directing Trying to advise - That's NOT the way to do it!

[Audiotechnical]

Hi All. I work as an in-house videographer in a corporate environment. Recently, I've been trying to inform those around me who write up the script for the partners/managers who are on screen, that something is not right, and I'd love to hear other opinions on this matter, as essentially support me in that my way of thinking is correct (and then I'll shout louder to the script writers!)

I setup a standard interview layout with the talent looking just off camera to deliver their script to a marketing colleague who helped write the script (with the talent). No need to go into details about the kit etc, as this is more about the script.

As the talent is not directly speaking to the camera (or the audience) the script should be written like this in my opinion (let me give random examples):

"People who are looking for a property, really need to consider their finances first..."
"If fitness is important to someone, it's best they get guidance from those who are trained"
"The first thing a client should consider, is whether they feel offended at the situation they've been put in"

This is the same points, but written in a different way:

"If you're looking for a property, you need to consider your finances first..."
"If fitness is important to you, we can guide you to get the best results..."
"The first thing you need to consider, is whether you feel or felt offended at the situation you've been put in..."

The concern I have is trying to convince my colleagues that as the viewer is watching this 'interview' (or conversation) a bit like a fly on the wall, or like the interviewer (who is off screen) is asking on behalf of the viewer, the answers/advise should NOT be "You/your" it should be "They/Them". I mean, I hate the idea or just a false sales pitch in a structured talking heads delivery, but it's even worse if the 'You/Your" term is used. It just feels too false and not authentic.

Not sure if I've explained that correctly (which is probably part of the reason I can't get the message over to my colleagues).

Any confirmations/opinions from people on this?

 

[AcousticAl]

If the talent addresses the audience directly - “If you want the best investment for your real estate budget, you ought to consider…” - they should be looking straight down the barrel. Looking at the viewer.

If the talent is looking off-camera, it’s weird to address the viewer verbally. It’s an interview-style setup, and is rather indirect as far as the viewer is concerned. “I really think that the best way to invest in real estate is to…”

 

[sfoster]

Who is the target audience that you intend to watch this video?
Without that information it's impossible to provide an accurate answer.

Just going off my gut, nothing professional or evidence based here, pure anecdote...
These are my reactions

"People who are looking for a property, really need to consider their finances first..."
-- Big deal I don't care what other people are looking for

"If you're looking for a property, you need to consider your finances first..."
-- Oh this is about me, maybe I should pay attention

 

[AcousticAl]

"People who are looking for a property, really need to consider their finances first..."
-- Big deal I don't care what other people are looking for

"If you're looking for a property, you need to consider your finances first..."
-- Oh this is about me, maybe I should pay attention

This is exactly it. Interview, looking off-camera… that’s not engaging outside of telling someone else’s story. Marketing and brand videos? Those need to be directed at the viewer. Eye contact helps quite a bit.

 

[Audiotechnical]

Yes, I hear ya both. The looking off camera concept and interacting with another person, is really to allow the talent to be more relaxed, and make it more of a conversation. The talent I film, are not used to being on camera. They are specialists in an industry (they're lawyers) but terrible at delivering natural content to the camera. So we do loads of shoots that are 'the interview' setup, and we can get them talking and extract the info out of them. Looking at camera is an ideal way to directly engage with the viewer, but that strips away any conversation part of the process.

The audience this is aimed at and will view the videos are people who are interested in getting legal advice, or possibly are our clients already, just learning about another area of law the company can offer. So essentially yes, these videos are marketing and brand videos promoting the firm and the services offered.

The viewer is fully aware (subconsciously) that the speaker is talking to another person. And that other person is asking questions on behalf of the viewer. Hence my point that the wording should be along the lines of...

"We can help people with.... Bla bla bla...."

as opposed to

"We can help you with.... bla bla bla..."

So the 'you' part screws it up, and makes a massive separation/falsity to it all, as they're not looking at "you" (if ya get me!)

 

[sfoster]

So the 'you' part screws it up, and makes a massive separation/falsity to it all, as they're not looking at "you" (if ya get me!)

I really don't get it at all... this is what I imagine.

Subject looking off camera at interviewer
Interviewer: "What should I consider if I'm looking for a property?"
Subject: "If you're looking for a property, you need to consider your finances first..."

What is the 'massive' separation you're talking about, it just sounds like an interview to me.

 

[Audiotechnical]

First of all, we never include the interviewers questions/voice in the final piece. And if we did, the question would be along the lines of...

"For people out there looking to buy a property, what should they consider?"

Maybe this massive separation I'm referring to is because I know that the interviewer is an internal marketing person, asking another internal specialist a question, so this 'You' business seems too fake/false to me. The marketing person doesn't need to know the answer, it's potential new clients/viewers who need to know the answer. The concept of being 'transparent' and asking a specialist in the firm what they would advise an outsider (who is also the viewer) feels more authentic.

Hmm... Yea, I maybe getting too wrapped up in not being able to make corporate work look genuine! It's all just promotional shit at the end of the day! Why should I worry and be so freaking concerned!

 

[indietalk]

Everyone here is correct. To the camera, when as you stated, off camera, when as you stated, @sfoster's way is possible if the interviewer is shown or heavily perceived. There's a show where it bothers me they look off camera to nobody and the statements are directed at us and it just looks off. Like they should be cutting to direct at any moment and this is just an extra angle but they never do. It's just a homebuying show and the beginning snippet from the buyers. I like the mix however with two cameras an no interviewer. It can be done effectively, and is less intimidating when you cut to the side angle. Like comic relief, but intimidation relief.

 

[indietalk]

This is what works for me when I say two camera:

Direct angle of couple with kids
Woman: We're the Smiths and we're looking for a two bedroom house in Malibu.
CUT TO side angle
Man: We really want to be downtown and what we really need is...
Blah blah the two camera mix works well. You mix and match but the side offers relief.

 

[sfoster]

First of all, we never include the interviewers questions/voice in the final piece. And if we did, the question would be along the lines of...

"For people out there looking to buy a property, what should they consider?"

Maybe this massive separation I'm referring to is because I know that the interviewer is an internal marketing person, asking another internal specialist a question, so this 'You' business seems too fake/false to me. The marketing person doesn't need to know the answer, it's potential new clients/viewers who need to know the answer. The concept of being 'transparent' and asking a specialist in the firm what they would advise an outsider (who is also the viewer) feels more authentic.

Hmm... Yea, I maybe getting too wrapped up in not being able to make corporate work look genuine! It's all just promotional shit at the end of the day! Why should I worry and be so freaking concerned!

I get what you're saying, and like IT mentioned, yeah it can be weird for someone to look away from you, while talking directly to you.
That is a separation.

I think it's also strange to be so passive with the dialogue, like i've never seen a lawyer commercial say 'people who have been in a car accident with serious injury should call me' cause its just not very good at capturing attention.

I think both ways are wierd.
This is a good solution

Nvidia Uses AI to Make Our Eyes Always Look at the Camera

Your eyes will retain their natural color and blinks, but gaze is automatically adjusted to focus on the camera.

www.pcmag.com

I'm only half kidding LOL, shit that might actually work for you here.
Ideally i would direct the talent to be comfortable... camera is not live theatre, you can screw up and look stupid, and then delete the take, the main thing is to make the talent trust you and trust that you're going to make them look good. not always possible, some people are tricky i get it, but that is the directors job.

 

[mlesemann]

I think it's also strange to be so passive with the dialogue

This. I think active dialogue is always the better choice.

 

[CelticRambler]

The viewer is fully aware (subconsciously) that the speaker is talking to another person.

Are you sure? In the context of a marketing presentation, if you're counting on the viewer being subconsciously aware of the message, then it suggests that there's a significant flaw in the directorial process.

You do say:

we never include the interviewers questions/voice in the final piece.

but you don't say whether we catch occasional glimpses of the interviewer's head/shoulder/silhouette.

As a rule, an interview usually forms part of a larger presentation, with an introduction by either the person doing the interviewing (direct to camera, to prepare the ground) or by a third party ("... for more on this, we sent Sarah to speak to Mr. Top Lawyer of Surrey Solicitors")

When it's obvious that the interviewee is responding to questions by someone physically present in front of them, i.e. no subconscious extrapolation required, then the dialogue can (should) be more natural and the viewer is "listening in" to a conversation that might be of relevance to their own circumstances.

In the absence of such a proxy, if I'm not being "personally" addressed by someone speaking straight to camera, then (subconsciously!) I'm neither invited to, nor necessarily engaged in, the discussion.

For your non-natural speakers, have you considered using props of one kind or another to help the process along? In my professional capacity, I would be occasionally in front of the camera in similar circumstances, and it's always easier to avoid the cold hard stare when there's a prop to play with.

 

[Audiotechnical]

I get what you're saying, and like IT mentioned, yeah it can be weird for someone to look away from you, while talking directly to you.
That is a separation.

I think it's also strange to be so passive with the dialogue, like i've never seen a lawyer commercial say 'people who have been in a car accident with serious injury should call me' cause its just not very good at capturing attention.

I think both ways are wierd.
This is a good solution

Nvidia Uses AI to Make Our Eyes Always Look at the Camera

Your eyes will retain their natural color and blinks, but gaze is automatically adjusted to focus on the camera.

www.pcmag.com

I'm only half kidding LOL, shit that might actually work for you here.
Ideally i would direct the talent to be comfortable... camera is not live theatre, you can screw up and look stupid, and then delete the take, the main thing is to make the talent trust you and trust that you're going to make them look good. not always possible, some people are tricky i get it, but that is the directors job.

Haha! Wow, that Nvidia thing cracked me up! Amazing! I can see that being useful in Zoom meetings and stuff, but yea maybe not quite what I'm going for as you said!

 

[Audiotechnical]

Are you sure? In the context of a marketing presentation, if you're counting on the viewer being subconsciously aware of the message, then it suggests that there's a significant flaw in the directorial process.

You do say:

but you don't say whether we catch occasional glimpses of the interviewer's head/shoulder/silhouette.

As a rule, an interview usually forms part of a larger presentation, with an introduction by either the person doing the interviewing (direct to camera, to prepare the ground) or by a third party ("... for more on this, we sent Sarah to speak to Mr. Top Lawyer of Surrey Solicitors")

When it's obvious that the interviewee is responding to questions by someone physically present in front of them, i.e. no subconscious extrapolation required, then the dialogue can (should) be more natural and the viewer is "listening in" to a conversation that might be of relevance to their own circumstances.

In the absence of such a proxy, if I'm not being "personally" addressed by someone speaking straight to camera, then (subconsciously!) I'm neither invited to, nor necessarily engaged in, the discussion.

For your non-natural speakers, have you considered using props of one kind or another to help the process along? In my professional capacity, I would be occasionally in front of the camera in similar circumstances, and it's always easier to avoid the cold hard stare when there's a prop to play with.

I'm suggesting 'subconsciously' in terms of the viewer (without effort) understands the talent is speaking to a person physically in front of them in the room. The message hopefully is still strong and delivered with intent to that person.

I rarely do include the side of the interviewers head or shoulders, which I appreciate is a valuable thing to do to support the representation of the situation. But maybe I should consider doing that more to make the whole scene more authentic. Maybe I'm making this really hard for myself!

I've used a piece of kit (and I don't know what the general term for these things is called) but my one is called the Magic Videobox . Love them, but not a bit of kit I can take abroad to other offices.

 

[Audiotechnical]

This. I think active dialogue is always the better choice.

I think the active or passive dialogue is a really interesting point here. Maybe thats where I'm stumbling. I certainly am pushing for a passive dialogue. In my head, it seems to be more comfortable when the viewer is listening in (and the talent is not directly addressing the viewer).

Great stuff though, thanks for all you comments and time. (and I will start getting the hang of quoting parts of what is previously said in the thread!)

 

[Audiotechnical]

Ok, just for closure - I'd like to share 2 videos with you. The first one is a production of mine, which demonstrates how this 'listening in' / i.e. not directly addressing the viewer works. (if you think not, feel free to give me some constructive criticism). We ended up popping the questions on the screen, which in my opinion is always a bit of any easy get out clause, and I'm often asked to do that in post by the marketers. So I'm not a fan of that. Anyway, it's the way that one happened. (Apologies for the topic - it's not everyones cup of tea by any means!)

My Production

The second one, is not my production - we outsourced it. I don't think the production company wrote the script but we did. (Not me; the marketing team). It highlights the example of feeling very false, as once again, it's looking off cam, but advising 'you' most/some of the time. Awkward as hell IMO.

Outsourced production

 

[CelticRambler]

Overall, your version feels more natural and more professional than the other. The use of the "silent movie" question cards is an adequate stand-in for an interviewer and gives enough context to explain the interviewee's looking off camera (although the sudden visual assault disrupts the flow to quite an extent).

The two male subjects in the outsourced production seem to be more at ease with their lines; the second of the female subjects really sounds like she's reading a script, even though she's looking off-camera; and while the first of the two females delivers her performance with a little more ease, placing her in the right-most third of the image looking out is real WTF? stuff!

Being a promotional video for a specific company, I find the use of stock footage disconcerting, and the outsourced production uses a lot more which (to my mind) degrades the presentation substantially. There's an uncomfortable contrast between the impersonal nature of the stock footage and the (poorly delivered) supposedly personal active dialogue. In your production, the passive voice makes the presentation more of a "documentary" and the stock footage is less intrusive.

 

[Audiotechnical]

Thanks for your feedback. Really valuable for me to get someone else’s view. And yea, that particular looking off cam shot with no space in direction she’s looking. WTF. There are artistic times this can be implemented but defo not in this production. Stands out like a sore thumb!

 

[Spike]

I did portrait photography for a while, and the default was always, "look into the lens." Or, if that seemed awkward, I would ask them to look just above the lens at something (I used a little stuffed Elmo, lol). Of course this is an obvious observation, but the difference between this, and looking even a little elsewhere, is astonishing in its immediate emotional impact--something, I imagine, to do with evolutionarily hard-wired social programming.