|
|
 |
This film is full of great images. There are a lot of aerial shots of the city and a really great time-lapse montage at the beginning (which I'm guessing were from stock footage just from a monetary standpoint, but they fit in seamlessly with the rest of the film so it's possible they acquired in some other way). Apart from the interviews, the majority of the images were home video. While this is normally not advisable for a documentary, in this case it was definitely appropriate. The story was meant to be told from the perspective of the students who were making it, and images that they took themselves were far more poignant then anything that that would have been pre-planned.
The difficulty of combining home video with higher-quality footage, however, is matching the format. This wasn't too much of an issue in the film, as the home video did not stick to the letterbox format that the rest of the documentary did (although there was one interview that had a shot change formats). Normally this shifting might look out of place, but in this case it served to delineate the difference between planned footage and home video, as some documentaries need to make the distinction with a caption.
The film was not without its issues, however. I noticed two interviews that were slightly out of focus - something that can be tricky, especially if the camera is on autofocus and there is a lot of stuff behind the interviewee for it to focus on. But in something static like an interview, it's vital that the shot stay focused, since otherwise it's a huge distraction. And since there's really no way for that to be fixed in post, these interviews might have to be re-shot. (Remember to always turn autofocus off whenever shooting films, whether narrative or documentary. For documentary work, a hand rack focus is more acceptable in a final shot that auto-focus wobble.)
Secondly, there were a few interviews that had breaks in them - which usually happens when interviews are being pieced together in the editing room. But instead of dissolving, the film cut to black, then cut back to the interview. This type of of transition shouldn't be used inside an interview unless there's a really good reason as it is very visually jarring and in this case looked out of place with the overall smooth feel of the documentary. A better idea would be a ½ to 1/8 second dissolve or to cutaway to B-roll footage with the interview voice-over, then cutting back to the second part of the interview. The last effect usually creates a more seamless transition and is much better if at all possible.
Finally, the one shot that looked really out of place was a re-enactment of the 1900 hurricane that struck Galveston, and claimed between 8,000 and 12,000 lives. It was only alluded to briefly in the course of the documentary, so a rather obvious re-enactment-- especially one in which some of the students looked to be making light of the situation-- seemed not only out of place, but also mildly disrespectful, especially considering the number of lives lost in that hurricane.
I really liked the soundtrack, it was very simple piano music, but was appropriate in seriousness without being too maudlin. And it could also become upbeat where appropriate. Music is a very important aspect of documentaries, since it has to compliment the action, but it shouldn't rise to the level of a fictional film, lest it overpower the narration or interviews.
Audio tends to be a very tricky thing, especially for learning students. But I was quite impressed that they were able to keep the background noise to a minimum - sometimes a tricky thing, but usually it just comes down to picking a good interview spot and using a decent microphone at the appropriate distance. Also, the majority of the interviewees were easy to understand, as was all of the added narration.
|
|
|
|
