PB3 interview post (due date extension) – “I made Simmo cry”
In the last few days I’ve remade my entire PB3 interview portrait because my first one was B-A-N-N-E-D !!! Well, at least that is the sensationalist media story I’m going with… the more responsible journalistic narrative would be to say I didn’t quite fit the brief because I devised basically fictional characters for a mockumentary interview, which incidentally (and very much innocently and accidentally) was also considered possibly offensive to a small but ultimately realistically expected section of our audience. In market terms, it didn’t quite meet the client’s expectations and had to be reformulated. So my boss (tutor) suggested I go back to the drawing board and return in a week.
It’s a shame though – my first project was about a socially awkward, terribly dancing and oversharing teen and it was presented along the lines of the Australian Story offshoot series ‘Backstreets’. It was unanimously enjoyed as a comical work with technical proficiency by all those who did view it, and I obviously spent / wasted many hours and a fair few dollars (for props) on it, plus it was all complete and submitted well in advance of the due date. The changes I made to it between rough cut and final cut were a) cut it down from a running time of 4:25 to 3:00, which I was surprised to achieve without losing too much of the story’s message – if anything, it probably improved the flow; and b) I added extra effects and fine-tuned other elements like the sound and lighting as a result of feedback from my class.
Merely hours after getting the red flags from my tutor, I shot my revised project about a couple of sisters who I suddenly and spontaneously interviewed with my own cheap DSLR camera before I was able to acquire an MC-50 and add a few cutaway shots (of the photographs).
My interviewees were clearly very comfortable during the interview which enabled a true sense of unrehearsed, honest candor and I made every attempt to engage with them as they were speaking on film, by maintaining eye level, eye contact and body language. I also ensured that I only asked open questions for the interview.
I had very little opportunity for class feedback on this second project, but the rough cut was shown in class and audience reactions were positive.
Once again, I was able to reduce the length of video from around 3:40 to 3:10 for the final cut, although I had so much more footage that I could’ve made this into an in-depth 25 minute documentary. Of my 7 or 8 questions asked, I only used 4 of the shorter, somewhat less personal answers, as the longer and more detailed answers were not as suitable for this 3-minute piece. Hopefully under the circumstances I am not penalised grading for being 10 seconds over time!
For final cut editing I quickened the editing of the starting sequence so we reached the interview questions earlier, and I remembered to use a vital piece of found footage I’d previously forgotten about, which completely changed the ending of the sequence whilst also adding sentimentality, character and story development. I’ve received multiple feedback outside of class that this was a favourite alteration for these viewers. I also tweaked much of the sound and light which was initially compromised by my use of home equipment after learning I would be re-shooting my entire project, which once again was all my fault and was an overall learning experience which I am able to reflect on.
I think my titles work pretty well with the theme of the story and the subjects/characters. The background music – which is all carefully edited to intertwine with the visual footage – really helps sell the story.
The most solid evidence of audience engagement for my final interview video was a text message from one of the interviewees, who said her husband – a tough and masculine tree-loppin’, beer-drinkin’, ute-drivin’ tradesman called ‘Simmo’, CRIED when he watched my video.
Shivers. I didn’t think it was that bad.
