"Almost There - Stories from the American Road"

[awbacon]

I just finished the intro video for my kickstarter page, shot with about 50% DSLR footage. (mixed with DVX / HVX)

I'd love critique and comments on it. It's the introduction video to my kickstarter project, which if funded will end up as a web series that will then be edited down into a feature doc.

I wont say the brand or model of the DSLR I used, but I'd love to see if someone can guess! haha

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1339280674/almost-there-stories-from-the-american-road?ref=live

You can view the piece there

 

[awbacon]

bump...anyone?

 

[keylight]

I'm going to take some time and really dig into your idea in an effort to help. If parts sound a little harsh, I hope you won't take offense, because none is meant.

You wrote on your Kickstarter page:

We are trying to reconnect to the lost art of human interaction. In an era where electronic communication has taken over our day to day lives, we hope to be able to foster a sense of togetherness and understanding through speaking with those we meet face to face, to present whatever story they wish to share with us.

When you meet someone in person, engage them in conversation.... Well it can be pretty fantastic. Who doesn't want to go to new places, meet new people and learn about who they are? But the fundamental challenge with your premise behind this, "reconnect to the lost art of human interaction" is dependent on... human interaction. That interaction is gone when you watch it on computer or a television. When you're there meeting new people it's wonderful. Home movies of family vacation can be great for those who lived it, but a real tough thing to sit through for everyone else.

So the fundamental challenge is to overcome the "electronic communication" you are using to tell/show people's stories. Not impossible (as evidenced by a lot of great documentaries that have told people's stories). But it's a real hurdle.

So how to overcome the hurdle? The only way I know of - the only way it has ever been successful - is to plan. Talking heads are almost always incredibly boring. Watching a back and forth of questions and answers, or just a running stream of answers cut together, is pretty generally a pretty tough thing to sit through. So you need to really SHOW a story. The old adage, "Show, don't tell" is just as important for documentaries as it is for fictional works. And showing will almost certainly require you to plan - more than a little.

As you await funding on your proposal, I STRONGLY suggest you do the following exercise. It'll help focus you and prepare you for the road. And if it's successful, then it'll definitely help you get more funding. And if you get all the funding you need, it will have helped you work out some of the logistics and better prepared you for the project.

• Use http://www.geomidpoint.com/random/ to pick a random point on a map that's within 30 minutes of your current location.
• Take your entire setup, crew...
• Go up to random strangers at that location and find out who they are. What makes them, them? Ask the right questions to elicit some stories. Follow where the story takes you. If you can get the opportunity to shoot them in a better location, one that helps to show the story, go ahead and do that. But you've got to shoot that extra stuff within 24 hours.
• Keep shooting until you have 200 minutes worth of footage. Must be at least 200 minutes for this exercise to work. Really, 200 minutes. If you need, generate another random point or two.
• Using those 200 minutes, cut the footage down to 10 minutes. That gives you a 20:1 ratio for footage to finished product. Just a rough edit. Don't worry about audio, grading, music. Just 10 minutes of interviews, cuts only. You can use 1 person, you can use 10 people. The goal though is to tell a story (or stories).
• Post the results and update this thread.

DON'T do this as a thought exercise. Actually go and do this.

----------------

Based on my own experiences of the past, here's what I suspect you'll find:

• Many people are too busy to stop and talk.
• People who do stop to talk will give you just a couple of minutes of their time.
• People who talk, will be more comfortable answering questions about everyday topics than talking about their own personal stories.
• Regarding the 24 hours to shoot extra stuff, this is so you can SHOW their story. This will probably mean schedule some time to shoot in an appropriate environment. Giving yourself a 24 hour window from the moment you first meet them to the time you say goodbye to do this shooting will help replicate what you'll face on the road. When shooting on your real documentary, you might have a bit more time, but you will still have a clock and budget you'll have to watch.

Finding interesting people who are willing to talk takes a lot of work. The random approach you are going to use, is like picking a needle out of a haystack. Perhaps I can draw a better analogy. What you are proposing is like looking for an unlabeled box in a huge, dark warehouse:

• There are no lights so you have to feel your way around.
• Some boxes are wood, some are cardboard, some are metal. You don't know what the box you are looking for is made of, you'll only know that it's the right box when you find it.
• After finally finding the box, you need to use the right tools to get it open and get to the good stuff inside
  • Do you have the right tools to get the box open?
  • Will you have enough time?
• You get the box open. It's filled with a lot of packing peanuts and a single crumpled up hundred dollar bill. You dig through the peanuts and find the bill.
• Do this another 10 times, and you'll have a film that looks like a thousand bucks.

You wrote on your Kickstarter page:

The spontaneous aspect is what we are most excited about. We aren't pre-planning to meet people and doing "pre interviews". We are just asking those we meet if they would like to share, and interviewing them on the spot / later that day.

I'm going to sound a bit brutal here, but the way I read this is: "We aren't going to do any planning. It's all going to be random. We're rolling the dice with your money."

Another old adage is, "Those who fail to plan, plan to fail." Truer words have not been said. The video you put up has a couple of nice shots in it. A lot of uninteresting, shot out of a car window shots, but some really nice stuff too. Timelapse shots, building shots, street scenes.... For example, there's one timelapse shot of a downtown at 2:46. I'll bet you thought about where to shoot it beforehand. And when you got there you took time to set the camera up at the angle you wanted. This is all planing - micro-planing compared to the macro-planning that goes into documentaries, but planing nonetheless.

Good stuff usually doesn't just happen - it's planned.

Good luck. I'm serious about going through the exercise. You'll learn a lot about what works and what doesn't. And who knows, maybe you'll be able to show me that you approach can succeed. If I like what you have to show, I'll contribute something to your project.

 

[awbacon]

Keylight.

I do appreciate the feedback. I'll give you my thoughts on each topic

1) Yes, the electronic medium in which most people would view this piece is "part of the problem" in so far as that we are discussing a film where people do what people always USED to do, which is converse face to face

2) As far as "show, dont tell" is concerned, this is something I am aware of and experienced in. My background is as a sports documentary filmmaker, so I fully understand that "interviews" are mostly intercut with "showing" what we are talking about, and creating a meaningful connection and fostering a sense of emotion that goes with visuals that describe the words that are being spoken. So as far as that aspect is concerned, I do have the experience in regards to that medium of communication

I did not, however, showcase that in the Kickstarter video. I mulled it over in my head (and in other peoples heads) for a good few weeks. My concern (and ultimately the reason I chose to produce the type of video I did for kickstarter) is that all my content is from people who would be considered very non-typical. X-Games Gold Medalist, US Freeskiing Open Champions, ect ect. Yes it may have told a more concrete story as to my intent, but I ultimately felt it would alienate the viewer into a realm of "talking to people better than me". Our goal is to seek out the stories and experiences of what would be considered a "typical" person. (if there is such a thing) The type of person who may have 1000's of interesting things to tell, but no fundamental reason why people would be interested in asking them. (non-athlete or celebrity people)

The piece I produced was done with the intent to convey an emotion, and not a final working model. If some of the shots seemed uninteresting, that's one take on it. My cinematography comes from a place where I look to find visual beauty in what otherwise may amount to an uninteresting object, movement, or subject. So it's intentional in that respect

3) I would not consider spontaneous to equate to "failure to plan". My entire life has been dedicated to planning down to the most microscopic of details, (as a sports documentarian, I've had to deal with everything from drunk athletes to -30 degree temps to permits and insurances, scheduling, travel, lodging, direction, shooting, and tons of other film related stuff) and this project has been "planned" in the same aspect, minus one critical detail...

Pre-arranging to meet people on the road would amount to a betrayal of the core concept of why I even conceptualized the project in the first place.

Now yes, we will meet people. We will talk with them, and if they merit further exploration / more time, we will then arrange time that day / next day (if they are willing) to plan their story in so much as to properly film the piece. We aren't going for the "stick a camera in your face and surprise you" aesthetic here. The entire synopsis is written for a general viewer, so words like spontaneous do relate to the experience we are trying to present, but if another filmmaker reads "spontaneous", they may envision "lack of planning". I understand where that thought could come from.

I guess spontaneous has gotten a bit of a bad rep when it comes to artistry. It does denote to a certain degree a lack of planning. But it was essentially the best word to describe an emotion, and not a word used to describe a working model.

But yes, at the end of the day, we are going into the world looking for people. That is the underlying concept of the film. Seeing who exists out there. Finding out that surprises and chance happenings still can and do exist.

A great example I just recently saw (After someone mentioned I should watch it in regards to my own project) was "Thumbs Up". David Cho (artist) goes out riding the rails, just to get to a single destination, and one of the most successful portions of the film is the people he meets along the way. (I wouldn't consider their style to be the same as mine, as Thumbs Up can be downright offensive at times, if you don't have the right sense of humor. I do have the right sense of humor, but not the desire to work in that method)

4) You said "Good stuff usually doesn't just happen - it's planned". This (and I mean this nicely haha, same as I read your feedback, as friendly) I could not agree with more. Life is full of mystery, chance, luck, and tons of other great things that just HAPPEN. Most of the best experiences I have had (camera involved or not) came from just being out in the world, open to what it has to share with me.

And I guess that last line sums up the entire project. We are going out into the world, to find out what it has in store for us.

Yes the film is a risk...and that's why I love it even more. I know you don't know me, nor do the people on kickstarter know me, so nothing I say can convince anyone that this will work. All I know is that everything is a risk, and if I was to take risk out of my work, I'd cease to really love what I do for a job. Risk and reward are what keep me going. The minute I play it too safe so I can have the ultimate comfort of knowing exactly how everything will turn out is the minute I check out as a filmmaker and move onto something else. But that will never happen.

I do really appreciate your feedback from a filmmakers perspective. Your the 8th artist who has provided critical feedback on the subject. Some things you mentioned I have heard, others I have not, and some points were disagreed with by others. That's the fun in all this...hearing what people think. (haha...slight plug for my concept in that last sentence)

 

[awbacon]

Oh and yes...we are running tests on the look and concept of how these interviews go, in the city of Chicago. We are planning our style and approach to the subject. So when I have something edited in that regards, it will be attached to the kickstarter project updates.

And to clarify, we are looking for people in certain situations. We aren't just "sidewalk shopping" our subjects. We have an idea of where we will be going / who we will be talking with (Example...we will be stopping in Roswell. I'd love to meet one of the locals who works at the souveneir shops. Speak with them, ask them to show us their town, explain their life, explain the towns history, ect ect ect) so that is the underlying foundation of our approach. This isn't just "hold up a sign that says 'come talk to us please" and go from there

 

[keylight]

I would not consider spontaneous to equate to "failure to plan".

Believe it or not I agree. One should always allow for the spontaneous, for happy accidents. But I think starting from a solid plan is what allows those happy accidents to happen. It's what makes them stand out.

Pre-arranging to meet people on the road would amount to a betrayal of the core concept of why I even conceptualized the project in the first place.

Why? You can meet people over the phone and come to a pretty quick decision about whether or not they are worth the time and effort to meet on camera. This enables you to sort the wheat from the chaff. You don't need to lock in a story with people, or lock in what you'll shoot. But you will at least improve the chance of getting something worth using in the final product many times over. Say from a 1/2 percent chance to 15% chance.

I think this is especially important when you're operating under such tight budget constraints. So much cheaper to find interesting people over the phone from home when you don't have the overhead of nightly accommodations, meals.... What could be worse than getting to a place, spending a few days trying to find someone with an interesting story to tell, and leaving with little or nothing on tape?

Now yes, we will meet people. We will talk with them, and if they merit further exploration / more time, we will then arrange time that day / next day (if they are willing) to plan their story in so much as to properly film the piece.

And what if it's Tuesday and they aren't available until the weekend?

I guess spontaneous has gotten a bit of a bad rep when it comes to artistry. It does denote to a certain degree a lack of planning.

Most artists that produce great work realize that you need to create a space in which spontaneity can happen. I don't just mean they need to have their skills honed and ready (although that is certainly true). I mean they end up creating the conditions which make the spontaneous possible.

Finding out that surprises and chance happenings still can and do exist.

They absolutely do. People experience them every day. It's just that when you add a camera to the equation, it makes them so much harder to happen. By doing a lot of work ahead of time to create a safe space (all the pre-production I'm advocating) you make it possible to capture those surprises and chance happenings.

"Thumbs Up". David Cho... one of the most successful portions of the film is the people he meets along the way.

Do you have a link to the specific webisode?

You said "Good stuff usually doesn't just happen - it's planned". This... I could not agree with more.

I'm assuming you meant you could not DISagree with more?

Yes the film is a risk...and that's why I love it even more. I know you don't know me, nor do the people on kickstarter know me, so nothing I say can convince anyone that this will work. All I know is that everything is a risk, and if I was to take risk out of my work, I'd cease to really love what I do for a job. Risk and reward are what keep me going. The minute I play it too safe so I can have the ultimate comfort of knowing exactly how everything will turn out is the minute I check out as a filmmaker and move onto something else. But that will never happen.

I completely get what you're saying. Doing a lot of leg work ahead of time doesn't take out the risk. It just moves it forward to the pre-production phase, when you can take on a lot more risk for a lot less cost. There will still be plenty of risk when you're out filming. Maybe the person you selected isn't so interesting after all. Maybe they are horrible on camera (very uncomfortable, sweat profusely...). Maybe they change their mind when you get there. Likewise, once you're there filming, maybe they introduce you to someone new who has an incredible story to tell. Always stay flexible and go with the flow of the story as it unfolds.

FROM YOUR SECOND RESPONSE:

And to clarify, we are looking for people in certain situations. We aren't just "sidewalk shopping" our subjects. We have an idea of where we will be going / who we will be talking with (Example...we will be stopping in Roswell. I'd love to meet one of the locals who works at the souveneir shops. Speak with them, ask them to show us their town, explain their life, explain the towns history, ect ect ect) so that is the underlying foundation of our approach. This isn't just "hold up a sign that says 'come talk to us please" and go from there

Ahha. Planning! It's good you clarified that. From the Kickstarter description it sound's like you'll be sidewalk shopping. It's sounding a bit better.

Using the Roswell example, I'm wondering why not call some shops in advance? Talk to some people over the phone. Find out who is a bit of a character. When you find someone interesting, set up some time to get them on camera. You don't need to do a ton of pre-interviews, but certainly you'll save a lot of time, tape (uh, memory), and money. And you'll arrive knowing that you'll have a good chance at getting some real work completed on your documentary. Not to do the pre-production can very easily create a cart before the horse situation - you end up on location trying to find someone interesting to interview and burn through all your capital without getting much done. Very hard for people to contribute $$ to that kind of endeavor I suspect....

Oh and yes...we are running tests on the look and concept of how these interviews go, in the city of Chicago.

Update this threat too if you don't mind. I'll be watching it for updates and will be very interested to see how it goes.

Good luck!

 

[awbacon]

Believe it or not I agree. One should always allow for the spontaneous, for happy accidents. But I think starting from a solid plan is what allows those happy accidents to happen. It's what makes them stand out.


Why? You can meet people over the phone and come to a pretty quick decision about whether or not they are worth the time and effort to meet on camera. This enables you to sort the wheat from the chaff. You don't need to lock in a story with people, or lock in what you'll shoot. But you will at least improve the chance of getting something worth using in the final product many times over. Say from a 1/2 percent chance to 15% chance.

It just sort of betrays the core concept of the film, which is to go out into the world and find what exists. Yes it's risky, but its really the core concept. It's one of the pillars the project stands on. I don't disagree with you in regards to the fact our success rate of interviews will increase, but the suprise factor will decrease, which I feel will show up on film.

I think this is especially important when you're operating under such tight budget constraints. So much cheaper to find interesting people over the phone from home when you don't have the overhead of nightly accommodations, meals.... What could be worse than getting to a place, spending a few days trying to find someone with an interesting story to tell, and leaving with little or nothing on tape?

And what if it's Tuesday and they aren't available until the weekend?

Then we stay and wait. Built into our budget is the fact that part of the film is our experience. We will be living out of a tent, out of the car, ect ect. Strange, but its a component of the film.

Most artists that produce great work realize that you need to create a space in which spontaneity can happen. I don't just mean they need to have their skills honed and ready (although that is certainly true). I mean they end up creating the conditions which make the spontaneous possible.

I guess this is more of a cinema verite concept (what you are describing) which is something we are avoiding. The sort of "staged" feel. Just my opinion

They absolutely do. People experience them every day. It's just that when you add a camera to the equation, it makes them so much harder to happen. By doing a lot of work ahead of time to create a safe space (all the pre-production I'm advocating) you make it possible to capture those surprises and chance happenings.

Do you have a link to the specific webisode?

It's on Netflix and on Vice TV. Google Thumbs Up and it should show up on Vice

I'm assuming you meant you could not DISagree with more?

haha yes

I completely get what you're saying. Doing a lot of leg work ahead of time doesn't take out the risk. It just moves it forward to the pre-production phase, when you can take on a lot more risk for a lot less cost. There will still be plenty of risk when you're out filming. Maybe the person you selected isn't so interesting after all. Maybe they are horrible on camera (very uncomfortable, sweat profusely...). Maybe they change their mind when you get there. Likewise, once you're there filming, maybe they introduce you to someone new who has an incredible story to tell. Always stay flexible and go with the flow of the story as it unfolds.

I guess in my background, I know what it takes to get a film out of the camera and into reality. I've weighed the risks, and I think the possibility is there. As far as profuse sweat...well that's just part of the person, their quirks, and something we would honestly leave in. And yes, I realize some people will be terrible in front of the camera.

FROM YOUR SECOND RESPONSE:


Ahha. Planning! It's good you clarified that. From the Kickstarter description it sound's like you'll be sidewalk shopping. It's sounding a bit better.

Using the Roswell example, I'm wondering why not call some shops in advance? Talk to some people over the phone. Find out who is a bit of a character. When you find someone interesting, set up some time to get them on camera. You don't need to do a ton of pre-interviews, but certainly you'll save a lot of time, tape (uh, memory), and money. And you'll arrive knowing that you'll have a good chance at getting some real work completed on your documentary. Not to do the pre-production can very easily create a cart before the horse situation - you end up on location trying to find someone interesting to interview and burn through all your capital without getting much done. Very hard for people to contribute $$ to that kind of endeavor I suspect....

I do imagine this is a possibility, or something I could explore. It does bite at my brain a bit in regards to the spontaneous factor, but I will consider it a bit more. Still undecided.

Update this threat too if you don't mind. I'll be watching it for updates and will be very interested to see how it goes.

Thanks. I've enjoyed the back and forth. Ill keep you posted on our tests. I guess at the end of the day, the film has a built in fail safe, in the fact that I have the time it takes to wait for the right story. It's also born from the fact that the concept of "stopping and speaking to the world around you" is a fundamental aspect of human nature I'd like to see occur more. How many people do we see every day? and how many of them do we ever talk to? I feel we have become people who look at others as risks, unsure whether someone is a wonderful person or would just as soon mug us if they had the chance. I see this every day in Chicago, and it bums me out to be honest. Some of the greatest conversations I have ever had have been with people I just randomly met. It's that concept more than anything I am trying to put forth onto the screen

Good luck!

All my replies are in red

 

[keylight]

Built into our budget is the fact that part of the film is our experience. We will be living out of a tent, out of the car, ect ect. Strange, but its a component of the film.

I suspect that the "our experience" part of the film will, sadly, make it a bit less likely to succeed. I wish for you the opposite of course, but personal journey aspects of documentaries, while deeply personal and moving to their authors, tend to be the reason films fail. It's very difficult to translate that kind of thing so that it resonates with viewers. I hope you can do it.

If you've never read any Bill Bryson, I strongly urge you to get A Walk in the Woods. On the surface it's about the author's personal journey reconnecting with America. But if you dig in, you see it's so much more. I think you'll get a lot out of it.

Here's a top review from Amazon:

This is much more than a travelogue of two neophyte hikers on the Appalachian Trail, and readers looking for a blow by blow account of the travails of Bill Bryson and his companion, Stephen Katz, will be disappointed. Hiking provides only a backdrop to a heartfelt discourse on the social condition of America, local history, the environment, and the complexities of friendship. The pretext for the book was Bryson's return to the United States after twenty years in Britain, and his interest in "rediscovering America" after such a lengthy absence.

The vast majority of the reviews of the book cite its hilarity (one reviewer called it "choke-on-your-coffee funny"), and indeed there are very many funny parts. However, the deeper I got into the book, I detected a strong shift in the author's sentiment from satire to deep introspection. His observations became more acute, more angry, and more individualized as his long hike constantly brings to his mind the fragile environment of the Trail, the insanity of bureacrats entrusted with the AT, and his own personal limitations.


This was my first encounter with Bill Bryson, and while I found him entertaining, a beautiful writer, and an astute observer, some readers will be put off my his sharp satiric wit. It is certain that he will offend somebody. A friend of mine, who also read the book, was very much upset by the fact that Bryson and Katz didn't hike all 2,200 miles of the Trail, and that somehow their "failure" should prevent the telling of the story. This is utter nonsense and just throws more manure onto the present dung heap that has accumulated from the participants involved in peak bagging, wilderness races, and experiential therapy groups.


Bryson and Katz at least tried to hike the entire AT, and they returned from their hike as changed men who learned many lessons about the wilderness and friendship. Towards the end of the book, the two men are talking about the hike. When Katz remarks that "we did it," Bryson reminds him that they didn't even see Mount Katahdin, much less climb it. Katz says, "Another mountain. How many do you need to see, Bryson?" I agree with Katz (and ultimately Bryson). They hiked the Appalachian Trail.