Editing Continued

After finding some inspiration from minor news broadcasts, I continued to reduce down the amount of footage but cropping out anything that wasn’t particularly persuasive.

There were many aspects which were interesting or useful pieces of information, and were relevant to the film, but they were not going to be the types of points that would impact on the viewer.

An example of this is part of the interview with Fran. One of the main reasons I wanted to interview Fran was because of her level of engagement, in campaigning against the Trolleybus. Initially (before I was collaborating with Tom for the public enquiry) I wanted Fran to be the main voice of the film, talking through her Craftivism projects, and encouraging others to get involved. However, because of the changed purpose of the video, this kind of information was not as useful in a persuasive manner, and instead it was more important to have people giving reasons why it is a bad plan, rather than saying what they have been doing to campaign against it.

28

I therefore cut all of this out, only leaving in persuasive facts. I also cut:

  • People introducing themselves (name, occupation/role in protest) on camera – their names can be put on screen in text.
  • People explaining the trolleybus, where it will be, what it is, how it works, which areas it will pass etc – all of this the viewers at the enquiry will already be aware of, so it wastes time.
  • Specifically personal opinions, stories and motivations which don’t affect many people – these points are less important to the sceptical viewer, and so less persuasive (e.g. Fran mentions how us students pay high fees and so she thinks LCA is ours, I agree with her, and many students will do too, however the council members may view this as a false sense of entitlement).
  • Everything which was repeating information given by other interviews. I picked the version where it came from the best source of information e.g. principal talking about the students input into society, residents talking about the local community, students talking about exhibition space. Alternatively I picked the version where the person communicated the point best – either more concisely or clearer.

Having cut the above out of the footage, I managed to reduce it down from 28 minutes to 7mins15secs.

3

I need to reduce it down again to 3 minutes. This may be difficult, as from my opinion, everything in the timeline is now important and has persuasive value. It will just be a question of cutting out points one by one in order of weakness.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s