In finishing off the editing for Rex Danger I attempt to play around with improving the audio quality. To do so I just jumped on YouTube and found a video that seemed to cover some of the issues I thought were present in the footage. Although the video covered a couple of different ways of attempting to fix audio recordings I wasn’t sure which process was going to be the best for my situation. So I mucked around with both normalising the max peaks and normalising all peaks. I found after a while I was able to normalise all peaks around about -9 dB to get an appropriate level for the audio. The only problem was then that the poor signal to noise ratio became more obvious and more of the background noise became noticeable. Another issue I found when normalising the audio was that regardless of if I normalised each clip independently or with other clips the difference in quality was highlighted. I’m not sure whether there is another function or process that allows me to ensure that audio levels remain constant. Obviously, there would be a function or process that enables you to achieve this but I’m yet to find it. I think that a worthwhile exercise will be to spend more time researching audio editing in Premiere and to watch more tutorials through both Linda and YouTube.

In regards to the final product of Rex Danger I’m pleased that I have managed to edit something coherent together. It has also provided a creative stimulus to explore both Michael’s on screen persona and the platform of the absurdist interview. I doubt this will be the last time Rex Danger makes an onscreen appearance and hopefully in the future he’ll be present in something shot and constructed more professionally.

In terms of the aesthetics I gave up on covering the jump cuts with B-roll mainly because what I captured didn’t fit continuity wise but also due to it’s crippling awkwardness. I think this was born by my naivety and the fact that I forgot to tell Michael to keep the cigarette in the same hand etc. If shooting again I would love to have a secondary camera to give me the ability to not only shoot from multiple angles but also so I could capture hand movements and other facets of B-roll during the interview.

Eventually I decided to export what I had edited and to refer to it as my first attempt at using off board audio and then Premiere to edit it.

Within thirty seconds of importing what I shot, I had ascertained that the audio recording was of poor quality. I’m not entirely sure if this was linked to the initial trouble we were having with the mixer or whether this was purely the result of poor levels. Not all hope is lost though because the first clip’s levels were reasonable. This was due to the optimal mic placement we used, with the boom pointing straight at the talent from below the frame. As the shoot progressed and my focus shifted to composition and directing my talent I neglected the boom. So many of the other shots could have been improved tenfold by more attention to mic placement and just being more aware of it. At this stage dividing my attention between onscreen action and production aspects is limited and hopefully this improves with time.

Whilst editing Robin raised many aesthetic concerns in relation to interviews and how choices can then influence how the interviewer’s information is read by audiences. One of the central ideas of this discussion was that aesthetics influence technical choices. Expanding on this the content influences technical shots. The same technical choices made on a children’s television program wouldn’t translate to the set of an action film. Obviously this is an overtly simplistic example but I believe it highlights that production techniques and choices are dependent upon the desired aesthetics and how this relates to the content. This is also an ethical concern, behaviour on set and choices must be appropriate to each situation and in essence these choices will be unique.

Decisions in terms of the interview have ethical concerns. In particular how decisions are made in regards to framing an interview. Every single decision made when shooting an interview will then not only have aesthetic implications but also ethical. Interviews may be shot in a style that is consistent throughout a film, formality forming repetition and cohesion. In other instances interviews could be composed eclectically revealing the diversity of subjects. One thing that Robin spoke about was where the interviewer would be looking and how this influenced audience reading of what they are conveying. Does a seated interview subject looking up conveying the same information as someone standing next to their interviewer? It seems that once again there is no one-size fits rules here and instead this decision is made unique for each project or even interview.

In terms of the composition of my shots everything appears incredibly cramped and awkward. This is the by-product of the fact that we were shooting in a classroom with fixed tables. For Luke’s interview setting up beside the table made sense and then for convenience I didn’t move the gear too far away. In doing so I had my talent wedged between two tables with the tripod probably sitting too close. Having the white background proved to be distracting as it reflected the sunlight, making the shot difficult to correctly expose. In hindsight the shots look overexposed and I may have been better to shot in front of the one of the black walls where there was more room. With more space from the wall there would have been better light diffusion and I would have been able to alleviate the cramped feel of the interview.

Another concern that I have faced myself is to interrupt an interview to fix something technical. This is a big decision and underpins ethical concerns as a documentarian. In terms of interviews everyone is acting (to different extents) so it is fine to get them to repeat an answer. Anyone who has agreed to an interview has already begun to formulate ideas for their answers and how they wish to present themselves. Surely when interviewing a vet about the process of operating on a frog you can interrupt him to fix the lighting. Whenever you ask him the same question he’ll answer in the much the same way. If would be far better to interrupt briefly to fix an issue than to get a totally honest interview that is over/under exposed. Obviously the same cannot be said when interviewing someone about a harrowing emotional experience. In this instance the subject’s first response will bear the most honesty.

If you are the belief you should purely document reality than you must leave the imperfections in, that reflects ‘reality’ and says something greater about the shot. The framing is off because the cameraman was distracted by something else. This split second decisions on set will ultimately influence how the information is read and perceived.

Important Things (I think worthy thinking about)
Crew must listen so that they are able to make adjustments, adapt to the interviewer and the content that is being discussed. Just in the same way an interviewer isn’t just going to follow the questions they’ve written. They need to react to the interviewee to capture the most engaging interview possible. As a crew member awareness is necessary and this should underpin behaviour and technical choices. Without this knowledge there is a disconnection between the technical aspects and content/subject matter.