The video example we chose is different from the case studies we presented to the class. It’s a scenic video highlighting places of interests in Italy shot with various camera/editing techniques such as timelapse, glidecam, and slow motion. The video heavily relies on places or things of interests instead of a narrative.
Following the case study we chose to follow proved to be challenging when thinking of areas to shoot in Melbourne as there aren’t many places and point of interests to film, and the ones that are tend to have high pedestrian traffic. The lack of space to shoot these places was an issue as well because it didn’t allow certain angles for the video to be shot in and it didn’t help that there were many objects present that obstructed the view.
I found thinking up ideas that were relevant to the video example to be slightly difficult and restrictive. This is because most of the ideas that I did think up of were an original concept of its own that does not tie-in with the example’s non-narrative structure and its style. Trying to follow the example’s shooting style was also hard to do because we didn’t have high-quality, professional gear to use. This resulted in a lot of shaky movement in the videos I shot as opposed to the example’s smooth, gliding movement. However, instead of lamenting over that issue, I decided to have the shaky movement as a part of the sketch. Rather than have smooth gliding movement, I decided to have a sketch be shot in first-person perspective. The main point of both the example and the sketch is to show off the place or thing of interest.
I mentioned it before in my previous post that right now, I’m not so sure what exactly is an online video. The best way I can describe how I think about it in my head is that it’s not a completely clear picture…it’s still quite blurry. Like this picture below. I can’t tell where this photo was taken, if there’s a lot of people, and what kind of shops there are in it.
So I think this exercise will help me make the “picture” of online video in my head a bit more clear.
According to the instructions for this project, I’m to set up my own framework of 10 criteria for my chosen case study. I had to revisit a lot of the videos I’ve watched before when I was a chronic Youtube video consumer in the past to get a good idea on how to do this so after much deliberation, here is my criteria.
1. Something you can and MUST watch
How do I put this… There are many “videos” online that are just songs with a still image on them. However, I wouldn’t consider that a video because I can just listen to it while I focus my attention elsewhere.
2. Is audible and visual I know this is very similar to 1 but I thought it deserved to be its own criteria because most videos have both visual and audio content that depend on each other. Two halves make a whole.
3. It’s on the internet and it can be viewed by other people
Public or private, as long as it’s on the internet and other people can watch it, it’s an online video.
4. Original content
This is the most important thing to consider for any type of online video. Or any type of thing that involves creative art, i.e. written works and jokes. The point is, it has to be something new. Sometimes it can simply be a different spin of something that already exists, like a remix. Another example would be the,
“[insert number here] [types/kinds/things/signs] [of/that (if necessary)] [insert verb here (if necessary)] [insert subject here (if necessary)]”
“10 Things that Make an Online Video, an Online Video”
These videos are all the same in its purpose to tell the audience what the person or the group of persons in the video think are the subject’s characteristics. The only difference is how it’s delivered and what kind of subject is being used.
5. Good Quality The ones I can think of from the top of my head are video resolution and lighting. Even V-loggers spare no expense in getting a good webcam/camera and ensure that the room they’re filming in has good lighting. Those that do care about quality are more professional about the way they make it and those that don’t are probably still new at it. Videos that aren’t made professionally like CCTV videos still need good resolution and lighting so people can understand what’s going on in the video.
6. Engaging Once you’re able to get a person to watch your video, the next challenge is to keep them watching after 15-30 seconds. Is the video interesting or engaging enough to make the user stay until the end? HOW is it engaging? WHY would I engage myself with this video? Again, I think this applies to almost every creative art form out there. The videos that I know are engaging tend to be thought provoking or comedic in nature. Just knowing what the video-maker is thinking about the topic they’re talking about is interesting as well and videos like these tend to feel more informal and personal as though it was face-to-face.
7. Prepared and/or Properly Edited What degree of professionalism does the video have? Was the video was carefully planned in terms of script and how the information was delivered?
8. Educational/Informational Online videos don’t have to be educational in nature like tutorials. They can be educational if you can take something from it and make it into knowledge.
9. Promotional/Commercial Is the video promoting a product? Does it have a commercial purpose?
10. Relatively Short Length Most online videos go on for about 3 to 10 minutes. Depending on the type of content it may go on longer than 10 minutes but the typical video goes on for about 3 to 6 minutes. Micro videos are extremely short, with a length of seconds instead of minutes.
My chosen case study: I chose BriTANick’s videos because I really like watching sketches. And because they make me laugh.
BriTaNick specialize in making comedy sketch videos. Most of their sketches are very well-written. Compared to their past videos, their recent videos have higher production quality despite it being made with a group of friends. Even though it’s an online video sketch it has a high degree of professionalism in the way it was shot and edited. It’s definitely something you must watch and listen to as both the audio and visual source depend on each other. It’s also visible to others on the internet. The content is original because I don’t believe a similar video like this was made before it came out. It is not semi-original because it’s not a remix of something that exists. It has very good quality (1080p). The lighting is nicely done, we can see the actors/actresses’ faces and it also fulfilled its role in establishing moods in the “film”. The only thing that’s missing is the cinemascope format (the two black bars above and below the video). It is engaging because it is entertaining. It is comedic in nature because it’s a sketch. It is educational in a way since it gives you ideas on how to make a trailer professionally. It is not promotional because the film does not exist. It is 3 and a 1/2 minutes long so it is short in length. Most sketch videos are about 3-6 minutes so I think it’s appropriate.
I don’t think doing one video is enough because there are different types of videos I watch so I’ll do another.
Here’s one of SourceFed’s videos:
SourceFed specializes in the delivery of news but in summary form. A news digest, if you will. I think the material they used is not original because it’s news. However, how they deliver it is. The hosts can be quite entertaining in their delivery and that makes me want to watch the video instead of just listening to it. They would sometimes switch between the typical news anchor delivery form and then act informally by presenting their opinions and acting in skits. This also makes the video engaging. It is shot professionally with good quality as evident by strong lighting, good video resolution, and the fact I can see the white in their eyes. It is properly edited together because there are no awkward pauses and there are a lot of jump cuts. It is informational because I learned that a zonkey exists. It is not commercial in nature because there is no product to sell. The video is very short, going on for 2 minutes.
Okay, where to begin…
Seth talked about how important it is to reflect because it basically processes your thoughts into a form of words so that myself and others can better understand what I did, and what other people and I thought could have gone better after conducting an activity. We’ll be doing a lot of reflecting in this course because it is actually a skill we must develop as future media practitioners (and it’s part of an assessment too). We’ll be doing what’s called “practice-based research” which is a process of doing and/or making something, then recording the results and thinking about it in all kinds of angles. I think it’s exactly like conducting science experiments (keyword here, EXPERIMENTS) and it’s becoming really obvious to me now seeing as the course is called “Online Video Experiments” *slaps forehead*.
…And I’m describing things.
I have two reflection models to follow – Gibbs and Driscoll – which I’ll be using alternately because it’s more fun that way.
I was and am still curious about what this course is all about. Right now we’re only scratching the surface in understanding what exactly is online video, which by itself is actually quite broad and difficult to define. Unlike traditional media where the first things that pop into my head are, “the news”, “discovery channel”, and “T.V. shows”, it’s hard to put into words what online videos are because there are so many different types and I think most don’t have their own categories or at least, ones that I know of. This also shows just how flexible online video is because you can basically put anything together and call it a video as long as you can watch it. But isn’t that what a video is, anyway? I think it’s also because there’s so much more freedom with the internet seeing as there aren’t any limitations besides copyright. I mean, you don’t have to pitch your idea to a bunch of executives to greenlight something, you just make it, then upload it on some video sharing website and wait for people to judge if they like it or not. Another reason why I think they’re distinctive from each other is because traditional media is more formal and new media, which online video is under, feels more informal. This is because some online videos, such as V-logs, are more personal by connecting and interacting directly with the audience. Some web series like “Honest Trailers” by Screen Junkies create their next trailer video based on what their viewers recommend in the comment section.
Seth also touched upon using a “polyvocal” approach in our essays. Breaking the word up, poly means “many” and vocal means “voices”. However, Google suggests that the term does not literally refer to “many voices talking at the same time” but rather, different interpretations of a certain text. This only brings up a question, how would I be able to do this with my essay? Unless it’s a group essay, I don’t see any other way other than to clone myself and hope each of them thinks differently (but cloning is actually pretty freaky so I hope I don’t have to resort to that). Joking aside, I can think of a few ways, but I’m not sure if they’re considered polyvocal. I guess I CAN research and use the opinions of other people/professionals but isn’t that more like referencing? Can I, or rather AM I supposed to use the opinions of my classmates and reference them in my essay? Perhaps I’ll learn more about it in the coming weeks so I’ll wait and see.
Overall, I learned a lot about what we’ll be doing in this course and what online video is about especially during that mindmap exercise. The one Seth put together with the class was really informative and I only wish there was more time so that it could be completed. If there’s anything I could do differently for the next class, it’s to ask questions. The only problem with that is, I can’t think of any during class.
Pawel Pawlikowski mentioned in his article, ‘Imagining Reality’, that “for [him] the point of making films is not to to convey objective information about the world, but to show it as I see it and to find a form which is relevant.” This confused me a little because it basically complicated my definition of documentary. To me, a documentary was a visual form where you shoot stuff as time goes by, compile it, and put it together for the whole world to see. But what Pawlikowski mentioned made it mean that a documentary is very similar to a film in the sense that you CHOOSE what you shoot and what you want to show. That conflicted with my idea of a documentary where you don’t choose anything, you just shoot and show all you have (at least try to). I get where he is coming from though, because in the end, there is a certain direction a documentary always takes and that usually comes from a vision of what the documentary is supposed to be and what the documentary filmmaker intended to present to the viewers.
I loved reading the bit where he explains the commercial aspect of documentary on TV, how TV needs documentaries to survive yet consequently TV is killing documentaries because of the effects of sensationalism. To elaborate, he notes that cameras are planted in areas that were considered “interesting” and just filming as events unfolded. How this kills documentaries is that there is no “heart” or “thought” put into it, in other words, it’s just an easy way to make a quick buck and get higher view ratings.
Curren Bernard’s pointers in ‘Documentary storytelling for film and videomakers’ was also a real treat to read.
He mentioned something along the lines of finding a story during the production or post-production of a documentary, when the filmmaker “alters the story’s focus or…its structure.” It’s true that your documentary won’t end up like what you had in mind because somewhere along the way, the docmentary’s “path” may diverge and you end up with something completely different. Kind of like life itself.
Accessibility for an area for the documentary is something I have a real gripe with because of past…unpleasant experiences. Normally, it’s the one restricting factor about documentaries (or anything that’s relatable) that I loathe. That’s why I found it intriguing when Bernard pointed out that lack of access may become part of the story. I still don’t get what this means though, how does it become part of the story exactly?
The most memorable thing about the the short film titled ‘End of the Line’ was the conflicting opinions about Broken Hill between the elderly and younger folk. More specifically, the elderly seem to really like living in Broken Hill and even plan on staying there towards the end of their days (especially that one lady who was really gung-ho about it), some even suggested that it’s an ideal place to raise a family. However, the younger population who were most likely born and raised there had different ideas about it and plan on leaving which is understandable seeing that the town seemed “isolated” from the world. In other words, it striked me as an uneventful, boring place for them.
What made the town seem “isolated” to me were due to the visuals; shots of desert-like scenery, scraps(?), town looked somewhat deserted, I can’t recall much and I fear my memory may have altered it a little, but hey, that’s all I got.
Frankly, if the production crew intended to present the town’s “story” (the inhabitants’ lives and how they feel about the town, and what the town is really like through sound and visuals, etc.) then I suppose they did achieve in doing so. Otherwise, I’m not sure if they achieved what they wanted to do.
During this exercise, we recorded a small fountain, footsteps, an automatic door, the elevator, the basketball court, and a sound of something which I am having trouble describing.
For the fountain, footsteps, automatic door, and the elevator, these sounds were very specific with no other sounds present therefore it is highly probably that people who hear these audio tracks might be able to pin point what we recorded. However, I must add that the fountain and the automatic door can be associated with a mini waterfall and a machinery of some sort, respectively.
As for the basketball court, this audio track was able to give off a school image in my mind because of a multitude of sounds; the shuffling sounds of footsteps, conversations in the background, sounds of the ball being moved and bouncing around accompanied by cheers.
I was able to visualise a setting based on the woman’s description about her travel to the North (I assume that she did, to be honest, I wasn’t so sure). Soon, a man’s voice sets in, overlapping hers, followed by another. At first, this caused me to feel disorientated because it was difficult to focus on whose voice I should listen to. Listening to the track another time, I noticed that the people who were describing their experience of the North had different ideas or experiences about the North which eventually made me realise that it intended to convey the concept of what the North actually is. In other words, it relates back to the title of the documentary. When the host, Glenn Gould, mentioned that the following speakers were people who had actually been and lived in the North, therefore truly experiencing what it was like to be in the North as opposed to just traveling and staying there for some days and finally returning to their respected worlds when they were done, I came to the conclusion that he aimed to dispel the superficial ideas/descriptions of the North by the previous speakers.
Brian Hill’s ‘Drinking for England’ reconfirmed the things I’ve learned in the course, True Lies: Documentaries.
The documentary features the drinking culture of England with a poetic and musical spin. I thought this was clever and I enjoyed it immensely. It shows that there isn’t only one true form of a documentary where a narrator is being overly didactic about facts and that it is a sort of an art form because of the way it was put together and how it was carried out. However, this also placed me in a position to question its authenticity; was it staged and how much can I believe in it? Since I’ve only seen one section of the documentary itself, I cannot actually think it was staged even though the song seeemed professionally sung by the man as though it was a music video. It could be that the creators decided to be creative with it so as to make the documentary a little more engaging.
Throughout the whole scene you will hear one consistent sound that is almost barely audible, the chirping of crickets. I thought this was to place more emphasis that is it night time for this scene as well as to place a calming atmosphere/effect. I know this sounds strange considering that the two men are discussing about the end of a contract killing where tensions should undoubtedly be high. Pure silence can definitely have an unnerving effect, perhaps the cricket sounds are used to build up shock value for when the man shoots the other man because the audio for the gunshot was very loud and had a reverb effect to it. Most sounds used are also made to sound diegetic (traffic noises, toilet flushing) to clearly establish the spatial setting.
As for video, there were a lot of close ups of objects, and the actor’s faces. They were edited in a fashion that emphasized what the actor was looking at as well to bring attention to said object. This was especially so when the man slowly pulls out the photo of the dead, we can see his unsettled expressions as he looks at them and the video cuts to a part of the picture where it showed the dead man’s arm.
