Feedback on our rough cut was pretty rough. But who am I judge? For a while there, I thought the provider of our feedback (Catherine)’s name was Carolyn. Shows how much I know.
This is why I take notes. I’m especially hopeless with names, unless it’s the name of a dog. Strangely, I’ll forget your name, but never your dog’s. There must be more audio space and RAM in my mind’s ‘Attention’ department for dog names than humans. Or I’m just more reciprocal to being introduced to animals, at which time the memory bank is open and engaged. However, if I asked my dog Mazzy Star what she thought of our rough cut she probably wouldn’t have listened to it. She can’t even reference properly.
Initially our group was reluctant to accept Carolyn’s, sorry, Catherine’s feedback because it seemed quite negative. “Why must academic professionals be so cruel?” we pondered whilst crying in the corner. Then as we processed Catherine’s information we realised we should get over ourselves and use some of it to improve our work.
Ideas like scripting and rehearsing started to seem more necessary and appropriate. But we still couldn’t understand her concept of recording ourselves while discussing topics in a moving car. In fact it almost sounded dangerous.
Then after uploading the first of our final cuts I began to embrace the latter idea. I could envisage how it might improve our ability to engage and maintain our listeners’ attention.
The use of different types of sound, such as ground and background noise was the most attractive part of accepting this idea and carrying it out, although my group did take some convincing. But as we know, negotiation and persuasion are part of the skills required for effective collaboration.
We agreed it was for the best, especially after we’d completed our recordings. Upon reflection, we’d listened, become more flexible, enhanced our work and in the end had done pretty much everything Catherine suggested.
If this all goes toward an improvement in our grades, for that we should say thanks to Catherine. And if that is the case, then we can also understand that our first impressions don’t always count, as some things take longer to absorb, process and reflect upon.
That’s what we used to say in the schoolyard to get people’s attention. I probably should’ve thought of that before we did the Week 11 workshop exercise called ‘Can I Get Your Attention Please?’ but I was too busy checking Messenger to concoct a better idea than the one I entered class with. It wasn’t just that though – I was also checking the Netflix and Stan and Foxtel TV guides. And the free-to-air channels. And comparing new phone plans and other stuff which required my undivided attention. This is modern ‘living’, right? Hmmm. I wonder what Tim Wu would think. Let’s find out. I’ll just open Twitter now and… oh my God… fluffy kittens!
After I typed the above paragraph, I looked up to see on my TV screen (which has the volume turned down low, so I don’t get too distracted) the on-screen reminder for Channel Ten TV show ‘Have You Been Paying Attention?’ Oh the irony. Television, why doth thou mocketh me? (Apologies for my Shakespearian, I didn’t really tune in during Year 11 drama class either).
So enough of the sidetracking and on with the program. We did a thing. We used the Zoom audio recorder, which was all weird at first but we got the hang of it. Amazingly, our exercise project used all the elements from the brief even though we forgot to look at it. We “creatively explored the idea of our individual obsession and attachment to personal media devices”. We did our own narratives but I went experimental and used a version from the intro to “Word I Said” via an old (1992) Spiderbait album, although this was the closest we got to using music, so hopefully it counts as two birds killed with one stone. And no, I’m not playing Pokemon when I say that.
Actually, sorry I did use Rebecca Black’s “Friday”, if you could call that music. Duh. I’d forget my head if we didn’t already have an app for that. My attention is also a bit scattered between projects during this time. And Rebecca Black will feature heavily in my PB4. Also, I can’t believe I just wrote that last sentence and it’s absolutely true. Oh no.
Anyway, our exercise project had its two main characters with minimal dialogue intrusion and our city being the “distinctly identifiable location” with the use of field and background audio of traffic, people, birds etcetera, although in hindsight a tram would’ve been nice. We recorded various spot sounds such as bicycle bells and combined our voices with a voice-altering phone app to create the impression of additional people arriving in background. I later added some minimal CC sound effects (Crazy Frog, crash and footsteps) to help illustrate the story’s climax and goodbye.
The most beneficial parts of this project were the introductory experience of working with the recorder and the fairly immediate realisation of which audio editing program to use, with at least two-thirds of our group choosing Audacity. There are still some advanced elements to learn with this software, so with more practice, a greater level of technical proficiency will slowly reveal itself. This is also something I remember from one of our lectures. “Practice makes perfect” and even when working as a professional “we are always learning”.
Our extra effort and focus towards the end of the workshop meant we had the two main elements of audio production covered: “collecting and creating”. I also found it important to take leadership and not follow someone when they literally don’t know where they’re going, especially when they are a very silly boy. Then I looked up from my phone and saw I was in a nearby kindergarten. (haha – just KIDDing). Hashtag awkward.
International language barriers within our team, combined with my general lack of brain cells, youth or ability were other issues early on (hashtag selfdeprecation) but we managed to use the former to our advantage in telling the story without being awkward or offensive, or at least I hope so! The latter would continue to and will probably remain a problem forever.
I realised I would need to retain / ‘pay attention’ to all of the above observations when completing our PB4.
And pray. I’m not religious, but apparently it’s trending. Hashtag PrayBrief4.
Story elements of this audio production consisted around the focus and theme of an account of events surrounding a particular subject, being Dully’s experience with a lobotomy and its after-effects.
The special hook was the unique perspective of a survivor of a brutal medical experiment with the story delivered by way of self analysis, extraneous interactions and inter-relating personal aspects.
Settings included medical rooms and offices, private and intimate interview spaces and personal residential zones.
There was conflict surrounding justification, realisation and the overall effects on himself and his family.
Characters included the narrator / patient, other patients, Doctor Freeman and observers including Dully’s father.
The mood was based on autobiographic commentary – sombre / morose / factual / emotional / personal / non fiction.
Sonic elements involved types of speech being intimate and personal.
Equipment and sources used were most likely dictaphone-based, predominantly basic speech recording, layered with music of era and radio fading in/out around dialogue and as per our lectures and readings involving the use of ‘breakers’, the content was broken into small chunks to divide changes in content.
Other sounds included doors closing and thematic background music to accentuate tone.
Sonic qualities were of a deep reading style of narrative which was effective in parts where content was more interesting but I found that my attention was challenged by the less intense moments of story and commentary, as the words were delivered in a steady monotone with the tempo of a slowly clicking tock. Personally I am less engaged by this style as I tend to get enough droll mechanical and meandering vocal tones by endlessly enduring my own uninspiring voice… in fact sometimes I even bore myself to distraction.
The timbre was dull and clinical, although it could be argued that this suited the subject matter.
Loudness and pitch was constant, steady and medium, displaying a consistency that would be in my best interests to emulate within my own recorded work.
This made me think of the lyrics from a song by Faith No More (“A Small Victory”; from ‘Angel Dust’; 1992) in which the lyrics state “If I speak at one constant volume at one constant pitch, at one constant rhythm right into your ear, you still won’t hear”, which mimics the way in which myself and many other members of an audience can drift with our levels of attention in direct response to any form of mundane activity, regardless of its importance. In terms of Leeuwen’s “Perspective” this piece was delivered with a variety of soundscapes but mostly from a personal, figure perspective.
It also highlights how we can reflect on the delivery, content and timing when producing our own audio pieces to help maintain audience engagement, as per the instructions from lecture speaker Kyla Brettle, our tutors, classmates and their collective feedback.
With this in mind I am able to obtain constructive information from others which I can use to improve my work without seeing the need to be defensive, as it is ultimately the audience whose attention I am seeking to capture and hold, by effectively delivering the moments I have collected and created in my audio works and allowing them to be immersed in a sonic space.
Faith No More – A Small Victory (Official Music Video) – 1992
Asked by our tutor to identify an instance of misinformation, in this post I will address the online presence of bias in reviews of products, services and events. This is when reviews are posted or published by people who are in some way involved with the business, product, service or event &/or its constituents, without disclosing or clarifying their vested interest.
Reviews of this type are usually easy to identify, but only if readers/viewers/listeners are paying attention to the bigger picture and comparing these (often glowingly positive) reviews with the majority of others commenting on the same subject.
Revealing themselves as biased or in other terms ‘fake’ is very rarely the author’s intention, so the subtleties can be identified as the following:
excessively positive descriptions devoid of subjective counter balance
irregular authorship i.e. written by non-prominent contributor/s
severe juxtaposition of opinion with the majority of other contributors
detailed and structured use of adjective and hyperbole verging on marketing
There are factors which can make these submissions seem truthful and convincing, particularly if originating from a typically reliable source, or appearing on an otherwise reputable platform; but also if the provided level of detail is simply mistaken by the audience as advanced proffered knowledge and understanding by the author and therefore perceived as honest, well-rounded and genuine.
This emulates the points made by Danah Boyd in the text ‘Did Media Literacy Backfire?” with regards to fake news and the naiveity of any audience member who not only believes false information, but then shares it with other audiences, allowing it to gain momentum and dictate widespread inaccurate beliefs.
The result is harmful to the integrity of media and can only be avoided when media practitioners perform research in the variety of ways and means which were discussed during Brian’s lecture about thorough research (including scholarly articles, incorporating a variety of reputable sources, etcetera) and when audiences refuse to believe everything they see and hear.
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.
With our chosen topic of ‘fandom’ we referred to our lecture notes and readings and discussed the concept of authenticity which is judged &/or criticised by fans, plus the fact that finer details matter to fans, sometimes more so than to the producers and other original participants. This applies to more than just film and television, as fans of music genres, theatre events and other fields are becoming an authority on authenticity and detail.
We mentioned Henry Jenkins’ reference to these in his ‘The Night of a Thousand Wizards’ post (July 2010) regarding the authenticity and detail of Harry Potter scenarios and also the quote in his post ‘Fandom, Participatory Culture and Web 2.0′ (Jan 2010) regarding the user-generated participatory websites known as Web 2.0, in which he says these online outlets are “fandom without the stigma”.
The “stigma” Jenkins was referring to was the tendency for fans to become predisposed to stereotyping of their own personal character based on their choice of fandom and associated connections, in particular with reference to the words of actor William Shatner (aka Captain Kirk) about Star Trek fans, albeit tongue in cheek: “Get a life!”
We looked at how fans compare different media platforms and how successfully (or not) the same subject matter is delivered across these differing avenues, in particular stories such as The Walking Dead and how writers Robert Kirkman and Scott M. Gimple transfer the story and character development from comic to television series and into other arenas such as video gaming and merchandising; or whether fans of Game of Thrones (and also back to Harry Potter) compare the books with the screen versions, or if each platform leads viewers towards the texts and vice versa.
Aside from the above, there are other forms of media such as websites, social media commentary, groups and so forth in which fans can manifest and develop their sense of participatory inclusion and whether or not that has a consequential influential effect on the production itself.
With relevance to our own work we could hypothetically absorb feedback from fans and followers of our channels and blogs to help guide us towards how to present future projects based on the feedback and suggestions from audience, if we were to choose to do so.
Projects might include the best of our work as a compilation and the learnings and development we have achieved which would be pitched as a commercial success story for RMIT Media.
Or if we were to produce a music video we might refer to fans’ stories and experiences regarding the artist to help tell the story. Another option would be to allow fans of the artist to become involved in the production-making process, perhaps via their UGC, or simply the insertion of fans themselves, therefore merging the gap between creators of the art form and their attentive audience. A prime example of this would be the ground-breaking Nirvana “Smells Like Teen Spirit” video clip, whereby local teenage fans of the band were invited to perform a (universally approved as ‘genuine’) moshpit sequence throughout the clip and in turn, created images which grabbed the attention of and resonated with millions of like-minded fans globally. This video has now reached over half a billion views.
‘Smells Like Teen Spirit’ by Nirvana. (C) 1991 Geffen Records
Spontaneously planning and shooting a 1-2 minute story without editing, our storyboard structure was useful for providing the correct order in the telling of the story and above all, our remembering what the bloody hell to shoot next. I’d prepared a paper-thin storyboard (like, literally on paper) the day before class and expected it to be changed a lot, if used at all. We discovered in class this exercise required a theme of “the pursuit” so although the preparation helped kick-start the creative process, we required flexibility to develop an altered plan and storyboard.
We devised various shooting techniques including how to stop and start shooting (eg. the camera person calling out before and after recording the shots) and our actors / ‘hacktors’ used hidden ways to communicate in-scene eg. making a certain sound as a cue for timing. We also communicated strongly as a team prior to shooting each scene, far more so than if we had the luxury of post-editing.
Location was a bastard. We found the idyllic, apparently super-quiet place until we started shooting and a million cars suddenly came in and out of the immediate area one by one, people wheeled their squeaky trollies around, roller doors were raised and lowered, and a huge dinosaur came running past, setting fire to our camera. Well, not the last bit, but you get the picture. This factor and our timing within recordings were our biggest time-killers.
Lighting and focus was another issue which we rushed and resolved as best as possible in our allotted time, sometimes by rearranging our focal point, angles or message in the scene.
I wasn’t keen to do much running or walking in my shittiest shoes/thongs/sandals/jandals, and this thought was reinforced by how difficult it was to perform an admittedly piss-weak chase.
We inserted the Bobker elements of film, by (first element:) careful arrangement of people in scene 1 to reveal the sign, scene 2 for over-the-shoulder perspective and scene 3 for the pursuit of free cigarettes and getting caught out; (second element:) by showing the departure of smoker and then following, although we had to stay close enough at this point to see the cigs falling; and (third element:) doing a sort of dolly tracking sideways movement (sans dolly or tracking) as the cigs were picked up, and the aforementioned scene where cigs are falling may also apply to this element.
Expertly filmed by Trista and Mark.
Terribly hackted by Matt, with much better performances by Josh and Mark.
YouTube custom thumbnail from the internet. https://www.reddit.com/user/Jimmy_Black
Storyboards by Mr Squiggle.
No cigarettes were harmed in the making of this video, except for one that got severely burnt and stood on. (Rolled In Peace)
Below are a couple of sweet music videos, both filmed in one take, but first we did Round 2 of the Sony MC50 experiment, which led us into groups of 5 x similarly dazed and confused uni students to shoot a one-shot, one-take film with minimal dialogue, based on the concept of misunderstanding. Almost the story of my life.
Unfortunately I don’t have the hilarious results at my disposal to show you, otherwise I would. But let’s just say my first memorable line in an impromptu short film is “Ya pissed on my face!”
You wanna see it now huh.
Well, I can only hope to experience a ‘steady flow’ of production roles from here. #dadjoke
Okay so here’s these professional film clips – one of which is made in Melbourne – and which also accompany some pretty decent songs.
Here we have four 1st-year students’ first test run with the Sony MC50 handy cam and tripod.
As we were all total video noobs in the first few minutes we had no idea what we were doing with the equipment, in fact we weren’t even sure how to carry it, especially the gigantic tripod. But we did share the usage of equipment around fairly and evenly as everyone contributed.
The tripod continued to mock us with its gangly uneven legs, so after a while we gave up on trying to balance the spirit level bubble and just go with whatever looked right. Often you’d see three of us at a time attacking its big black buckles and bringing it down… ha ha, fuck you tripod.
None of the filming experience really ‘felt’ right though, as it was all so awkward, unfamiliar and we had minimal time to capture all the shots, so we rushed them out. Some of these emotions are expressed in the video and I’ve tried to use editing and effects to positively embrace and deliver these aspects.
Our first location was ideally quiet, but was being used by another team who appeared to know what the hell they were doing, so we moved to another location which then got rained on, so we moved again. You could say we had to be very flexible with our setup.
I think the audio was captured reasonably well in a city locale and the interviewee’s answers were mostly clearer and just that little bit louder than the interviewer, which is what we were aiming for. The BGM also suits the opening tone and overall subject.
In the first two or three ‘noddies’, audio is muted and video is roughly matched to align with the interview video’s pre-existing audio.
My time-poor attempt to grab close-ups resulted in some framing errors but the cutaway shot (of girl studying) was a handy interlude to insert between interviewees, especially since I displayed a classic example of poor interviewing at the end of the first interview, to the point where I’ve added a ridiculous sound effect and video wipe to express that trial and error… effectively another learning experience.
I only received access to these videos yesterday so I just mashed this all together overnight.
The underlying message of this video is: don’t take life (or uni) too seriously – if you keep your sense of humour you can make things work for yourself and for others.
I finally got to export my video thanks to the RMIT editing suite. This is the one that should be graded, (not the one at the very bottom of this post):
I just need to insert the link HERE-> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfD1RfZaFOA
Ok that’s DONE.
Now for my next crappy project.
*UPDATED 29/3:
So I originally posted my ‘completed’ PB2 a week ago but discovered at our Workshop Week 4 on 24/3 that if the project was 3 (or 4 or 5) seconds too long it was literally too long to submit without penalty, although I swear they said in Week 3 “it’s okay if it’s a bit longer than a minute”, but anyway I trimmed it some more while also making a couple more improvements in addition to the list below (under the horizontal line; from last week’s post, which I actually retracted in class when I found out I’d have to redo it… again), and in the end I got the final, final cut (v3) down to 55 seconds. See, look:
Then I couldn’t export this f*kn new version of my project from Premiere Poo no matter what I did.
Yeah I think I can do the work, but my computer can’t.
I definitely tried turning it off and on again. Like, fucking heaps of times.
from “The IT-Crowd”, Channel 4 (UK)
So I googled and experimented and cried at the top of a mountain whilst holding an aerial due north, but nothing worked. Although I did get electrocuted (just kidding).
*Update* I’ve spent LOTS of time online getting to know all the IT gurus in The Philippines, with limited success. In the end, I have no option but to go shopping for new hardware. Before I joined this course, I didn’t know what the technical requirements were, but now I do.
upgraded Premiere from trial to purchase – wasted $20
inserted bgm permission text into credits
lifted volume of bgm & train talk soundbite
extended bgm fade in
trimmed scenes to save time
sped up final shot to 150% to save time
added dodgy video effects (eg transitions etc) & another pic
re-centered live gig footage
ran NO other programs in background
compressed video using ClipChamp
finally found some good f*kn train station parking
The overall effect of my trimming and re-edit adds to the overall busy feeling of my double-uni, multi-activity week, provides additional impact and suits the style of ‘instrumental car chase’ background music in the clip.
I used feedback from in and out of class to help know where and what to cut &/or make smoother, whereas a few other people just said “yeah that’s fine” and walked away, or maybe laughed a couple of times (in a good way – at the funny bits). I’m good with the fact I won’t win an Oscar for this, or even a Felix, because it’s my first ever video project, so if it looks clunky and old-school 8-bit crap then that’s fine as I am only learning to drive, albeit in a novice and sometimes scary GTA kinda way. And if you don’t like it, then:
‘Hey Fuck You’ · Beastie Boys – (To The 5 Boroughs) ℗ 2004 Capitol Records, Inc. and Beastie Boys.
Anyway here’s this fuckin video*:
(*this is last week’s oversized 1’05 and slightly underdone one compared to the 55-sec one I couldn’t export) – this is NOT the one that should be graded.
ALSO:
Here are some more rambling words about my video (version 1 of 3):
