As mentioned in the previous post, the kind of arguments that are made in my interviews, are not that shocking, and do not each have a huge impact on their own. I need to be sceptical about the edit, because the viewers will be watching critically in the hope they can overlook the points made. Because the video needs to be incredibly persuasive, I need to edit the footage to show that the sheer quantity of problems the scheme will cause, as well as the huge amount of people who are against these plans is a good reason to not go ahead with the proposal.
In order to help me do this, I decided to look at films where although the points/or arguments are on their own quite minor, each contributes to a bigger picture causing a problem. I watched a variety of news broadcasts, which are reporting minor incidents, but do so in a way which emphasises the severity where it might not be obvious.
A good example is the some news broadcasts of recent storms. There were some very terrible and tragic stories within this and they we justly reported especially on main televised programmes. However on 24 hour channels, where they need to produce a large amount of footage for one incident a great deal of the other reports were minor. To keep the story strong and hold interest, the broadcasters organised the delivery of the report in a way which maybe exaggerated the minor incidents to make them seem more important.
The way they seemed to do this, was by delivering news of many incidents at a fast pace, not giving time for the viewer to dwell on the details. The visuals were also not in sync with how quickly the reporter was moving on from the point (perhaps not an effective method) but it emphasised the quantity of problems the storm had caused, rather than focusing on the severity.
To begin with the above report is of major, shocking incidents, however at 4.40 onwards, the points become much weaker.
This style of delivery may be one to use as an influence when editing. To emphasise the large amount of negatives the trolleybus will bring, I should cut them abruptly into one another. If needing to cut down the timeline duration, I should get rid of waffly details, rather than extra points, only leaving in details which are particularly persuasive. It will be better to have a video packed full of negatives, rather than one which only has a few but explained well.
In terms of structure, I do not need to try to build up to one big shocking argument, because there is not one which stands out especially more than others. I just need to keep the pace fast and build a rhythm which drums into the viewer that the proposal is a bad idea. The video’s persuasive quality would be not the shock of one huge negative, but the shock of yet another negative.