Category Archives: Workshops

Assessments, Media 1, Workshops

PB4 video essay rough cut and feedback

In today’s Workshop we received some feedback from Louise on our video essay rough cut. As Katrina is doing the first pass edit for our video it was the first chance I got to see what she’d done as well, and I was so happy to see it all coming together. There was still plenty to be done (and our feedback reflected that), but as a draft it was very good and I feel like we are well on the way to a finished essay that comes close to our initial vision.

We wisely decided to cut a whole chunk of content out of the middle of our essay before we even presented the rough cut, because while it was interesting it wasn’t particularly relevant to our thesis. This saved us a lot of editing time and pushed our video down to around six minutes, which is still over the final maximum length but will be easier to cut down than if we’d included that chunk.

Louise’s feedback was that the bones of our essay were good — the structure and argument that we chose was effective and managed to get our point across succinctly. I was happy to hear this because I feel the same way — I think we locked into a good structure early in our discussions as a group and have followed it through to the finished product. She also pointed out that there were several parts that could be trimmed to save time, which we’ve happily done. One of her suggested edits ended up not being possible because later in the essay we refer back to something mentioned in the cut section, so if we wanted to keep one we had to keep both — and we needed to keep the second one. I think this will be a valuable lesson in making sure I have multiple potential “cut points” in my scripts that can be removed depending on how close I am to the desired length. Cutting down a long, stream-of-consciousness script is nearly impossible without losing some coherence.

Like our audio essay feedback this was an incredibly valuable exercise and will result in a much improved final product.

Standard
Assessments, Media 1, Workshops

PB4 audio essay rough cut and feedback

In our Workshop today we presented a rough cut of our PB4 audio essay to our tutor. It was a valuable opportunity to have someone outside our group listen to it and provide unbiased feedback — and I’m glad to say that we seem to be on the right track. However, there are definitely a couple of areas we could improve.

Firstly, the essay is too long. Even without all of the elements we planned to include it was nearly 50% over the maximum length, so we’ll have to do some work to cut that down before submission. I think we can do this without compromising quality or clarity, even though we might have to say goodbye to some “good tape”.

Secondly, we were also advised to include more sound effects and musical cues, to break up the monotony of hearing a single voice talk at length without a break. I completely agree with this note and I’m glad it was brought up at this stage, because we still have plenty of time to search for the right sound effects.

Overall our audio essay is progressing well and we will have the whole thing completed next week. I’m really proud of how it’s turned out and Emily and Kat have been really great to collaborate with — surprisingly, my first group assessment experience has actually been pretty positive!

Standard
Media 1, Thoughts, Workshops

Don’t read the comments

In my personal opinion comments have a net negative effect on the quality of discourse on the internet. For every wonderfully considered, well written and pleasant comment, there are a thousand hissing piles of disgust and vitriol, from the racist and misogynist to the plain incorrect. I genuinely don’t believe that the potential for constructive, positive comments justifies enabling the internet’s worst tendencies by allowing people to place their comments on the same page as an article.

For publishers to place peoples’ comments at the bottom of an article is to say “your opinion is as valid/worthy as the author’s”, which is now and has always been wrong. Everyone is entitled to hold an opinion, sure, but they’re not necessarily entitled to have their opinion legitimised. Some opinions deserve to be amplified more than others. This is a fine line and opens the door to nebulous accusations of “censorship” and “political correctness gone mad”, but the alternative is to enable racists, sexists and the absolute worst of humanity to promote their terrible opinions to the world unfettered – which is infinitely worse than some casually racist bogan from Ringwood feeling “restrained” from expressing their opinion of Muslims on an article on the Herald Sun website.

As Karl Pilkington would say… comments: get rid of ’em.

Standard
Media 1, Thoughts, Workshops

Trigger warning

An interesting and, I’m ashamed to say, surprising conversation was sparked in our Workshop this week. The concept of the trigger warning was raised and I was shocked that in a group of twenty or so young university students there were very few who defended their existence and use.

I honestly (naively) expected the bulk of my class to fall on the same side as me on this issue, but I turned out to be spectacularly wrong. Most of my classmates seemed to agree that trigger warnings had gone too far, and there were some cries that they somehow curtail the inalienable right to free speech or artistic expression. (Note: we don’t have an inalienable right to free expression in Australia, and there are plenty of forms of speech that we as a society have deemed appropriate to curtail.)

It’s so easy for people who have never experienced any real trauma to complain about people (usually rape and domestic violence survivors) asking not to be exposed to material that could have long-lasting harmful effects. But I think if they actually knew the level of damage involved, most people would change their tune.

I understand that it might be slightly annoying to have to go out of your way to post and read trigger warnings, but does your desire to avoid that slight inconvenience trump a DV survivor’s wish to avoid a severe anxiety attack after randomly being shown a video of a woman being choked into unconsciousness in a university lecture (which we were actually shown in our Lectorial three weeks ago)? Personally, I think no – my right to say what I want is less important than the right of another human being to not randomly suffer an attack of PTSD, no matter how important I think what I have to say is.

I’m sure it was also really annoying for people in the 1960s who felt like they were no longer “free” to openly tell racist or sexist jokes in public – but that right was deemed less important than the right for women and people of colour to not be offended or discriminated against.

It’s important to note, though, that nobody argues that content that could be a potential trigger should be censored, necessarily — just that it should be labelled as such so people can make an informed choice to avoid it. We already have classification advice on films and TV shows, and language warning stickers on albums, and trigger warnings are in many ways the same thing — only driven by our desire to be respectful of others. To me, that’s a good thing.

Standard
Media 1, Workshops

The elements of a podcast

In our Workshop this week we spent some time listening to the “Sleep” episode of Radiolab, a science/discovery podcast produced by WNYC Studios, and noted down some of the elements that make up narrative audio:

  • Music
  • Narration
  • Interviews / conversations
  • Sound effects
  • Atmosphere / sync sounds
  • Archival recordings
  • Vox pops

Apart from archival recordings and vox pops, the Radiolab episode used every single one of these elements — and in fact, often several were in use simultaneously.

Personally, I’ve tried to listen to Radiolab in the past (because the subject matter interests me), but in general I find their style far too busy and overly constructed to comfortably listen to. Compared to a show like This American Life or Planet Money, which are relatively unadorned and mostly let subjects/interviewees speak in full sentences, Radiolab barely goes a second without using some kind of audio edit, either by the host chiming in to lead the narrative, or an inserted sound effect, music, etc. This cacophony of sounds overwhelms my ears and I lose track of the narrative thread, which is a cardinal sin for documentary podcasts like Radiolab.

This episode of Planet Money, which aired this week, seems by comparison much easier to follow:

It still uses all the same elements as Radiolab (plus vox pops), but they are layered in a far more spacious way so they don’t conflict with one another.

A narrative documentary podcast is one format my group is considering for the audio essay in Project Brief 4, so seeing and dissecting how the professionals do it will help immensely.

Standard
Assessments, Media 1, Workshops

PB4: SWOT analysis

Today we were given Project Brief 4, which is a collaborative portrait of a “media idea”. I’m in a group with Emily and Katrina, and from our first discussion in the Workshop today I can tell I was pretty lucky with the random assignment of group mates because they are both totally switched on. I’m looking forward to seeing what we can achieve.

As part of the group process we’ve been asked to complete a SWOT analysis on ourselves, so here is mine.

SWOT analysis

Strengths: I’m glad we were assigned the Texts & Narrative topic, because I feel like I have a strong working knowledge of media texts (cinema, music, literature, television) and, in particular, the history of film.

Weaknesses: I’m not a super creative person when working alone. I respond best to group brainstorming exercises and feeding off other peoples’ ideas. I also tend to take over if I feel like no one is taking the lead and if I feel strongly about something.

Opportunities: I’d really like to use this project to genuinely collaborate with other people, just to see what the process is like. I’ve seen what I can do if I’m working on my own, so I’m really keen to put our heads together and come up with something that honestly reflects the entire group, rather than just collecting individual contributions and smushing them together.

Threats: I can’t think of any threats in particular. I have a pretty flexible schedule and am happy to travel for meetings and the like, so I hope I’ll be a good group mate logistically.

Standard
Assessments, Media 1, Workshops

PB3 critical feedback

In today’s Workshop we watched each other’s PB3 films, and it was really great to see how excellent most of them were. In PB2 there were a lot of common themes/shots/ideas across films (including mine), but I think as we’ve become more confident with our skills we’re all starting to creatively branch out a little more.

I’m going to do a little critical reflection exercise for the people sitting at my table – Isobel, Rosie, Riah and Hannah. I’ve decided to use two of De Bono’s thinking hats – the yellow hat (positivity) and black hat (negativity) – to frame my feedback in a constructive way. For the most part I’ve really had to try hard to find things to criticise for the black hat. On the whole everyone’s films are fantastic, and they all make mine look boring in comparison.

Isobel – “There’s No One Like You”

Yellow hat:

  • The opening/establishing shots are really nice, with the camera focused on a small detail and everything else blurred. These shots combine well to ease into the interview.
  • The layering and compilation of B-roll footage is fantastic – probably the best of all the videos we saw today. I particularly liked the transition from footage of the subject performing in The Rocky Horror Picture Show into an original shot of her pointing herself out on the poster. So good.
  • This film shows the importance of having a subject who can talk at length and lead a conversation. I’ve interviewed actors in the past and there are some who are very comfortable reciting lines but couldn’t have a natural conversation on camera to save themselves, but the subject of this film has some really interesting and compelling things to say and knows how to speak in complete sentences. A really good choice of interviewee.

Black hat:

  • Even though I love the big colourful patchwork chair the subject is sitting in, I feel like it might be a little too noticeable and overwhelms the subject in some of the wider shots.
  • The answer about Rod Taylor comes out of nowhere and isn’t completely explained. From context I think the audience can piece together that she’s talking about her favourite actor to work with, but that could be made clearer.
  • This is a bit of a nit-pick, but there’s a television on in the background of some shots which is slightly distracting.

Rosie – “Escapism to the Country: The togetherness in isolation”

Yellow hat:

  • The shots of travelling are great – combined with the music bed they really evoke the feeling of taking a long trip out to the country.
  • I really like the found footage explaining the golden triangle, and it’s integrated very well into the surrounding parts.
  • The moments of humour are genuinely surprising and funny. I particularly like the visual framing of the “toxic gas” shot, which emphasises the sign by shooting it from two distances. The joke probably wouldn’t have worked if it was shot differently.
  • Ending on the best moment of the video, “finding that one thing”, is brilliant and really ties the whole piece together.

Black hat:

  • The subject speaks very quietly – this is obviously something that might be hard to control, especially if he’s naturally a quiet speaker, but perhaps some coaching/direction to speak loudly would have resulted in better quality audio (the hiss is quite apparent in some sections).
  • On a minor technical point, most of the found footage is shown very small in the centre of the frame. If this was scaled to fill the screen I think it would have been easier to see.
  • This isn’t even really a criticism, but I loved the shots of the landscape taken at sunset. I wish there was more of it.

Riah – “Finding Passion with Phoebe Rose”

Yellow hat:

  • I really like that this film has a subject matter to explore (keeping passions alive), rather than functioning as a more general portrait. I feel like I was able to get to know the subject just as well this way, and it gave the film a more concrete direction.
  • Found footage is integrated exceptionally well – the music video, the photos, the screen test, and the footage playing on the iPhone are all perfectly timed to support the voiceover narration.
  • The French accordion music that comes in when the subject starts talking about learning French is fantastic.
  • The credits, which highlight the photo of Phoebe and Riah, is a great idea executed beautifully.

Black hat:

  • Is that footage from Queen Live at Wembley really Creative Commons?
  • The music overwhelms the audio and could probably stand to be lowered a few decibels.
  • The transition into the music video could have been cleaner, maybe by having the audio fade up well before cutting to the footage.

Hannah – “Conor Grace: A Portrait”

Yellow hat:

  • The opening credits are really nice. I’d like to learn how to make titles like that.
  • Found footage is beautiful, particularly the tracking shot of the rower at sunrise.
  • Having a rower for a subject leads to some really fantastic on-location action footage. This is another great choice of interviewee.
  • The shot where the rower has to dodge a swan is surprisingly hilarious.

Black hat:

  • The audio levels could be adjusted a little – it’s very loud, and the music occasionally overwhelms the interviewee.
  • Beautiful found footage is great, but it highlights how ordinary the footage from the Sony MC50 looks in comparison.
  • Some of the editing transitions are a little abrupt and jarring.
Standard
Media 1, Workshops

(Not) noticing

I can safely say that noticing isn’t one of my strong suits. Unless I make a deliberate effort, I tend to get caught up in my own thoughts and can often let the world completely pass me by. I like to think it’s just that my brain is extremely efficient at deciding whether information is useful or irrelevant from moment to moment, so I only concentrate on whatever cognitive task is currently most important to me. This is fantastic in some contexts (on the train, for example), but it did lead to a slight fail situation in this week’s Workshop.

Louise ran a quick exercise where she asked everyone to turn around and write down what we thought she was wearing, from memory. Some people were bang on, but I could not remember a single thing. I wasn’t trying to be funny, I literally couldn’t remember a single thing about her clothes.

So that definitely wasn’t the best vote of confidence for my awareness skills. But it was useful to know that about myself, so I can work on it in future.

The funny thing is, when I’m watching a movie or television show I can notice the most seemingly insignificant details and recall them long after watching. The difference is that when I’m watching something I’m in a noticing frame of mind, so I make a conscious effort to take note of things and can commit them to memory easily.

So this week I’m going to give myself a little exercise to start noticing more. Any time I walk into a room I’m going to try to notice how many lights are on, what the temperature is, and how many people are on their phones.

Standard
Media 1, Thoughts, Workshops

Life casting

In our Workshop this week the subject of David Boltanski came up; specifically, the agreement he made with David Walsh and Tasmania’s Museum of Old and New Art to broadcast his entire life into the gallery until his death.

It’s an amazing story, and has just made it even more clear to me that I need to find my way to MONA sooner rather than later, but it also reminded me of a weird relic of 90s culture that has always fascinated me: life casting.

Back before people streamed their every thought to YouTube, back even before reliable internet video really existed at all, there was a small, strange subculture of people who recorded every detail of their lives and placed it online for the world to see. The most prominent practitioner of life casting was JenniCam (Jennifer Ringley), an American who began broadcasting her life in 1996, at the age of 19, by placing cameras throughout her college dorm room. She continued the practice for almost a decade.

The compulsion to live your entire life in public is something I just cannot understand, no matter how much I try. I didn’t even appear in my own “creative self-portrait” video for Project Brief 2, that’s how little I want to be on camera. But there are others who are so secure and comfortable with themselves and what they’re doing that they give strangers unmediated, unrestricted access to it via internet video. It’s crazy to me, but it’ll probably continue to grow and become normalised over the next decade or so and I’ll be even less in the mainstream.

If you’re interested in the topic, JenniCam and Jennifer Ringley was the subject of an episode of the Reply All podcast – it’s a great episode and definitely recommended.

Standard
Assessments, Media 1, Workshops

Narrative structure in PB3

  1. What is the ‘controlling idea’ (Robert McKee) of your portrait?
    Nostalgic attachment to objects has an influence on our lives far greater than its practical use. People will go to ridiculous lengths to keep and maintain connections to their childhood/former self even if to other people the value may not be immediately apparent. My subject has a small, crappy collection of erasers that he’s kept for over 30 years (through marriages, divorce, moving house multiple times, having children, etc.) and will keep for the rest of his life, purely because of his nostalgic connection to them.
  2. How is your portrait film structured?
    My portrait is structured around an interview with the subject, using voiceover narration to allow the subject to speak about his collection, what it means to him and why he still has it in his possession. While the audio of the interview continues for the entire duration of the video, the subject’s words are supported and reinforced by cut-away shots to B-roll and found footage.
  3. What do you want your audience to make of your interviewee?
    I hope the audience perceives the interviewee as a bit weird or strange to begin with, but as the video continues I hope to spark a feeling of empathy as the audience recognises the same nostalgia in their own lives.
  4. How is your portrait being narrated?
    The only voice heard in my video is the subject’s interview answers as he reflects on his experience. I chose to do this to give the video the feeling of an uninterrupted series of thoughts from the subject, as if he is reflecting on his own history and what it means to him. Because the audio from the interview needs to be cut and pasted together to form coherent thoughts, the structure of the video necessitates cut-away shots to mask edits in the audio.
  5. What role will ‘found footage’ play in your portrait?
    Found footage will be used as reinforcement at certain key points, to illustrate what the subject is speaking about or to create associative connections. I’ve chosen to use vintage footage wherever possible to reinforce the theme of nostalgia.
  6. Does your portrait have a dramatic turning point?
    Not in the traditional narrative sense, but I hope that the audience’s realisation of empathy for the subject will be an emotional turning point.
  7. When does this turning point occur in your portrait and why?
    I hope the (gradual) turning point will occur towards the end of the video when my interviewee is explicitly talking about nostalgia and how there is inherent value in still having something you’ve kept for a long time. I’ve structured it this way to allow the audience to come to realise this idea naturally first, and then the subject will emphasis the point in his own words.
  8. How does your portrait gather and maintain momentum?
    Through chronological storytelling, by diving straight into the story and evoking curiosity, and then further explaining and building context.
  9. Where will your portrait’s dramatic tension come from?
    Dramatic tension will be built upon the strangeness/uselessness of my subject’s hobby – the audience will wonder why he has such a collection, why he’s kept it so long and, most importantly, why I’ve made a film about it.
  10. Does the portrait have a climax and/or resolution?
    There is a small resolution to the film when my subject accepts and defends the uselessness of his hobby – which is, ultimately, what my film is about.
Standard