As I’ve had a chance to sit down and watch this film, I feel that its story of a small town regaining an old source of pride is one that works, regardless of where you’re from. With that said, it currently does need work because the main film is essentially capturing a single day of footage and trying to cut it together in an interesting manner. (Sort of like a long news package for a local new show.) Other than a brief collection of photos at the beginning with a little bit of back story on the Fitzroy team, there’s no information that allows the international viewer to learn more about Aussie Rules Football or the story that’s being told.
In that regard, it’s sort of like turning on a film close to the end. The viewer who does so has missed most of the actual story that the rest of the audience is already aware of. In Australia, the Aussie Rules Football is easily known enough that most people don’t require explanation. For the international viewer, this is not the case. The easiest way to internationalize this film would be simply to have a couple of experts and heroes of Aussie Rules interviewed and telling about the creation of Aussie Rules Football, what it’s meant to Australians, what Fitzroy’s place was in all of this, and what some of the great games have been. (Additionally, an interview with a sociologist talking about the importance of local sports and regional pride could be a great way to add commentary on the spectators and the Fitzroy community.) In front of the commentary on the game’s rules and the history, footage of great games can be shown and the international viewer feels as though they grasp the game better. Then, when they’re watching the actual documentary and the winning goals are scored, they understand HOW the game has been won. They get to enjoy the payoff that the Australian audiences experience. (This introduction could easily add 20 minutes to the film, which would put it at the entry point to become a feature length documentary in film festivals like Sundance and Cannes.)
Another way to make the documentary more immersive, especially to the international audience, would be to add the sounds of announcers to key parts of the game, especially the end of the game. Announcers can help the audience feel more excitement and get into the head of the stadium-goer who is at the Brunswick Street Oval.
Shot with two 3 CCD GS-400 consumer-level Panasonic camcorders with almost no prep time, the visual look of Royboys is actually quite serviceable. While there were definitely times where there was some breakdown of the image quality in low-light situations, it wasn’t so bad that it would be terribly distracting to the typical documentary viewer. Obviously, for future documentary productions, moving up to a more robust camera, like the DVX100B, would be a better choice. (Ironically, for most documentary work, I would recommend the standard definition DVX100B over the high definition HVX200A, as SD sensors require less light to be properly illuminated than HD sensors do. As most documentary work is shot without additional light, a properly illuminated SD sensor is far more pleasing to the eye than a badly lit HD sensor. This is why the DVX100 has been the choice for doc’s like Murderball, Rock School, and Jesus Camp.)
The amount of shake is pretty nominal for a live-action documentary and especially impressive since neither filmmaker does a lot of work with news-style coverage. Brett Swain cut most of the film together, while Michael Wannenmacher tweaked it and color corrected it after the fact. Overall, their hard work came together quite well, creating a solid look and visual presence. An especially impressive sequence is a POV shot that follows a bunch of the victorious Royboys into a locker room and then pans around the group as they sing their fight song. (More on that shot in the audio section.)
The only area that didn’t work very well in the visual look department was in the choice to use dip-to-black transitions in the middle of a few interviews. Dip-to-black transitions always ends a scene (except in highly stylized situations, like in Fight Club, where the narrator is passing in and out of consciousness during a narration sequence), so using it in the midst of an interview is a mistake. A ½ second dissolve is the most common transition in documentaries where an earlier interview segment is being linked to a later segment. If the visual discontinuity is too extreme for these, a documentarian can normally cut to B-roll footage that relates to what’s being spoken about and then cut to the next train of dialogue without the viewer being any the wiser.
For an easy way to improve future documentaries, we at MFM have been terribly impressed with The Shut Up & Shoot Documentary guide, which actually earned a perfect 10 score here. As such, if Mr. Wannenmacher wants to continue to explore the world of docs, this would be a great primer to do so.
