Production 2: Interview

Of all three roles, I found being the interviewer to be the hardest, as well as the one I performed worst in. I knew James was an exchange student from China, so I asked him about that and took the interview in that direction; however, without much planning or thought, I ran out of questions to ask on the spot and James was noticeably uncomfortable doing nothing in front of the camera while I tried to come up with something. Because the key job of the interviewer is keeping the interviewee relaxed (so he will speak naturally and the footage will be better), I feel that I should strive to be a better interviewer next time.

I thought it was really funny how James talked about parties in America vs China; I asked a follow-up question to this but I didn't realize at the time that he didn't repeat the question and so I couldn't use the clip. Nonetheless this was the highlight of the interview, so I concluded the video with it.

In terms of editing and post-production, I feel I did pretty good for what I had to work with in the time I had. I quickly cut out my voice, quiet moments, and about half of James' answers through our four minute interview, splitting his remaining answers into separate clips in the process, to get the final video down to just over one minute. I corrected the colors slightly, added a sound filter to cut out background wind noise, reordered the clips in a more logical way, and added B-roll. All still image B-roll was taken from Google images and was animated with the Ken Burns effect to the best of my ability; I also took drone footage of BBA from YouTube and added that in over key parts. While I understand half the purpose of B-roll is to cover cuts, some of James' answers were so short that I thought it would be distracting to be constantly adding uninteresting B-roll to cover every cut. Instead, I added very short transitions between these clips; these transitions had the side benefit of crossfading (smoothing out) audio, so I proceeded to add them between all clips, even if they were covered by B-roll in the final video.

(no video - James never finished)

There was obviously the least to do as DP in this sort of production compared to the other roles, so little that the interviewer probably could have done this job themselves, but nonetheless it was something. I had the privilege of DP'ing the last interview between our group, which means that we had already verified the mic and camera were working properly. All I had to do was adjust the camera by panning up because Ethan is taller than James and the top of his hair was off frame on the original angle, press record, and shut up. Easy.

Coming into interview day, I was most nervous about being interviewed myself and didn't think I would make for an interesting video. However, my worries were relieved as I already knew my interviewer, Ethan, and so I was able to be comfortable in front of the camera and even be lighthearted in my answers. Actually, after watching this video, I surprised myself with how well I think I did in the interviewee role: I spoke clearly, repeated the questions, even looked ok. When I took the Model UN class (which is mentioned in this video) I spoke really well when I understood and was confident in my opinion on a topic, but if I wasn't sure, I couldn't pretend very well and usually didn't speak at all. This could be reflective here. Granted, there aren't many appropriate times to extoll the virtues of the cheeseburger in front of a camera beyond these practice interviews, so next time I'm being filmed I'll have to be able to say something smarter. Also, one contrast between Ethan's interview with me and my interview with James was that I gave long responses to short questions. I think this can be good and bad, good because I'm able to do it, but bad because I didn't allow my interviewer to move on to other questions: the final video was longer despite covering less, and much (most) had to be cut from the original take. I think Ethan did a good job editing the video, and I watched it a few times! I especially like that he elected to keep his clapping in the final product (mid way through).

Overall, all three interviews, especially this last one as interviewee, were a fun learning experience for me.

I felt much better about being an interviewer after the second time around than the first. Prior to the interview, I asked Abby what questions she wanted to be asked, and so she was able to think about how she was going to respond. Consequently, neither of us had to think too hard about what to do or say while we were in front of the camera; she looked comfortable and generally the entire process went well.

In editing, I didn't try anything crazy because of time concerns. The process went much the same way as the process for my first interview. I'm very thankful that this time we were allowed to use the JVC HM100 cameras and their expensive microphones, because those coupled with a 100% noise reduction filter in FCPX left the final audio with no considerable background noise whatsoever! This contributed to the feeling of quality in this interview.

For B-roll, I did mostly the same thing as last interview, using images taken from Google. The BBA pictures I used are the same ones from Interviewed 1; I liked the quality so I asked Ethan to send them. With B-roll, again, I wasn't able to cover the cuts of all the clips intelligently, so I again applied crossfade transitions between each clip, this time 0.1s instead of 0.2s. The one new thing I did was adding in concert clips (of Mac DeMarco at Boston Calling, which Abby specifically mentioned) with audio and audio volume level automation to protect against the music being distracting against Abby's voice. I don't think this approach was the most effective, and if I was doing a more serious interview for a documentary I wouldn't do this again, but for an informal interview on this level it's ok. I finished post production by applying a slight color correction, and exported.

As DP, because Nan is smaller than us, I had to reposition the camera closer and position her on the left thirds to get the best shot. Also, the color of the light had to be changed to be more yellow and less white because of her skin tone. The extra studio light, in addition to the effect of the sun on Nan's her, defines her from the background and really makes her shine on camera.

I was sick on the day we did interviews. Compare my voice in this interview with Nan to my voice in the interview with Ethan and you can hear how I speak noticeably worse in this second one. Despite that, Nan talked with me beforehand about what I wanted to be asked, so I had answers and I was at least able to say something smart and not stumble.

Michael Moore, the director and narrator of the critically acclaimed but very controversial documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11", hates George W. Bush, his government, and the corporate powers that support his government. That much is obvious.

The documentary tracks the sins of the Bush administration, all the way from the 2000 Presidential Election towards the second year of the Iraq War, 2004, when the film was finally published. As featured in the title of the film, much of the plot centers around the effects of the September 11th, 2001 terrorist attacks against the United States. It begins, despite the name, focusing only on Bush and Bush's support group (Fox News, the Supreme Court, his family, his rich corporate friends), immediately painting them all in a negative light because of the controversial Florida election win. When the terrorist attacks are introduced, Moore suggests that Bush responded with ulterior motives because he was friends with some rich Saudi Arabians, and also used the attacks to curtail American freedoms in favor of higher profits for him and his cronies. The second half of the documentary dives into the tremendous implications of the Iraq War, including the civilian death toll, the danger for American soldiers, oil money, fear politics, and the military-industrial complex.

"Fahrenheit 9/11" directly and deliberately positions itself against the narrative that the U.S. government had been pushing from 2001 to 2004 on the topics of terrorism and anti-terrorism, and sheds light on many uncomfortable truths. The documentary is packed full of information, some of which is much more or less believable than the rest (and I'm not going to be a fact checker on this one), but it is all presented logically so as to be the least overwhelming. The cinematography was excellent, and post-production elegantly incorporated news clips, speech recordings, interviews, and war clips throughout the film. I could tell because I wouldn't notice much of the work if I wasn't trying to pay attention to it. There were several interesting moments, and I wouldn't call them humor, that really captivated me: for example, an American soldier explained how he could connect his CD player to the speakers in his Abrams tank, and so he played hard rock music as he shot up civilians in Baghdad; or, Bush himself playing golf and relaxing at his ranch when he should be presidential. These scenes were the highlights of the film to me, and from what I've seen, they're unique. Three other scenes caught my attention as a student of cinematography. First, the 9/11 attacks in New York and DC were neither shown nor directly described; instead, only a compilation of peoples' shocked faces was shown, yet it was easily implied what was happening... everyone in America has seen 9/11. Also, during the opening credits, clips played of Bush and other government officials, looking at the camera, being prepared by their assistants, getting their hair combed, putting on their mic, etc.; before the closing credits, the same individuals all stood up and took off their microphones.

The role of Moore in this documentary cannot be understated: he is credited as the director and much more, and the entire film is essentially his monologue over B-roll, broken up with interviews and important clips to visually further his words. Moore involves himself in every part of his story, even appearing and acting in front of the camera at several points; I thought this detracted from the desired effect of the film, and I felt at many points that Moore was trying to confirm his bias and push his own opinion rather than providing an accurate outside perspective for the audience.

I watched "Fahrenheit 9/11" because I've never watched a Moore documentary, but I have heard of his eccentric style and figured this would be the perfect opportunity to see it for myself. Prior to watching this, I did not support the extent of the war on terror and I did not have the highest opinion on George Bush. My opinions haven't gotten any better. There was a lot of useful information in the documentary's two hours, and despite some of it sounding very conspiracist, I learned a lot and appreciated Moore's masterful use of cinema to spread his ideas. However, largely due to the theme, I didn't enjoy watching a minute of this film. If you don't like the military-industrial grip over America or George Bush already, don't waste your time and don't watch this, it'll only make you angry. But, if you trust your government and your economy, and you support military expansionism, enlighten yourself to another perspective and watch "Fahrenheit 9/11".

• B-Roll - Footage (images or video) that are placed over the main footage ("A-Roll") in a film, especially a documentary, especially an interview; create variety and can cover cuts in A-Roll
• Video Server - All iMacs at BBA Cinema have access to the video server, so if you want to send a large file to someone else over the network, send it to video server, and they can get it from there
• Rule of thirds - A guideline of film that assumes it's more visually appealing for items or people to be focused/arranged at the intersections of the two horizontal and two vertical lines that divide the screen into three equal parts
• Where are the lights and light stands? - Lights are just into the door and to the left in the computer room, light stands are in the News Room
• Where do the batteries get charged when you are finished? - Battery charging station, on the left side as you're walking through the door into the computer room
• JVC HM100 - High quality customizable video cameras, used by the NFL
• Lavalier Mic (Lav Mic) - Small, easily disguisable microphone commonly used during interviews, can go under and clip to a person's shirt to hide the cord
• Canon T3I / T5I - DSLR cameras mostly intended for taking pictures but can be used for cinema
• Director of Photography (DP) - Person in charge of setting up the camera(s) and making sure everything is working and recording properly
• Dissolve or fade - The effect of having a video clip disappear or appear over time; can fade to black, fade from black, or crossfade between clips
• Editing - Modifying the original source version of a film clip(s) to try to make a coherent, enjoyable, and complete film experience
• Editor - The one who edits
• “Fix it in Post” - The shot isn't perfect, but we can edit it to make it better, we won't reshoot
• Lower thirds - Lower third in the rule of thirds, ideal position for a title (name, position)
• Pre-production - planning, preparation, writing, storyboarding
• Post-production - editing
• Shoe / Quick Release plate - screws into the camera, snaps into the tripod, allows camera to be connected and detached from the tripod easily
• Transform - moving, changing, cropping an image on the screen, or having it move or change as it appears on the screen
• Ken Burns effect - The technique of making still images in video more interesting by panning across (and sometimes zooming in) the image; famously used by cinematographer Ken Burns, who made an hours-long documentary on the Civil War interesting by using his technique