|
|
All the news now and in your digital future
The Other Side of Paradise
Posted by jamesnw
|
Re: The Other Side of Paradise December 07, 2007 01:10PM |
Michael makes an excellent point. The people are too happy! This looks a bit like a tourism video. The shots don't match what the people are saying. I'm of the same mind -- toughen this up.
The first move I'd make is kill the music. It's far, far, far, far too merry. Don't get seduced just because a certain piece of music sounds good on its own. Decorum is everything. Same for the photography -- in editing, your #1 task isn't to put in the prettiest shots; it's to put in the most fitting shots that convey the message you need. That rack focus from the flower, for example, doesn't tell me anything I need to know. In fact, it confuses me -- when you put images to words/script, people will try to read it. And if the message is unclear, jumbled or unfitting, it baffles the viewer and distracts him, making him dislike as well as tune out from your piece.
The narrator is weak. It's probably one of you guys (the filmmakers) doing this, right? Unfortunately, when a narrator doesn't have "The Voice" (a term stolen from Travis, I think), you can tell right away. The narrator's voice cracks, doesn't have the right expression, and sounds too young and uncertain for the gravitas you need. Find somebody older with a richer voice and proper training if you can. The piece looks great and I don't think you'll have problems finding actors.
I saw a History Channel (?) documentary on the Colombian drug cartels on the plane in October and it was narrated by Miguel Ferrer (Robocop and Traffic), and he did an excellent job, sounding even deeper and quite different from when he's acting onscreen. You can hear that he switched modes and delivered what was necessary.
Put on your journalistic hat and get into the nitty-gritties of the people's experiences. Hopefully your footage digs deep enough.
Your piece reminds me of a PSA I did many years ago:
[www.derekmok.com]
www.derekmok.com
The first move I'd make is kill the music. It's far, far, far, far too merry. Don't get seduced just because a certain piece of music sounds good on its own. Decorum is everything. Same for the photography -- in editing, your #1 task isn't to put in the prettiest shots; it's to put in the most fitting shots that convey the message you need. That rack focus from the flower, for example, doesn't tell me anything I need to know. In fact, it confuses me -- when you put images to words/script, people will try to read it. And if the message is unclear, jumbled or unfitting, it baffles the viewer and distracts him, making him dislike as well as tune out from your piece.
The narrator is weak. It's probably one of you guys (the filmmakers) doing this, right? Unfortunately, when a narrator doesn't have "The Voice" (a term stolen from Travis, I think), you can tell right away. The narrator's voice cracks, doesn't have the right expression, and sounds too young and uncertain for the gravitas you need. Find somebody older with a richer voice and proper training if you can. The piece looks great and I don't think you'll have problems finding actors.
I saw a History Channel (?) documentary on the Colombian drug cartels on the plane in October and it was narrated by Miguel Ferrer (Robocop and Traffic), and he did an excellent job, sounding even deeper and quite different from when he's acting onscreen. You can hear that he switched modes and delivered what was necessary.
Put on your journalistic hat and get into the nitty-gritties of the people's experiences. Hopefully your footage digs deep enough.
Your piece reminds me of a PSA I did many years ago:
[www.derekmok.com]
www.derekmok.com
|
Re: The Other Side of Paradise December 08, 2007 11:23AM |
> Same for the music- the artists are people the client required. Sadly, not sure if I'll have much of
> a chance for major changes anymore on this- but thanks for the critique!
Ouch. We've all been there -- a client who has dubious film background but has enough jargon in his/her head and wants to direct!
Well, just make sure their name goes on in big letters under "Directed by" or "Produced by"
. Obviously it'd be nice if you can bring them around and make this actually work, but if they're adamant, then they get final say.
Depending on your relationship with them, you could try just doing a version that shows what you're trying to do. This is only if the client is a mellow type who is open to other ideas. For example, something as simple as swapping out the music and putting in a more suitable alternate. If they see how it works better (if it does), they might come around on their own.
www.derekmok.com
> a chance for major changes anymore on this- but thanks for the critique!
Ouch. We've all been there -- a client who has dubious film background but has enough jargon in his/her head and wants to direct!
Well, just make sure their name goes on in big letters under "Directed by" or "Produced by"
. Obviously it'd be nice if you can bring them around and make this actually work, but if they're adamant, then they get final say.
Depending on your relationship with them, you could try just doing a version that shows what you're trying to do. This is only if the client is a mellow type who is open to other ideas. For example, something as simple as swapping out the music and putting in a more suitable alternate. If they see how it works better (if it does), they might come around on their own.
www.derekmok.com
Sorry, you do not have permission to post/reply in this forum.
