#Future of DTV?
10 messages in this thread
Paul:
><blush> Whatever it is they're talking about; it's always sex or money. I've
been in love too many times to have any money left. And the temptations I used
to labor so hard to avoid when I was young — are all avoiding *me* today. So,
I guess I'm left with the non-topical <g>.<
Awww, pore ol' man! 😉 Just remember what Bobby Slaten says, "Sure, I still
like sex–but I'd like to see what's on cable first!" <g>
>My mileage varies (undergrad degree in fine arts). The computer technoids
explain gizmonics to us as, "… the processor communicates information as a
series of ones and zeroes, and imagine this brick with a cord is a paint
brush." Right. All the while the creative is thinking, "… who cares how it
works; let's drive!" Execution is everything.<
Yeah, and as somebody who's sorta in *both* camps (a telecom major in college,
who's jumped between the creative and the technical end virtually my whole
adult life), I can understand the reason the technoheads do that–because
understanding *how* it works is how they/we (depending) understand what it's
capable of (and NOT capable of). There have been a number of occasions when
somebody who wants to do something "creative" asks for something the equipment
to hand is patently incapable of doing, and get mad when you tell them it can't
(f'instance, how to you explain to somebody w/zero technical knowledge that a
fader *can't* dissolve?).
>For example, (preaching to the choir) shots are jump cut into scenes,
'transitions' (dissolves, fades, etc) are employed to convey the passage of
time, characters, or venue between scenes. But the modern MTV producer places
a transition between every shot! <
A *very* good point! Again, it's like "slo-mo" in the Seventies, or all the new
camcorder owners who zoom in and out and in and out until you get seasick! (Or
think you're watching a kung-fu picture…<g>) I *hope* it's not a trend for
the future, but simply that all these folks have a great new toy and are going
to overuse it until they learn better…
>the falling-sheep wipe is meaningless today. Or did the visual arts just
fantasize transitions as meaningful to the viewer?<
They are–but only if used *meaningfully*. Transitions are the video version of
punctuation (which means, I assume, that we need a video STRUNK & WHITE
<g>)–if you overuse some fancy piece of punctuation (like an exclamation point
at the end of every sentence), it loses its meaning! Really! It simply becomes
an annoying style! And boring! And meaningless! <VBG>
I wonder how many of these new "video artistes" ever learned the Rule of
KISS–"Keep it simple, stupid".
>DTV is destined to push video into the realm of personal correspondence.
Reaching in here, the old rules are doo-doo! "Viewer, I know thy name";
something no one in the big post production houses has ever encountered.
Audience of one.<
Well, like w/much "personal correspondence", you've got the problem of
communication–how do you get YOUR point across to folks who ain't inside your
head? I remember seeing this video at a member screening for the video
consortium I'm a member of–30 minutes of solarized shots w/a woman chanting "I
am not writing this text" over and over… My artist friend, Thomas, who was
w/me at this screening (we were showing a video we'd collaborated on),
commented that this artist's "personal iconography was too obscure for audience
understanding" (which was, I suppose, more to the point than my saying "That
sucked!" and laughing like Butt-Head <g>).
Is there a point to this story? Sure–if *we* in the audience don't understand
what the creator of a piece of video is trying to say (or can't at least make
an educated guess), the point the creator was trying to make is lost. All the
audience feels is stupid and resentful –NOT a good impression to leave if
you've got something to say, IMHO. (What *I* took away from that video was that
the artist was saying she wasn't going to take responsibility for her own
work–which is not, I suspect, what she meant me to think…)
Just a few thoughts,
Tim
<<"Sure, I still like sex–but I'd like to see what's on cable first!" <g>>>
Well, that's the advantage of having a fertile period that expires at 9:30pm —
you always get to watch Unsolved Mysteries. <LOL>
<<somebody who wants to do something "creative" asks for something the
equipment to hand is patently incapable of doing>>
Many times, tho, it's just those instances that push the technology forward.
It seems that an important factor in creating momentum is when the technoid
finally asks, "why would anyone want to do that?" This is when technology
really accellerates into innovation. Ultimatte comes to mind. "Why would
anyone want to make a color transparent on film after going to all the trouble
of shooting it?" This, in itself, isn't useful. Until you understand the
optical printer. <With license> the sum of what the 'creative' may do, is
greater than the technology of any of the parts.
<<the new camcorder owners who zoom in and out and in and out>>
And many of the 'old' camcorder owners! <laugh> If there was one improvement I
could universally make to every camcorder it would be 'the zoom operates only
when the camera is in Standby'. POOF! The quality of home video just took a
giant leap. Everyone makes this mistake tho. Personally, I've never had
enough talent to effectively use a zoom while the tape is rolling. Probably
never will. Too easy to accidently violate framing and line of sight rules.
And being an Oprah-style control Nazi, this makes me nervous <laugh>. Trust
me, you don't want me to shoot your kid's birthday party. I'd have
storyboards.
But the camera ops on Entertainment Tonight make spontaneous and novel use of
zoom. And *tilted* moving-camera shots! I suppose after you've lugged a
camera on your shoulder every day for a decade, you don't live by the rules;
you make them.
<<get YOUR point across to folks who ain't inside your head?>>
DTV has given us the opportunity to push this information envelope beyond
tradition, tho. I can't tell you how many times I've watched the news and seen
a talking head reading inset text verbatim! Ick. Here we have 3 channels of
communication all conveying identical information. And this is where I think
CNN and MTV are onto something. CNN will run audio which is different from the
video which is different from the keyed text. MTV frequently experiments with
audio that is unrelated to the video. Unusual, but perhaps forward-thinking.
<<the point the creator was trying to make is lost>>
Saw the film 'Exotica' this past weekend. My friend made an interesting
observation. She said, "…did you get the feeling that much of this movies'
plot was left on the cutting-room floor? So many sub-plots were developed to
dead-ends." But in film; that's not fatal because films seldom have just 'a'
point. Video, oddly, must. A subtle difference between the two media. Films
don't really just convey something like "Love conquers your deepest fears, or
The Price of Greed can be your Life." But your average TV program does. In
video, you can't just tell a story, you *must* make a point. An essence of
Star Trek that doesn't quite translate to feature film.
<<All the audience feels is stupid and resentful>>
Yeah, tho I like it when a videographer at least *tries* to manipulate me —
even if the device doesn't work. Better to have tried and failed. Half-way
through The Shining; when Nicholson stops swinging the axe at his wife and
starts swinging it at *you*. It's personal! You've been manipulated in a way
only the visual artist can do. Of course, we can't all be Kubricks. But after
you've sat through a couple of my yawners you'd think 30 minutes of a writhing
solarized woman looks rather fresh.
Paul
Paul:
>Well, that's the advantage of having a fertile period that expires at 9:30pm
— you always get to watch Unsolved Mysteries. <LOL><
ROFL! Unfortunately, my wife is *frowning* at me big-time…oops… 😉
>Many times, tho, it's just those instances that push the technology forward.
It seems that an important factor in creating momentum is when the technoid
finally asks, "why would anyone want to do that?" This is when technology
really accellerates into innovation. <
And I wouldn't argue that point–Lord knows, Thomas' ideas have gotten me
thinking time and again…
>If there was one improvement I could universally make to every camcorder it
would be 'the zoom operates only when the camera is in Standby'. POOF! The
quality of home video just took a giant leap. Everyone makes this mistake
tho.<
It's a thought, I'll grant you…<g> As for everybody making that mistake at
first–sure they do, that's how you learn NOT to…
>CNN will run audio which is different from the video which is different from
the keyed text. MTV frequently experiments with audio that is unrelated to the
video. Unusual, but perhaps forward-thinking.<
Yet it has to have *some* relation to the video–even as counterpoint– or the
point doesn't get across. I feel that's *very* important… Of course, that may
just be my narrative compulsion… (An art filmmaker friend of mine once
referred to me as a "Spielbergian narrative overdeterminist"…)
>She said, "…did you get the feeling that much of this movies' plot was left
on the cutting-room floor? So many sub-plots were developed to dead-ends."
But in film; that's not fatal because films seldom have just 'a' point.<
Depends on the type of film–or video. I'm not saying that there isn't a place
for EXOTICA as well as for, oh, JURRASIC PARK in film or video–they just have
different intentions. And different audiences…
>Films don't really just convey something like "Love conquers your deepest
fears, or The Price of Greed can be your Life." But your average TV program
does. In video, you can't just tell a story, you *must* make a point. An
essence of Star Trek that doesn't quite translate to feature film.<
I can't quite agree w/you there, Paul–I don't think either film or video are
that cut&dried. Or maybe we're just discussing different semantics–I meant
"point" not as in "moral", but "point" as in "a reason to have taken time out
of your life to have watched this". Put that way, the "point" can simply be it
entertained you…
>Yeah, tho I like it when a videographer at least *tries* to manipulate me —
even if the device doesn't work. Better to have tried and failed.<
Oh, I *don't* if the film/videomaker fails. I feel it's a sign that
person/those people aren't in control of what they're saying, or don't really
believe it themselves. But again, that's a question of taste…
>But after you've sat through a couple of my yawners you'd think 30 minutes of
a writhing solarized woman looks rather fresh.<
Again, I disagree–but that could also be because I've sat through *too many*
30 minuteses of writhing solarized women (or men) to find it fresh. Besides,
what you're doing *does* have a point (as in "a reason to watch this") to its
intended audience (I'm assuming you do special occasion videos)–the family and
friends of the party in whose honor the entertainment is being given. It's not a
point that would translate outside of its limited circle, admittedly, but there
it's not intended to… OTOH, if you did a video w/the same level of audience
appeal as a special occasion video but intended it for the world at large, it
wouldn't have the same value…
Best,
Tim
<<my wife is *frowning* at me big-time>>
Oh, I've seen my share of the 'frown' from my past relationships. That, and
love's most sobering utterance, "Ouch! You're on my hair!" <Heart sinks and
'click'> "Tonight, on Unsolved Mysteries…"
<<"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?" And perhaps I could add,
"Obviating enumerationist". I cut to the piano, "these are the white keys, and
these are the black ones." <smile>
<<the "point" can simply be it entertained you…>>
Yeah. 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. But I've noticed that
even shows like 'Funniest Videos'; which is essentially random Candid Camera
with no production costs; tries to move beyond "let's all laugh at the
misfortune and pain of others." They try to 'theme' the show. Especially in
narrative. Strange stuff.
Sitcoms have always had that 'everyone <including the viewer> comes away having
learned something' tone. And for some reason, 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 <— unresearched
opinion.
<<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.
<<video w/the same level of audience appeal as a special occasion video but
intended it for the world at large, it wouldn't have the same value…>
And 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.
Enjoy your weekend,
Paul
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
<<if you have to do that, you're not telling your story effectively>> <–
refering to: "there are times when you just have stop the film, tap on the
screen and ask, "are you getting this?">>
Oh, of course, Tim. The 'are you getting this' moniker is one I ascribed to
that icky part of so much (even professional) work these days where characters
have on-screen conversations about topics which everyone (including the viewer)
knows are obvious to people in the movie. So unnatural, and unfortunately my
video is riddled with it. But I'm far from alone.
For example, I saw 'Tank Girl' this weekend. The director went to some
considerable trouble to execute nice matte 'establishing shots'; dramatic
vistas of a world where fresh water suddenly dried up decades ago. A little
film schoolish in style, but convincing. Then comes the 'tap on the screen';
characters going on and on about how there's no water and how precious it is.
Oh, please. '… these are the white keys and these are the black ones.'
Obviating enumerationist, indeed. <g>
<<speak to one person, NOT to a crowd…if the idea is clearly presented,
*everyone* will feel you're speaking just to him or her.>>
An excellent tip. And something probably even more important when editing. We
tend to think of editing as 'cutting out the bad stuff'. The painful part is
when footage is really, really, good yet totally unnecessary. Editing is
indeed 90% tailoring and 10% 'fixing and correcting'.
<<do you insert it *deliberately* or does it just come out in *how* you do
it?>>
I realize it may be heavy-handed, but I often force it. If I don't, my video
comes off sterilized, journalistic and dispassionate. Ordinary. There is
nothing wrong with telling the facts, but when making personal video, why do
that? I learned in creative writing studies that the *only* thing I have that
you don't have is my point of view (unless I have exclusive facts; but if I
waited until I shot the Rodney King beating I'd never make video). And whether
you're Rice or Mitchener, that's what everyone who reads you is interested in.
Your point. Otherwise, viewers might as well be watching the news.
So, no. I don't assume that just because I have a point of view that it's
clear when translated to tape.
<<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>>
Me neither. I watch them for educational purposes (sounds funny, doesn't it),
but one can quickly gag when spoonfed a moral; metered out from title to
credits. Yuk.
Paul
Paul:
>For example, I saw 'Tank Girl' this weekend. The director went to some
considerable trouble to execute nice matte 'establishing shots'; dramatic
vistas of a world where fresh water suddenly dried up decades ago. A little
film schoolish in style, but convincing. Then comes the 'tap on the screen';
characters going on and on about how there's no water and how precious it is.
Oh, please. <
A certain amount of dialogue (or a title card up top) is often required to "set
up the story"… For instance, would you have known the original STAR WARS
movie's setting was the middle of a rebellion against The Imperial Empire by
the Rebel Alliance, or why Darth Vader's ship was chasing Princess Leia's in
the first shot, without that lengthy crawl that recedes into the horizon?
OTOH, if they went on and on about it (as you felt they did in TANK GIRL), then
that's just bad writing!
><<speak to one person, NOT to a crowd…if the idea is clearly presented,
*everyone* will feel you're speaking just to him or her.>>
>An excellent tip. And something probably even more important when editing.
We tend to think of editing as 'cutting out the bad stuff'. The painful part
is when footage is really, really, good yet totally unnecessary. Editing is
indeed 90% tailoring and 10% 'fixing and correcting'.<
<laughs> Your paragraph is practically word for word what I wrote in a column
on editing for VIDEO last year! (Well, more like a paraphrase, except for the
sentence on "cutting out the bad stuff", which is how I started the column…)
Must be the collective unconscious at work…<g>
>There is nothing wrong with telling the facts, but when making personal video,
why do that? I learned in creative writing studies that the *only* thing I
have that you don't have is my point of view (unless I have exclusive facts;
but if I waited until I shot the Rodney King beating I'd never make video).
And whether you're Rice or Mitchener, that's what everyone who reads you is
interested in. Your point. Otherwise, viewers might as well be watching the
news.<
Have you ever watched any of Fredrick Wiseman's documentaries? He does a *very*
good job of "making his point" simply by what he selects to show, what he
selects to juxtapose, and who he selects to talk. So, for that matter, does Ken
Burns–while his sympathies are clear (esp. if, as happened w/Tammy and I, you
were so entralled by THE CIVIL WAR that you start reading the sources he drew
from!), he does a good job of showing that none of this is one-sided…
Best,
Tim
<<would you have known the original STAR WARS movie's setting…without that
lengthy crawl that recedes into the horizon? >>
I hated that. I remember sitting there thinking "Lucas, this sucks! Is this
what they teach in film school?" THEN, from the moment that huge Imperial
cruiser thundered over my head, I was absolutely slack-jawed. Stupified and
humbled all at once for 120 minutes. <g> I wouldn't have cared if the film was
a remake of Queen of Outer Space at that point.
<<Your paragraph is practically word for word what I wrote in a column on
editing for VIDEO last year!>>
<blush> Ok, you figured it out. I've been regurgitating your own words just
so I could laugh when you disagree with yourself. I had a professor once who
said, "good writing is not invention, it's discovering what should've been
obvious to everyone from the start." Perhaps this was obvious.
<<does a good job of showing that none of this is one-sided…>>
Even if I show a certain multi-dimensionality in story devel, I'm seldom
even-handed :-). So, yes; you can't help it. It sneaks in during production
mostly. The way a subject is shot kinda reflects my prejudice. I guess that
distinguishes professionals; they let the viewer become convinced without the
program arriving at those conclusions for him. But I don't have the
professional burden <g>.
In a similar vein, perhaps you can 'splain somethin' from your
experience. I've only seen about 10 wedding videos. Weddings are
rituals. In our culture, we resolve our feelings through ritualistic
behavior. Birth, love, death. Our customary rituals deal with all
these issues.
Whenever I see rituals; I see a story about people's feelings. And
like all such stories, you first set the circumstances; then unusual
or interesting things happen to the characters which involve stuff
like fear, joy, laughter, sorrow, love etc; and here's how it all
turns out (give yourself extra gold stars if the outcome is
surprising or self-revealing).
But *every* wedding video I've seen portrays the ritual as
documentary. A few hours at the zoo. Here's the bear, the monkey,
the lion, the elephant. They eat, drink, flock together, frolic on
their stomachs like reptiles, and then sleep. Interchangable clips
of couples at an alter. Legal depositions. He said, she said. Why?
How un-human. Is this what newlyweds want to buy? Or is this all
that is offered in 'the package'? Does anyone ever watch these vids?
And if so, does the viewer just want to remember a 'fact' like fat
aunt Ruth wore a pink dress? Or does he want to watch the story of
two people in love and what they did about it?
Weddings seldom happen by accident. Where are the emotional, close-up,
moodily lit, personal exchanges? Where are the revealing 'behind the
scenes' shots in the dressing rooms, with the florist, the caterer,
the car parks? Where is the panic, apprehension, self-doubt, joy,
courage, honor, tears? You can be sure MTV would show all of this,
and only a few seconds of the stuff everyone already knows about; the
rituals. They would never give the impression that two people were
driving around in in fancy clothes; noticed a church full of people;
walked up to the alter and started repeating everything the priest
said. But it would make a fun parody.
Paul:
>>would you have known the original STAR WARS movie's setting…without that
lengthy crawl that recedes into the horizon? <<
>I hated that. I remember sitting there thinking "Lucas, this sucks!
Is this what they teach in film school?" THEN, from the moment that
huge Imperial cruiser thundered over my head, I was absolutely
slack-jawed. Stupified and humbled all at once for 120 minutes. <g>
I wouldn't have cared if the film was a remake of Queen of Outer
Space at that point.<
Oh, I actually liked it–but I think it was as much because I
recognized it as a "quote" from Saturday matinee serials as anything
else… (Not that I'm *quite* that old <g>–I grew up on an Army base
in Germany, where they continued the "kiddie matinee" well into the
Seventies…including showing an episode of old Republic serials
every week…)
>>Your paragraph is practically word for word what I wrote in a column
on editing for VIDEO last year!>>
><blush> Ok, you figured it out. I've been regurgitating your own words just
so I could laugh when you disagree with yourself. I had a professor once who
said, "good writing is not invention, it's discovering what should've been
obvious to everyone from the start." Perhaps this was obvious.<
<laughs> Don't worry, I'm not going to sue you for plagarism. I happen to agree
w/your professor on this one…
>Even if I show a certain multi-dimensionality in story devel, I'm seldom
even-handed :-). So, yes; you can't help it. It sneaks in during production
mostly. The way a subject is shot kinda reflects my prejudice.<
It does w/everybody, Paul–Hunter Thompson (stop me if I've said this
before) once mocked "objective journalism" by saying that the only
*true* objective journalism he'd ever seen was a 7-11 security
camera! The best you can do is make certain that you're not totally
one-sided–at least acknowledge there may be another valid side to
the story (unless, of course, you're doing advocacy media, in which
case you may not *want* to…).
F'instance, I'd be the *worst* person to do a piece on the
Republicans' "Contract on–" er, "With 😉 America", since my
antipathy for this batch of Republicans and all their works is SOOO
strong I'd end up presenting them as a bunch of bullies, crooks,
fixers and thieves, and what they're trying to do as the destruction
of America! Okay, that's what *I* think they are–but the only
audience I'd have for it would be people who agreed w/my viewpoint
(what a friend of mine refers to as "preaching to the choir"). I
wouldn't be able to persuade, say, my own family (who are staunch
Republicans <oy!>) of the rightness of my view–which would be the
only reason I'd *do* a piece like that…
>In a similar vein, perhaps you can 'splain somethin' from your experience.
I've only seen about 10 wedding videos. <SNIP>
Whenever I see rituals; I see a story about people's feelings. <SNIP> But
*every* wedding video I've seen portrays the ritual as documentary. <SNIP>
Why? How un-human. Is this what newlyweds want to buy? Or is this all that
is offered in 'the package'? Does anyone ever watch these vids? And if so,
does the viewer just want to remember a 'fact' like fat aunt Ruth wore a pink
dress? Or does he want to watch the story of two people in love and what they
did about it?
>Weddings seldom happen by accident. Where are the emotional, close-up, moodily
lit, personal exchanges? Where are the revealing 'behind the scenes' shots in
the dressing rooms, with the florist, the caterer, the car parks? Where is the
panic, apprehension, self-doubt, joy, courage, honor, tears? You can be sure
MTV would show all of this, and only a few seconds of the stuff everyone
already knows about; the rituals.<
I *guess* the reason wedding/special occasion videos are usually done in a
documentary fashion is a combination of economics and pleasing the customer. It
would be *far* too expensive (and intrusive) for a camera crew to follow the
parties through the steps to the altar (which is *where* you'll get those
revealing moments)–and a lot of times, the people involved don't *want* those
moments preserved! Private/revealing moments (the moments that make a "good
story") are often personally embarrassing to the parties involved–and after
all, those are the folks paying your bills… An "objective" documentary, OTOH,
is safe, both for the folks viewing and for the videographer.
Apparently, people *do* want special occasion videos that are the video
equivalent of "happy snaps". Seeing a safely neutral portrayal of the ritual
helps trigger their deeper memories of the event, and works as a historical
document of an important occasion (and don't forget, "history is lies agreed
upon" <g>).
Best,
Tim
<<I grew up on an Army base in Germany, where they continued the "kiddie
matinee" well into the Seventies…including showing an episode of old Republic
serials every week…)>>
Cut your teeth on the classics, did you? We didn't have TV on the
farm 'till I was in my teens. But I grew up with illiterate family.
So, you get to read anything you like — and everyone's so proud of
you for it <laugh>. It was really tough for a pubescent boy with an
Esquire subscription to rationalize TV programming.
I remember noting Gilligan's Island and the seductive Tina Louise.
Who packed for a 3 hour cruise and took enough outfits for 3 years of
shows. 15, if you count syndication! And in the context of today's
supermodel Ru Paul, Tina was way ahead of her time.
And the story of a powerful yet dominated woman whose self-absorbed
husband, Darren Stevens, insisted she give up her ancient heritage,
her family, and all her friends to live in *his* house. In spite of
this, she met him at the door with a scotch every evening. Where was
she when I was getting married? This woman could find a tray of
martinis in the crisper.
My parents sat in their vinyl recliners and the 3 of us watched nite
after nite. In those days, couples on TV never, ever had sex. Well,
except for Morticia and Gomez Addams who had the kind of coal-fired,
steam-powered relationship I felt I desperately needed. They were
crazy, creepy, spooky, kooky, and 'ooky'. Ooky?!? I knew they meant
'kinky', but nobody had the guts to say that <g> (Sigh)
<<It would be *far* too expensive (and intrusive) for a camera crew to
follow the parties through the steps to the altar (which is *where*
you'll get those revealing moments>>
Well, we presume the expensive and intrusive parts. I'm under the
impression that the option is never presented. I met a woman
(delayed flight) in a bar in DFW airport (ok, I look harmless). She
was marrying a rancher in South Dakota last xmas. It was a small
wedding; just 50 people. They were taking their wedding party and
guests to Jamaica for a week. She wanted to take a two member
videography crew, but couldn't find anyone in the Yellowpages who
could muster a convincing presentation. This was a
once-in-a-lifetime thing. She demanded an up-front confidence that
the crew could bring it off. Creative agencies have such resources;
but they don't deal with consumers.
For many people, this is a very important event, and money isn't an
issue. Much of the 'intrusiveness' (my opinion) is simply a lack of
organization and prep. Neither the camera op or the talent (client)
has any idea what is about to happen next or what the video is trying
to accomplish; so everyone is in each other's way.
<<the moments that make a "good story") are often personally
embarrassing to the parties involved–and after all, those are the
folks paying your bills…>>
But these are private videos. The client is both the subject and the
audience.
<<Seeing a safely neutral portrayal of the ritual helps trigger their
deeper memories of the event>>
Have you ever been to an event; and then later saw it on TV? It can
shock you just how much you missed.
I don't think the value of 'the camera can be places you won't be' is
even presented to the client. If somebody asked me to recommend
someone to 'produce' (as opposed to videograph) an upscale wedding
video; I wouldn't know what to say other than, "I have no idea."