[IMC-Video] making good videos

[Mara]

Steev Hise wrote:
> On May 8, 2008, at 8:38 PM, hamish wrote:
> 
>> Bens assumption that
>> we already know how to make videos - we don't, most activist videos  
>> only
>> make sense to the people who were on the action thus has very limited
>> use as outreach beyond this small activist ghetto.

this is very true. I have been pretty frustrated about this for a while. 
but something a friend mentioned made me think: she said those snippets 
of actions, that make no sense to "normal" people, help us as a movement 
to create a shared identity and so strengthens solidarity. this is a 
point we should not forget. also there is an obvious trade off between 
getting the news out as fast a possible and making good quality films. 
so i wouldn't want to condemn these sort of films, but at the same time, 
there certainly is a lack of well made videos that succeed in bringing a 
point across without being boring or lecturing in a way.

> 
> I'm so glad that someone has said this out loud, because it's  
> something I think about a lot.  Evaluating and providing feedback on  
> the work produced by videoactivists is really important if we truly  
> care about actually reaching beyond that ghetto.

agreed. we should have a debate and reflection about our practice. and 
not be scared of being critical of films either, without attacking the 
people who made them.
> 
> There's definitely a lot of room for improvement.  Beyond Hamish's  
> general critique above, I have the following short list of some  
> common problems:
> 
> * the videos often don't explain (enough of) the background  
> situation, or why anyone should care.
> * often they're too long.
> * they mostly feature talking heads - interviews, people giving  
> speeches at rallies, etc, with hardly any b-roll to illustrate
> and in these times of access to so much information and archival  
> material online, it is usually really easy to find stuff to use as b- 
> roll.  (or just shoot it at the time. and then use it when you're  
> editing!)
> * the editing style is often really basic and uninteresting.  long,  
> long takes of one person talking, no cutaways, no "pizazz" to give  
> people a reason to keep watching and not yawn and switch the channel  
> or click away to somewhere else, very little creative "oomph."

some of the points above are linked to the "activist rule" not to use 
voice over, and the lack of alternative methods of bringing across 
information (in a pleasant, attractive and not boring way). i do 
understand the aversion against having the god like voice from the off 
tell everyone how it is, but we need to find strategies around it. also 
i get the impression, people do not want to separate the video and audio 
tracks, as if worried about loosing authenticity. this might be a bit of 
direct cinema ideology here. the intetnion to document, rather than to 
make an opinionated piece (you might call it propaganda) maybe has 
something to do with the general drabness of most of our filmmaking.

i would add to the points above:
* the videography is often extremely shaky, also there is a lack of both 
wide shots the give orientation and close ups of interesting things.


> I know that a lot of the problem is that editing is very time- 
> intensive, and difficult, and videoactivsts are often volunteers and  
> often don't have time to spend laboring over something.  Just getting  
> out on the street and shooting something is for many already a  
> sacrifice.  But people have to start considering that presentation is  
> extremely important.  Simply displaying "the truth" in raw form is,  
> sadly, not enough.  In our snazzy media-saturated age, truth has to  
> get dressed up and polished, or it won't go far.

this is very close to what i was trying to say above, but the idea of 
the truth dressing up kinda makes my skin crawl ;)

generally i would say, we doing ok on the documenting side of things, 
but we totally lack the propaganda side. i think both side's are 
important, and wouldn't want to loose that direct cinema style stuff, 
but it is no pleasant to watch.

the snazzy edited and interesting pieces do not necessarily have to be 
about this or that action, i think the two approaches speak to different 
people in a way. on the one hand you got the people who like to be on 
actions and put emphasis on documenting them, but their not necessarily 
people who like to sit at the computer for hours and play with effects 
or look at heaps of archive footage. but we seem to lack the sort of 
people who like doing that.

at the same time, just from personal experience, i find it a lot easier 
to get someone else's rushes and edit something nice and watchable from 
them, than dealing with my own footage, especially if it's something 
about  a singular event. the background knowledge of what is going on 
outside the frame and my emotional involvement make it harder to get a 
grip on the footage. this might be a problem even more for people who do 
not edit a lot.

end of long rant
i would love to keep this discussion going
cheers
mara


> 
> I would love if we could have a little dialogue about this and how to  
> educate and inspire videoactivists to make better work, and not just  
> talk about technology strategy. Because no amount of wonderful  
> advances in distribution and tools will make much difference if the  
> content is stuff that most people won't be inclined to look at.
> 
> best wishes,
> 
> 
> steev
> 
> 
> Steev Hise | steev at detritus.net | http://detritus.net/steev
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
> -----
> "I've been an activist for more than 25 years, and I'm sick of being  
> in a
> sub-culture.  I'm sick of activism as a lifestyle. I want to win."
>                  - Stephen Duncombe
> 
> _______________________________________________
> imc-video mailing list
> imc-video at lists.indymedia.org
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-video