracted to watch this thing mainly because I cannot find anything cohesive. If you had to title it, what was the title be?
From a technical perspective, the opening was good, the interviews not so much. Bring the camera in, anchor it, and give me a closer shot of the person being interviewed. Sound was horrible. Put a lav on the interviewer and boom the subject.
I'm not sure of the message. I would not be attracted to watch this thing mainly because I cannot find anything cohesive. If you had to title it, what was the title be?
From a technical perspective, the opening was good, the interviews not so much. Bring the camera in, anchor it, and give me a closer shot of the person being interviewed. Sound was horrible. Put a lav on the interviewer and boom the subject.
Real feedback?
1) Bad low light characteristics. Just shoot under optimal daytime conditions.
2) Get a guy with a boom shotgun mic.
3) Think up much better questions.
4) Edit out yourself. Less you, more of the best answers.
5) Interview 100 people to get 10 good quotes, not vice-versa.
6) Get some perspective on what's important and what isn't.
1) Bad low light characteristics. Just shoot under optimal daytime conditions.
2) Get a guy with a boom shotgun mic.
3) Think up much better questions.
4) Edit out yourself. Less you, more of the best answers.
5) Interview 100 people to get 10 good quotes, not vice-versa.
6) Get some perspective on what's important and what isn't.
Ok, this wasn't terrible, but it could have been better.
I think the most important thing is to actually make a point with your documentary. Even with short things like that, you still need to have a point driving the way the film is made. There you were simply presenting the audience with basic information (that 99% of people already know) and then finding out what the public think (which no one is particularly interested in).
For a political documentary it's really easy to get interviews with MPs, counsellors, MEPs, parliamentary candidates, campaigners, pressure groups, business owners, local celebrities...etc. If you are going to be interviewing people you need to make it so that the audience is genuinely interested in what they're saying. What we're getting at the moment is just Mr.Joseph Bloggs who doesn't know much about politics, saying that he's going to vote Labour. Instead lets get Mr.Joseph Bloggs, proprieter of the local public house, to tell us about what impact the election will have on alcohol laws. It's all about targetting your interviews to a specific end.
I agree with what people have said about getting your guy out of the picture. For a short, informative documentary like that you don't need anyone on screen, especially not for onscreen narration. Having an onscreen presenter is the luxury of investigative documentary making, and your documentary isn't investigative. It just makes the whole think look a little vain, which I doubt was your intention.
But there was plenty to like. If it had been snappier cut that could have been a really solid couple of minutes of vox pops, but on it's own it doesn't really stand out as a documentary. I would urge to consider re-cutting that footage down and going out and filming a second part of the documentary, asking, 9 months on, what people think of the situation and whether they regret the choices they made in May. That will give your documentary a thrust that it was lacking and could actually be a genuinely interesting piece of film.
Oh and Murdock, you make me laugh
'what is a torry?' Cute 
I think the most important thing is to actually make a point with your documentary. Even with short things like that, you still need to have a point driving the way the film is made. There you were simply presenting the audience with basic information (that 99% of people already know) and then finding out what the public think (which no one is particularly interested in).
For a political documentary it's really easy to get interviews with MPs, counsellors, MEPs, parliamentary candidates, campaigners, pressure groups, business owners, local celebrities...etc. If you are going to be interviewing people you need to make it so that the audience is genuinely interested in what they're saying. What we're getting at the moment is just Mr.Joseph Bloggs who doesn't know much about politics, saying that he's going to vote Labour. Instead lets get Mr.Joseph Bloggs, proprieter of the local public house, to tell us about what impact the election will have on alcohol laws. It's all about targetting your interviews to a specific end.
I agree with what people have said about getting your guy out of the picture. For a short, informative documentary like that you don't need anyone on screen, especially not for onscreen narration. Having an onscreen presenter is the luxury of investigative documentary making, and your documentary isn't investigative. It just makes the whole think look a little vain, which I doubt was your intention.
But there was plenty to like. If it had been snappier cut that could have been a really solid couple of minutes of vox pops, but on it's own it doesn't really stand out as a documentary. I would urge to consider re-cutting that footage down and going out and filming a second part of the documentary, asking, 9 months on, what people think of the situation and whether they regret the choices they made in May. That will give your documentary a thrust that it was lacking and could actually be a genuinely interesting piece of film.
Oh and Murdock, you make me laugh
'what is a torry?' Cute I agree with everything you are saying, as I said I was only involved in the Shooting and editing, ultimately it was the presenters project and he has his script that he prepared. I just shot him what he needed then he chose the bits and bobs he wanted to put in and helped me organise the structure he wanted...
If this was my own project I would of wrote a Decent script and used a better camera.... The guy didn't even bring a tripod
!
Google is a tough one. I say develop your own style. Is the interviewer famous? Will he be? Is he Brooke Burke? No but neither was Morton Downey junior, or rodney dangerfield but they seemed to do just fine.