Treatment 2

• Story – The focus of my FMP is around sound. This documentary will be looking at the changes seen and progress made in the production of sound and music in the music and film industries. It will be looking at how the creation and production of sound is moving away from the classical and orchestrated approach and more into the easily accessible computer based technologically composed music. The documentary will be studying this change from the perspective of several different people and hearing their viewpoints on the creation of sound and music and whether the ever growing computer based production of music will eventually kill off the orchestral and classical methods of composing music. Their will be several interviews. I will be studying people who work with sound, hearing their thoughts on certain issues and gaining and insight into how computer based music or ‘film score’ is composed. They may also compose music from scratch and discuss their methods and thoughts behind composing.

• Why I chose this topic – The reason why I chose to base my documentary all around sound was because for an FMP you should be working on something that you have a keen interest in, otherwise you may lose interest in your project and start to feel like it is dragging on. So I had to think hard about what exactly it is that I could base my documentary around. But in the end I decided that sound was the most realistic and best option because I don’t really have many passionate interests that aren’t towards things things like certain films, shows, games, etc. For me sound is something that I have extreme fun working on, listening to, and analysing. It is present everywhere, you cannot escape it in whatever it is that you are doing. Making a documentary around it would offer me a fun experience and also the chance to learn in depth knowledge about it that I would perhaps otherwise struggle to understand. In the end, I think that I was always going to base the documentary on sound, because I have too bigger interest in the subject area, but also going back to a conversation I had with Matthew from last year’s course, he said that ‘you should make the documentary on something you really love’ and I had definitely established that it was sound that I was going to work on, but from another point of view I knew that I didn’t want to work on something that I didn’t love. I don’t really like operating camera’s and working in teams to do so. This documentary gives me the chance to work on something independently but also if I made the documentary about sound then it would be more useful to me because If I made the documentary about most other subjects then I would be gaining experience in the filming/DP sector. Whereas I don’t really want to gain so much knowledge from something that I don’t have an interest in. And so by making the documentary about sound it means that the documentary is more relevant to me, because I am working on something that is aligned with my interests and goals. I think that by looking at the production of sound and music and how it is changing, the project seems more defined and I have a better understanding of what this FMP is, what I want it to be, the overlaying themes as well as it being more practical from a filming perspective.

• key themes – The key themes in this FMP are change and time. How the production of sound and music has changed and how it is going to keep changing. Viewpoints will definitely be established and people will place themselves on the spectrum of wether or not computer based sound and music production should keep growing or whether classical and orchestrated sound and music production should always be the best way to create music. Another key theme that hasn’t already been mentioned is a ‘behind the scenes’ kind of feel. Everyone know their favourite songs, but do they know what went on in the production process. This documentary will be giving people an insight into how these composer and musicians create music from scratch.

• Style – The documentary will borrow styles from several different documentary genre’s. It will borrow features from the expository genre. This is because the documentary will be posing an overall question and in doing so create an argument. Several subjects will be voicing their assertions and viewpoints on the question. The documentary will also borrow features from the participatory genre. This is because their will be a series of interviews. And although I won’t be on screen for them, the questions are quite subjective because I want to find out about the subject’s background, etc as well as hearing their opinion on whether or not sound is overlooked. However the questions will not be leading. I am not trying to force a specific answer out of the subjects. Lastly the poetic genre will also influence this documentary as I mentioned earlier it will be subjective to an extent. The spoken words will merge well with the music and imagery.

• Target audience – I think that the demographic that this documentary is most catered towards is young people who have a keen interest in music and/or the Film/TV/Game industries. This is because this video is almost a behind the scenes look at how music is produced, exploring the reasons why people have a desire to work with sound and the future of these industries. I won’t really have many people watching it from the typical cinematography perspective as I have already spoken about how that isn’t what my aim is. However some people may find it interesting to see how a documentary about sound is filmed. I think that it will also have a lot of appeal to filmmakers in general because the rest of the documentaries on show will be more about an individual or events. I think people will be interested in it because it is the study of something that is common in everyone’s everyday lives and something that is probably understated in them as well. Overall I think that the documentary will have wide appeal, but a lot of the viewers will be filmmakers themselves. The hard part is figuring out how the documentary starts, because that is crucial to letting the viewers know what they are watching and giving them something interesting right from the off. So if I can nail down the introductory section then I will be more likely to get more viewers and keep interests high.

• Sound design – In terms of sound design, I may feature one section of the video without any video clips or or imagery. This could potentially be the video’s introduction. This will be a really good chance to make my point and draw viewers in. Music will be key and will be important if I study someone who works with sound. This is because music will be really important in helping to make that section of the documentary feel ‘right’, this may be making it feel upbeat, emotional, or relevant. The music needs to combine with the imagery and dialogue. In terms of music, it will most likely be instrumental music and will probably have a synth kind of feel to it. Their won’t really be too much that I will be wanting to add additional sound effects for. If the person who works with sounds is pressing buttons and such then I will try and record the sound as close to whatever it is that they are doing without interfering. So instead of adding sound effects for what they were doing in the first place, I will just keep the original sound. I may be able to use a track from one of the composer and use it as a soundscape to get the viewers thinking. This could work towards the beginning or end of the video.

• Distribution – I will definitely distribute the video on vimeo, but their may be other ways to distribute it as well, considering vimeo is all about short films, but mainly from a ‘film’ approach or at least in my opinion anyway. So if I could distribute it somewhere that is more sound based then that would be ideal.

• Inspiration (detailed reference to two similar documentary films that you have researched and discuss them critically) – I think the first two video’s showcase what it is that I was going for originally as they are good examples of what it is like to follow a sound designer. The two final video’s are definitely along the lines of what it is that I am going for, however not individually. The Martin Garrix video is a good example of the behind the scenes kind of feel of my film, looking at the production process of a pre-existing track. However the Martin Garrix video is only relevant to that specific section of the video because the cinematography is not going to be still for the whole video. The Zack Hemsey video is another good example of someone discussing their pre-existing worka nd breaking it down to explain the song in parts. It is also a good example of someone who works with sound discussing their background with sound and their personal preferences of sound and music. Both the Martin Garrix and Zack Hemsey video’s are good example of people who work with computer based sound/music production as opposed to original recordings or classical composing.
• https://vimeo.com/81750995
• https://vimeo.com/78213028
• http://soundworkscollection.com/videos/zackhemsey
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfCmoEixxro

Interview Questions

• A brief description of who you are and what it is that you do!
• What kind of background do you have with sound/music? Did you study it or was it self taught?
• What kind of music did you listen to growing up?
• When was it that you realised that you wanted to work with sound? And did any music inspire you to work with sound? If not what inspired you?
• How and when did you start off working with sound using computer programs/composing with various instruments?
• What kind of responses do you get when you tell people that you work with sound?
• What kind of music do you listen to now? Do you aspire to be like certain musicians/artists?
• Do you think that sound has to be created differently for different generations of audiences? And what do you think of the audience’s relationship with sound?
• What do you think of sound’s relationship with imagery? Does sound get overlooked or does it work hand in hand with the imagery?
• What do you think computer based music programs bring to the music and film industries?
• Why do you think that classical composing often works hand in hand with films
• How do you feel about the advances of computer based sound/music production?
• Do you think that the wide accessibility of modern sound/music editing programmes can be a bad thing for the media industries?
• Do you think that the classical way of composing for films will slowly and eventually die out?
• Finally, What is the best thing about working with sound? and what does sound mean to you?

 

Kit List

Lee

• 1 FS700
• 1 Tripod
• I Microphone
• 1 Microphone Stand
• Multiple camera batteries
• SD Cards

Ric

• 1 FS700
• 1 Tripod
• 1 Microphone
• 1 Microphone Stand
• Multiple camera batteries
• SD Cards

Jordan

• 1 FS700
• 1 Tripod
• 1 Microphone
• 1 Microphone Stand
• Multiple camera batteries
• SD Cards

Mood Board

Sound Studio 3

‘Samsara’

http://www.cincyworldcinema.org/photos/samsara/SAMSARA%20LOCATIONS.pdf

It can be difficult sitting through a film/documentary that doesn’t actually have a narrative or story, and that is definitely the case with Samsara. Spread over 25 countries, over the course of almost 5 years, Samsara looks at different cultures and sites of nature without intervening with them. This leaves you with a film that is entirely made up of imagery and music. Their are no characters, no dialogue and no voiceovers. So I found myself struggling to watch a documentary that is almost 2 hours in length due to it’s incredibly simplistic style.

However, although I  found myself struggling to watch, I  actually enjoyed watching Samsara. This is because the lack of narrative meant that I was able to think about the film and everything on screen as I watched. I really pondered the basics of the film and ended up with some interesting thoughts about Samsara.

It really is a thought provoking film. In many different contexts as well, the characters, the locations, the contexts, the future, the cinematography, the music, etc. I think that their are many ‘stand out’ scenes. And their is just so much to think about given the fact that the film changes location frequently.

The very reason why I found myself thinking all throughout the film was because their isn’t a proper narrative to it. Their isn’t any dialogue either. Each scene is open the each viewers individual interpretation. And each scene has a good amount of time spent with it before moving onto the next one. I did at times feel slightly ‘bored’ when watching some scenes. Though these were the scenes where it didn’t really interact with people or cultures, but instead observed landscapes. Landscapes are a massive part of culture, but when observing culture, you can see how it changes and how it interacts, whereas landscapes take many years to change without outside interference. It is a lot more interesting to watch individuals and groups interact and react to others.

Their are many different countries that feature in Samsara, however only a select few people ‘represent’ that country. They aren’t really representing their countries, but at the same time, they are being used to showcase the culture and life of those countries. This I can understand, however it is strange and unfair that one country had a lot of it’s time spent on one individual, which is unfair enough already. It’s what the very content of the scene includes that makes it questionable. It starts off relatively normal, until the man in the office starts to cover himself in various different things, which is funny at first, but it soon becomes one of the most memorable moments of the entire film, though perhaps not for the right reason’s as I would imagine that it is also the scene that most viewers would try and forget as it starts to become creepy and uneasy to watch. I can only think of maybe one or two other scenes that are not as ‘normal’ as the rest. One of which is the scene where all of the food is being produced, which obviously comes from the animals that we saw just before. The other is the strip club scene, where lots of girls are dancing bearing few clothes. But nothing of the same scale compared to the office scene.

The music usually fit really well with the scenes and the content, however it was strange hearing it in the scenes that were more focused on environments, buildings and landscapes. Because those are the scenes where you are left to adore what the camera is giving you. And so you can remember the sound more strongly seeing as their isn’t as much to remember on screen. In those scenes the music seemed overdone. It was being used to make the environments seem very ancient and almost religious. But for a modern audience that doesn’t quite work, or at least in my perspective anyway.

As I was saying, the sections which looked at more modern cultures tended to be a lot more exciting than those that looked at landscapes. Their was a lot more to them, because it is the whole lifestyle image. You can state your opinion on it.

Was Samsara what I expected? 

• Interaction – I am not surprised really. I didn’t think that it would have had much interaction with it’s subjects. I did think that it would have been an observatory type film.
• Context – I didn’t think that it would look much at past events. If it did then it would be observing how the present has been affected by them.
• ‘Plain’ – I did think that it would have observed lots of places, however I thought that it would have had more of a look at modern culture, the ‘stereotypical’ groups it has created, and technology.
• ‘Locations’ – I thought that it would have been a lot more modern, but instead it looked at a lot of cultures in Africa, Asia and the middle east. I did anticipate this, but I didn’t think that it would have spent quite as long on each location as it did. I didn’t think that as many countries would have been visited as were visited. I thought that it would have had a longer look at places like Japan for instance.
• Issues – I thought that it might have looked at people who have been affected by certain issues, which it did though. It looked at people in poverty, people in jail and ex militants for instance.

Is Samsara a documentary?

Samsara doesn’t really feel like a proper documentary. But at the same time it doesn’t seem like a film either. I think that it does feel more like a documentary between the two, but it is extremely stripped back. It seems like a lot of work was planned out beforehand, but whilst on set it was literally ‘you know what shots we want, go and record’ and that was it. No interaction or anything. So it is very observational.

So is it an observational documentary?

Samsara definitely fits the bill of an observational documentary, but it isn’t just that however. It also includes features of an expository documentary. This is because the film seeks to expose certain places, groups and people that we don’t really know much about. It seems to expose them in positive light though. When I hear the word observational I immediately think negative. But the places, groups and people on screen seem to mesmerise you. As well as observational and expository, Samsara also seems to be poetic as well. While their are no words, the imagery and sound puts everything into perspective. Despite not having any written words (poetry) it still does seem partially subjective. I think that however is linked to the expository features. I think that the filmmakers want the audience to feel the same way about all the places they visited. They want them to feel mesmerised.

Clips

 

Documentary Genre’s (Video)

 

‘5 Broken Camera’s’

https://kendalfilmproduction.wordpress.com/2015/03/19/5-broken-cameras/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/20436092

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/11/16/world/meast/hamas-explainer/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_ip_timeline/html/

http://www.infoplease.com/world/countries/israel-palestine-conflict/history-since-2011.html

The history of the conflict between Israel and Palastine dates back to then end of the second world war. The Jews who had been blamed as responsible for the loss of the first world war by Germany, suffered heavily at the hands of the Germans both before and after the start of the second world war. Following Germany’s loss, the Jews wanted their own country. They then received a large area of Palestine, despite many Arabs living their already.

Then in 1948, only several years after the end of the second world war, another war broke out, this time between Israel and many of it’s neighboring countries. After the end of this war, Gaza was controlled by Egypt, and Jordan was in control of the West Bank. This lead to many Palestinians fleeing to Israel.

In 1967, following the events of yet another war between the neighboring counties, Israel occupied all the nearby Palestinian areas.

In 2005, the Israeli’s left Gaza. But this would not last for long as a group known as Hamas, who are led by many radical Palestinians, won local elections and took control of Gaza. This means that Israel has been holding Gaza under a blockade and taking control of who enters and leaves the area. Israel holds down Gaza using a military presence. Something that the Palestinians don’t really have.

Since 2011 the ongoing fighting has continued between Israel and Palestine including many bombings, attacks. But in September of 2011, the Palestinian authority wanted recognition of Palestinian statehood. This was unsuccessful, however Palestine was membership of Unesco. Palestine later became a non member observer state in the U.S. Afterwards Israel was approved of building houses in the E1 area. Most of the resulting events since 5 broken cameras have been news of attacks and deaths by many on both sides, both civilians and political members.

Critical analysis

I think that the documentary had many overarching themes, but it’s most important themes were peace, family and persistence. The story was being told by someone who wasn’t of violence. He was a within a group of people that used various forms of peaceful protest to ‘rebel’ and fight for their cause. And so this really gave the viewers an idea of family between the many friends within the group, and it also gave the viewers a sense of peace and harmony. Since that it what everyone will be after, ‘peace’, however it doesn’t look like it will be coming to that any time soon. It felt like the cause was relatable because of everyone who was supporting it. They were peaceful, friendly people who just wanted to have to land back, as would anyone else who was in the same situation. But his actual family were on screen a lot of the time as well and they unlike the filmmaker himself provided a strong narrative, as we didn’t see him much (as he was filming). The film was split between the time spent with his real family and those who he considers as family. Though each family offered something different to the video as a whole. His real family seemed more ‘vulnerable’ seeing as many of them were children. Because of the vulnerability and how fragile a child’s life can be, it felt like that was the more important of the two. Persistence was also a strong theme since a lot of the film was basically just repeats of events that had taken place before. It was basically a seesaw. One side makes a move, another side protests, another side makes a move, another side protests, and on and on.

Obviously it was an emotional film, but I don’t think that you could make a film about war and for it not to be emotional. At the same time, I don’t think that the filmmaker himself made this film to say, look at them, they are really bad. I think that his intentions were to make a film that would benefit both sides in terms of a peace treaty of some sort. You can see that he used the film to get more people rallying peaceful protests. I think he made the film in the hope that outside countries would see it, but I don’t think that he would have realised that outside countries would have seen it.

I think that the film had a massive influence on fellow palestinians, as witnessed in the film, but I think that as an inside source, the film is going to have a huge impact seeing as it isn’t a film that has been produced by an outside source and will have had the whole issue of ‘your taking sides’ kind of thing, but although as is obvious, the filmmaker himself is on one of the sides, I don’t think that he is being really uneven towards the other side in the film, seeing as he doesn’t really feature, so he is just observing his sides point of view.

I think that the format of the film was a little strange seeing as the film builds up going from camera 1 to 5, but it repeats very similar events in each of these sections. However I don’t think that it was going to change. It would have been drastic if it had changed, because in order to do so, I think that the filmmakers personally and morale choices would have taken a u-turn in the other direction.

The art of the interview

Just because an interview will only take up a fraction of the filming time that a full length feature film does, it doesn’t mean that you can relax a bit more. Their is a lot of pressure on everyone to do their jobs. Their are many different jobs that are required of people and everyone needs to be on the ball, whether that is filming, lighting, asking questions, research, editing, sound, music, etc. It is easy to understate the importance of interviews and the power they hold, thus understating the effort and amount of time that needs to go into research, planning and understanding what you want and who you want to help you capture your visual and non visual aesthetic.

Research

As we know, their are many different roles that are required to successfully record an interview. But let’s start off with one that doesn’t take place on the interview set. What might that be you ask…research, the very thing that is going to shape your whole interview process. It’s not a question of what to research for your interviews, but what not to research for your interviews. Leave no stone unturned. As a film-maker you have to know exactly what it is that you are wanting out of your suspect and how you are going to obtain it. So before you can ask yourself, ‘what questions shall I ask him/her’, you need to know what it is that you want them to talk along the lines of. If they specialise in cars then you might want them to talk about a certain car, you might want them to talk about the dangers of cars, or how they came to be a car fanatic. Because an interview is a form of film, you want the audience to be interested in what the subject has to say, you need to make it interesting by asking interesting questions to an ‘interesting’ subject. What is the point of asking someone fascinating about really boring stuff. So make sure that you know what you want out of the subject for instance, I want David Beckham to talk about the red card incident during the 1998 word cup. But also make sure that the questions that you are asking make sense to the subject so that he/she is able to speak about the subject matter of your choice, and not for them to misunderstand it and speak about something else. But make sure that the subject has a chance to read over the questions either before the date of the interview, this could be done by sending them via email for example. Or this could be done on the day of the interview, if you leave yourself enough time for this beforehand. What is often good for interviews is to structure the questions. For instance if you had any potentially hard hitting questions that the subject may not be able to answer as easily or are related to something very serious, then it would probably be a good idea to leave them to the end. This means that all of the questions beforehand can build up a relationship between interviewer and interviewee and make it seem like a comfortable situation for them both. Leaving the hardest questions till the end, seeing as the subject may not want to answer if the harder questions were structured at the start of the interview.

Interviewer

Often forgotten is the fact that the subject is a human being…not (forgotten) in the literal sense, but that they posses emotions just as much as anyone else. You don’t want them to feel uncomfortable, bored, unable to answer the questions or impatient. The best way to make sure that the subject has something to take away from the interview is by choosing a friendly, on the ball professional interviewer who can build a relationship with the subject and make them feel comfortable. The interviewer needs to posses several specific skills and qualities; They need to make sure that they

• Are friendly
• Are polite
• Are welcoming
• Understand and questions and know what it is that the director wants out of the subject and the interview
• Keep a smile on
• Keep a good posture
• Nod, make sure that the subject can tell that you are interested in what they have to say
• Keep it short, don’t waffle
• Be able to break down a question if the subject doesn’t understand it
• Offer a joke here or their to make the subject feel welcome and happy
• Are a good listener
• Don’t say ‘yeh’ or ‘uh hum’ during the answering of questions
• Don’t be awkward
• Show respect
• And several other contributing factors

The interviewer can harmonise the relationship between him/herself and the subject by chatting with them before hand and getting to know each other. This is a good way to break down any tension that may later brew up between the interviewer and interviewee simply because they didn’t know each other well enough.

Let’s take a look at a few interviews that didn’t work out so well

In this interview, the interviewee repeatedly asks questions that are off track and doesn’t really take into consideration that the subject doesn’t really seem like they want to answer the questions here.

In this interview, someone didn’t have the decency to turn off their phone while in the interview, which angered the subjected.

Despite being a prank, it is a good example of a poor relationship between interviewer and subject based on choice of questions and the breakdown of questions.

In this interview, someone didn’t have the decency to turn off their phone while in the interview and angered the subjected

Equipment

On the none technical side of things, their are several other things to consider when preparing for an interview; the equipment used.

• Camera(s) – You have to know what type of camera’s you are filming on and how many camera’s you are filming on as well. The room itself is a key factor in distinguishing the amount of camera’s used. You will probably want several different types of shots of the subject from varying angles. You might want to film them predominantly from a mostly straight forward point of view, or equally you might find that recording them predominantly from the side is a better perspective. The context and the emotional feel of the interview will heavily influence the way the interview is filmed. If the subject is talking about a serious matter, then it is probably better to use close ups because it helps connect the audience with the subject and it seems more emotional. The location will also help the DP and director agree on the composition and look of the interview setup and it’s subject. You may wish to have certain things on display in the background or perhaps not. But your background will definitely affect the angle at which the camera(s) film from because it affects their composition. The camera’s will be looking to film with a strong rule of thirds setup. The composition is important in maintaining the attention of the audience and keeping their eyes fixed on the subject. With the camera you will also want to make sure that you are recording on the correct FPS and shutter speed. The director should know whether he/she wants the interview to be still or whether he/she wants it to be mobile. Not mobile in having the camera’s moved about manually, but whether he/she wants the camera’s to zoom in/out on the subject while the subject talks. When filming, it is very common to capture footage that isn’t of the subjects’s face. For instance their hands or their feet. These make for good cutaways when needed. As well as that, some directors may decide to film the interviewee as well, whereas others may not. Or in some cases, the interviewee will get filmed but they will then get cut out.
• Lighting – The lighting is very important to the interview. Again the location and time of day will have a say in how you want to set up the lights. You might be recording somewhere with lots of natural light, or equally, you might be recording somewhere quite dark and reliant on a professional lighting set-up. The lighting helps to portray the subject in a certain way. It can help alter the audiences perspective of the subject.
• Sound – Making sure that the sound id correct is crucial to a strong interview. The location will have a strong influence on the settings used on the audio equipment. The location may be able to isolate or cut off sound or equally it may be poor from an audio point of view and echo heavily, with sound travelling slowly. One way to fix a problem like this is to make sure that you are using strong equipment and record from very specific locations. Make sure you have an audio practice run before hand with the subject, so you can distinguish which are the best positions to record from, not just in terms of which position let’s me hear his/her voice best, but which position reduced background noise best and which position is the best for filming in a practical sense. Is having someone recording from that position going to make filming from that angle difficult. While on the practice run, make sure that you test the sound levels and adjust them to the levels at which the subject speaks. Make sure you ask them interesting and engaging questions so that you can hear their voice at it’s normal level. Otherwise they may answer quietly during the practice run and you will set your audio levels incorrectly because when they answer the questions in the actual interview, it will be too loud. Another way to fix this problem is to make sure that their isn’t one in the first place. Make sure that you are recording at a location that isn’t going to cause any problems.
• Music – As well as sound, music is important because it has the ability to alter the way the audience views a film and how they feel towards it. You can use music to support what the subject is saying. Music alters the vibe and feel of an interview, so if the subject is talking from the heart and is being very serious, then it wouldn’t really work to use upbeat music depending on the questions.

Post Production

Perhaps where the most power lies is in post production because who can be sure just what is going to make it’s way into the final edit. An editor is a magician with a magic wand. They have to power to erase whatever they want, over elaborate certain features, and put a twist on specific moments. What can’t they do? When editing, the editor will have a whole host things that they can do to to mould the footage to what the director is after. They can cut out parts of the interview that they want want including. In the case of a documentary, this could make it unbalanced. They could also use all of the shots which make the subject look a certain way, for instance, they cut out all of the shots where he/she is smiling and cut away to a different shot. Obviously film’s have to be a certain duration and they are never going to be the full length of the filmed interview. So a lot of the interview will have to be cut. While a lot of the cutting is simple and necessary, consisting of many cuts of ‘erms’, stutters and halts. These cuts alone are not going to reduce the length of the interview to a decent duration. Their are many different aspects to the editing process. And sound is just one of them. Sound can be used in many different ways. One of the reason’s why sounds is very important in the editing process is because you can synch up the recorded audio to the recorded footage. As well as that, the sound levels can be adjusted any way to ensure that none of the sounds are peaking too high nor are way too quite to hear them. Music can have a strong influence in film, but they are less common with interviews, unless the interviews are part of a larger project, wherein the the subject can back up what the video is trying to tell you.

Original Treatment/Research

https://archiebean14.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=1019&action=edit&message=10 – FMP Music

https://archiebean14.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=749&action=edit&message=10 – FMP Research

http://www.thestorey.co.uk/page/116/In-Tune.htm

Note: In this treatment I have stated that I will be interacting with someone who works with sound and someone who can explain the scientific reasons behind the evoking of emotions by sound as well as conducting a social experiment of my own. However I am currently contemplating wether to drop the experiment and potentially the scientist/psychologist from the film completely and have it solely focus on someone who works with sound. I have highlighted the areas where I mention the psychologist and experiment as I may change those areas.

Note: I am still working on the introductory section as this may not have imagery at all, so I have also highlighted sections where I talk about that, as that may change also.

• Story – The story of my FMP is not about an individual, but about something that is present in everyone’s lives every week, every day, every hour, every minute, every second…sound. This documentary will be looking at and studying sound from multiple perspectives. It will be studying it from the perspective of different viewpoints; someone who works with sound on a day to day basis and has a keen passion working with it, and someone who is an expert in the area of psychology and is able to explain the science behind the connection between sound and emotion. I myself will be conducting some form of psychological experiment. This is because I want to be able to test out certain theories and hypothesis on people and see the outcomes. I can then compare the outcomes of the experiment to the viewpoint that the psychologist spoke of and see if the connections they spoke about were present in my findings. So the documentary will take several different filming styles and use them in different areas of the film. For instance I will film the section about the person who works with sound in a kind of shadowing way. I will follow them around and not interact with their work so that they can work as normal. Then I will film the interview with him/her perhaps on a different day and use a traditional interview setup for that. Whereas for the section with the psychologist I will not be filming it in the same way as I did for the previous section. The section for the man/woman who works with sound will be more like this – https://vimeo.com/81750995 and this https://vimeo.com/78213028

• Why I chose this topic – The reason why I chose to base my documentary all around sound was because for an FMP you should be working on something that you have a keen interest in, otherwise you may lose interest in your project and start to feel like it is dragging on. So I had to think hard about what exactly it is that I could bass my documentary around. But in the end I decided that sound was the most realistic and best option because I don’t really have many passionate interests that aren’t towards things things like certain films, shows, games, etc. For me sound is something that I have extreme fun working on, listening to,  and analysing. It is present everywhere, you cannot escape it whatever it is that you are doing. Making a documentary around it would offer me a fun experience and also the chance to learn in depth knowledge about it that I would perhaps otherwise struggle to understand. In the end, I think that I was always going to base the documentary on sound, because I have too bigger interest in the subject area, but also going back to a conversation I had with Matthew from last year’s course, he said that ‘you should make the documentary on something you really love’ and I had definitely established that it was sound that I was going to work on, but from another point of view I knew that I didn’t want to work on something that I didn’t love. I don’t really like operating camera’s and working in teams to do so. This documentary gives me the chance to work on something independently but also if I made the documentary about sound then it would be more useful to me because If I made the documentary about most other subjects then I would be gaining experience in the filming/DP sector. Whereas I don’t really want to gain so much knowledge from something that I don’t have an interest in. And so by making the documentary about sound it means that the documentary is more relative to me, because I am working on something that is aligned with my interests and goals.

• key themes – Since their is no key argument in this documentary such as politics and one political viewpoint versus another, it is important that I establish different viewpoints on sound. The viewpoint of it from a more natural and emotional perspective that I will get from the man/woman that works with sound, and a more scientific viewpoint in that their are reasons why the connection that one has with sound and music is down to a reason and that it isn’t about the individuals themselves.

• Style – The documentary will borrow styles from several different documentary genre’s. It will borrow features from the performative genre; This is because although I said I was trying to balance viewpoints by having someone who works with sound and someone who can explain the science of it, ultimately I have the editing power and I want to make the audience really think about sound. Also it is more likely that I will spend more time with the person that works with sound as I only really need an interview with the psychologist. So the documentary may be partially subjective. This is also because I want the audience to feel a similar way to the filmmaker myself and watch it with an emotional perspective. It will also borrow features from the poetic genre; I will try to make it so that their is a strong connection between spoken word, sound and imagery when it comes to the section that is based on the person that works with sound. It will also borrow features from the expository genre; this is because I am seeking to expose something that people perhaps are not that aware of. Many people will take sound for granted. I am not saying that as a fact and cannot back it up with evidence and so I am saying it as a viewpoint. So the documentary will seek to expose something that people do not pay much attention to. It will also be expository-esque because it will be studying something with a specific viewpoint towards it and it will also be as factual as I can make it. The fact section will be what is heard from the interview with the psychologist. Interviews are another feature often seen in expository documentaries. I am currently unsure whether or not their will be more than two voiceovers used during the video; the psychologist and the person who works with sound.

• Target audience – I don’t really have a specific target audience for this documentary as sound is something that relates to everyone. I won’t really have many people watching it from the typical cinematography perspective as I have already spoken about how that isn’t what my aim is. However some people may find it interesting to see how a documentary about sound is filmed. In many poetic documentaries, the image cannot be understated in how it manages to help bring out the emotional response of the audience towards the video and it’s overarching message(s) –
  I think that it will appeal to a lot of people because they will be curious to hear what the scientific explanations for the connection between sound and emotion are. I think that it will also have a lot of appeal to filmmakers in general because the rest of the documentaries on show will be more about an individual or events. I think people will be interested in it because it is the study of something that is common in everyone’s everyday lives and something that is probably understated in them as well. Overall I think that the documentary will have a wide appeal, but a lot of the viewers will be filmmakers themselves. The hard part is figuring out how the documentary starts, because I think that people will be more interested in the psychology aspect as oppose to the person who works with sound. So if I can nail down the introductory section then I will be more likely to get more viewers, than if it didn’t clearly show that it had a psychological perspective. I may use a time-lapse for the beginning section and have a voiceover of someone talking about sound, then use lots of generic shots as well.

• Sound design – In terms of sound design, I may feature one section of the video without any video clips or or imagery. This could potentially be the video’s introduction. This will be a really good chance to make my point and draw viewers in. The section where music will have the most significance will probably be the section with the person that works with sound. This is because music will be really important in helping to make that section of the documentary feel poetic. The music needs to combine with the imagery and dialogue. In terms of music, it will most likely be instrumental music and will probably have a synth kind of feel to it. Their won’t really be too much that I will be wanting to add additional sound effects for. If the person who works with sounds is out recording then I will try and record the sound as close to whatever it is that they are doing without interfering. So instead of adding sound effects for what they were recording, I will just keep the original sound. I may have a section that is not involved with the psychology of sound or the person who works with it, but a section where you can just appreciate it and hear it interact with imagery or perhaps without imagery.

• Distribution – I haven’t yet thought about distribution

• Inspiration (detailed reference to two similar documentary films that you have researched and discuss them critically) – I think that both of these films are a good example of what it is like to follow a sound designer.
• https://vimeo.com/81750995
• https://vimeo.com/78213028

• Introductory section – I spoke earlier about the introductory section of the video and said ‘So if I can nail down the introductory section then I will be more likely to get more viewers, than if it didn’t clearly show that it had a psychological perspective. I may use a time-lapse for the beginning section and have a voiceover of someone talking about sound, then use lots of generic shots as well’ I have created a video showcasing how I want the introductory section of the video to look.  Ideally I want to be able to find a piece of music that is both thought provoking in that it gets the audience to think about sound but is not over powerful and feels out of place. Because I think that it would be great if I could get the audience to actually think about sound while watching the video – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjtrNdwi2Ao

Just how accurate are documentaries?

https://benray95.wordpress.com/2012/02/08/issues-in-documentary-film-making/

https://wordpress.com/read/post/id/58640543/2248/

https://wordpress.com/

http://www.bustle.com/articles/25427-catfish-has-secrets-but-nev-max-are-realer-than-you-think

http://veryaware.com/2010/09/catfish-real-or-fake-its-a-fake-sort-of/

The struggle of making documentaries is that you have to produce something that reflects real life events. This causes many issues because when facing something to do with real life issues you face lots of political and morale choices. And since you are a filmmaker you have the power to produce things the way you want them to be. So you can put your own twist on things, leaving out important issues and over dramatising others. So the question isn’t ‘how can you make documentaries accurate?’, but ‘how can you make them as accurate as possible?’

Their are many different factors which contribute to how accurate or bias a documentary is, and that comes from both sides of the camera; the people you talk to, the people you don’t talk to, the scenes you cut out and the scene’s you don’t. Their is an incredible amount of responsibility when producing a documentary, because your reputation as a filmmaker is at risk. So what do you have to keep in mind when producing a documentary.

•  Representation – Representation is about balancing the scales. If you are showing individuals, minorities or backgrounds on screen, then you have to do the same with other’s that you are showing. For instance if you were making a documentary that had two major perspectives such as politics, then you would have to show the perspective of both.

• Balance – Balance is about contributing equal amounts of input into each viewpoint as possible. So this means that each viewpoint should have the same amount of time spent on it as the other, but also that each viewpoint should be ‘valid’, by this I mean that it would be irrelevant to ask a footballer about farms. You need to represent each point of view with someone who is equally as relevant to the subject matter as the other. So it would be better to have two directors discussing a film, than one director and someone who works in McDonalds.

• Objectivity – Objectivity is all around how opinions are put across in arguing certain cases. To be objective is to write or discuss your chosen topic without including any bias. For example to say ‘The scum Man Utd defeated the heroic Liverpool’ would not be objective because it is made on viewpoints and opinion. In order for it to be objective, it would need to say ‘Man Utd defeated Liverpool’.

• Subjectivity – Subjectivity is the opposite of objectivity and is when opinions are heard more than facts. You will mostly get one point of view as the voices will likely reflect what the filmmaker thinks. Everything that is seen and heard will support the same viewpoint.

• Impartiality – Impartiality is not taking sides in an argument. To say that you are impartial means that you do not favour certain views over other views. You consider both sides of the spectrum. Many on screen filmmakers are not impartial and may have subtle opinions. Even voices of god can be impartial because they may use certain terminology in their linguistics.

• Opinion – Opinion is when someone believes a certain viewpoint without necessarily using evidence to back up their argument. Opinion’s can often be found either in subtle cases or completely obvious cases. If you are producing a documentary based on opinion then you are subjective. You can listen to opinion’s but you need to have contrasting opinion’s to even it out.

• Bias – Bias is when the filmmaker(s) support a certain viewpoint on the spectrum and edit their film so that it supports or opposes a specific group of people. If you are bias then you won’t really consider the opposing viewpoint and you will disregard the opinions of those who disagree with you. In the case of a documentary, you might make individuals or companies look bad. This is because you may speak to people who support your perspective, or you highlight all of the bad things about the person(s) that you oppose and don’t mention any of the good things.