|
|
 |
The next issue I would bring up is the choice to use narration and interview dialogue in the documentary, along with occasional silent title cards and printed information. While it's not a hard and fast rule, most documentaries avoid narration and overheard interview questions. Instead, they will only use titles and title cards, cutting to the point in the interview where the person being interviewed actually answers the question. If that's not desirable for this documentary, then I would highly recommend that the filmmakers not mix and match techniques. As such, I would encourage that they re-record the interview dialogue so it's of a higher quality to match the introductory narration. Later in the film, there's a series of silent title cards overlaying behind-the-scenes video telling about Sam and his temporary stint on the Jimmy Kimmel show. (The filmmakers couldn't get legal permission to actually use clips from the show, which is understandable, albeit unfortunate.) At the very least, these cards need to be read aloud so that it fits the feel of the rest of the film. (Additionally, to add more visual interest, making them scroll up while being read might not be a bad idea.) Truthfully, though, if the narration is added, the title cards could be omitted in favor of a little faster montage of behind-the-scenes footage of Sam, Adam Corolla, and Jimmy Kimmell.
The next issue that needs to be dealt with is the use of the timeline in the film. Although it came out this year, there was so much yo-yoing between different places and times with Sam that I honestly couldn't get down how much time had passed throughout the film. I think the filmmakers spent the better part of ten years following Sam around, but we would arrive at the year 2006 and then we would be told that three years later something was happening. And then another three years later would occur, but suddenly it was 2006 again, rather than the 2012 that my ragged math was able to piece together. The simplest way to deal with this is just to post date cards onscreen for the different sections. I would also recommend trying to keep the storyline as linear as possible (without jumping backwards in time), so that the audience can try to see what, if anything, Sam has learned from all of this.
The fourth issue deals with the fact that, according to the press material that came with this movie, Sam Meneshian was voted the worst comedian in 2008's Last Comic Standing. That's a major plot point that really needed to addressed in the film, yet was completely absent. If film rights couldn't be obtained from the show, then at least interviews from some of the other comedians describing the situation would be a big help. This would also add additional material to the film so that it could be closer to 90 minutes.
The final issue that I noted in the film was the fact that we know almost nothing about Sam's wife and his kids. The kids are never interviewed at all, while the wife is interviewed only when Sam is present. I really wanted to understand the viewpoints of all three of these side characters. Without Sam trying to monopolize the conversation or her feeling self-conscious, I wanted to hear why the wife's so willing to put up with the things he does. What are the endearing things she loves about her husband? Does he spend time with his kids? What do the kids think about all of these things? These sorts of things could really transform this documentary from being lopsided to being a more three-dimensional and vibrant story. It would also make the audience care more about Sam as a person, rather than watching him as a human oddity under a microscope. (In this same line of thought, some additional interviews with Sam's band--asking “why they chose to be with him? What does he bring to the table?”--would be a great idea. There's such a disparity between their look and feel and his that you just feel there's an untold story here.)
The visual look of the film was fairly sketchy because it was shot mostly in very harsh, late-night, low-light environments with a Sony DRV-900 and an XL1 with an onboard light. I can't speak to the Sony, but I've shot two films with the XL1 and it's not great with low-light, although the onboard light they used was well-positioned enough to make close ups look fairly natural with minimal harsh shadows behind the people being interviewed. Now, despite the fact that the visual look isn't great, it's also not terribly distracting. This is because the filmmakers correctly made sure that all of their footage looked as damaged as the rest, which made it all work properly. No super-beautiful shots stuck out like sore thumb from the rest, so the viewer wasn't pulled out of the story. Additionally, documentaries are much more able to accept low-quality and high-artifact footage, because of the amount of similarities between documentary acquisition and newsreel acquisition.
The filmmakers spent a lot of time trying to keep their audio as clean as possible and spent time on ADR and mixing after the fact. As such, the final mix of the film works quite well. The music that's been added to the film contributes to the tale being told appropriately, without clashing. (Too much music in a documentary can quickly clash, if it's not very well chosen.)
|
|
|
|
