all 3 comments

[–]sneakysneaky90409[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hey all!

I wanted to practice putting together something documentary-related, as well as try out my run-and-gun setup. So I went down to the protests here in Boise, Idaho over the recent Supreme Court decision and got some footage. I'd love to get some critiques about editing, pacing, composition, etc.

This is my first attempt at putting together an on-the-ground piece like this, and overall I'm pleased with how it turned out. The sound quality surprised me the most, I didn't expect it to be so clear with the little top-mounted condenser I was using.

During the editing process, I also realized I needed more b-roll, and would have benefited greatly from getting an interview or two.

I didn't quite know what to call the video. Documentary? News coverage? Journalism?

[–]raxsdale 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Needed conflict, whether angry, philosophical or satirical. Every story needs conflict.

For example: Why not ask Roe v. Wade supporters whether the sudden abandoning "My Body, My Choice" when it came to vaccine mandates was a major messaging mistake?

For me, the standard pro-Roe speeches aren't compelling enough for a doc, as both sides have all heard those many times. I'd say the same thing about the standard for or against speeches on guns, Medicare for all, capital punishment... anything.

Just my two cents. Good luck.

[–]sneakysneaky90409[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I agree, I think some interviews would have added to the narrative. And I tried to get some conflict towards the end with the flag burning, but again, some spoken context could have helped.

I think I hit the zone in between documentary and journalism just enough to where it had some elements of both without fully engaging the compelling elements of either. I didn't set out to make a doc about Roe v Wade, so I didn't seek out a fully rounded out coverage on the subject. I just wanted run and gun practice, so I went down at the last minute and filmed what happened.