CompuServe Messages

Paul: >>"Spielbergian narrative overdeterminist"…>> >I like it. Hey, I admit there are times when you just have stop the film, tap on the screen and ask, "are you getting this?" < I was always taught that, if you have to do that, you're not telling your story effectively–and I guess I've always felt that the highest principle a "communicator" (be they video/filmmaker or writer or whatever) can ascribe to is "Tell your story clearly". Otherwise, people can't follow what you're saying and they won't get what you're trying to tell them… >Inherently, "informative" and "persuasive" purpose must, by definition, have points (which I use as an abbreviation for 'point of view'), morals, or themes. The successful documentary is loaded with it. < I think, Paul, there's no way it *can't* have a point, moral or theme–otherwise, *why* the heck is the video/filmmaker doing it? Something as simple as *what* you choose, and how you approach it, has a viewpoint–even a birthday or wedding video gets across, at its simplest level, the viewpoint that this is an occasion *worth* celebrating… (I mean, could you imagine the wedding video you'd get from somebody who felt marriage was inherently a repressive institution? <g>) >I find my own work seems to hang better when I insert my point of view into the sterility of the facts. 'Course this is probably video's greatest power and why it is so good at persuasion. Likewise, without point of view, video falls apart quickly< The question is, do you insert it *deliberately* or does it just come out in *how* you do it? Often, a conscious attempt to insert a videopoint, IMHO, comes out as obviously manipulative (Lord knows I've had that problem before, where I *so* wanted to get my opinion–or judgment <g>–across that even I was appalled by the heavy-handedness of it all once I was done…). That's why I'm not a sitcom fan–I feel they're SOOO determined to "sell" the moral, rather than letting the moral come out of the story itself, that I feel manipulated… But back to your original comment–you're right about a video (or any form of storytelling) falling apart w/out a point of view… >>it's a sign that person/those people aren't in control of what they're saying, or don't really believe it themselves.>> >Good point. And it's hard to discern whether it is an execution problem or a belief problem. They look so similar.< Yep–and there's really no way you can tell unless you know what interests them, and how competent they are… >Patrick (Data Translations) hit on this too. "Narrowcasting", as he calls it, is much more than a delivery concept to my thinking. It's a production concept. I don't think video accomplishes much unless you have a very good feel for whom you're telling the story to. I like it when any communication form becomes intimate by using knowledge I already have.< Well, there's a trick I learned in public speaking that I think holds for any form of communications–speak to one person, NOT to a crowd. That even works w/a broader audience and if you're only there through your work–if you angle it towards the ideal "one person" you're communicating with, and if the idea is clearly presented, *everyone* will feel you're speaking just to him or her. Best, Tim