Sunday, October 23, 2005

The future for television production

Sometimes I wonder where TV is going. I mean, are screens getting bigger or are they shrinking?

At the smaller end of the scale the video iPod will be closely watched (excuse the small pun) to see whether consumers really want to be able to watch TV anywhere they can, on something the size of a credit card. Similarly, the trial of broadcast to handheld digital devices, such as telephones, will see whether people will watch TV of less quality (or should I say, a lower bitrate?). Maybe consumers are happy to look past the lack of detail for the convenience of mobility. Fox seems to think so, they've plans to offer a device 7" screen in 2007 that will allow people to carry around programs they've recorded on the hard disk named iQ currently available.

On the bigger screens there's the cinemascope version of digital television, which offers better pictures and sound without meeting the consumer's demand for variety. (Although people are saying that even multicasting won't improve the uptake of digital television.) Around the corner is high definition version of DVD (whatever format wins, although Bill Gates reckons it'll give way sooner, rather than later, to hard disk storage), as well as HD home video cameras and all the depth and detail required to fill the window of a plasma screen. This is why the whole obsession with bigger TVs boggles me - why do you want to be more conscious of the pixels in the current audiovisual media? Those big screens are fine if you're sitting on the other side of the room but maybe I'll see things differently when HD content becomes more widely available.

It seems to me that whatever screen you look at, it may as well be offering the internet. If you take the view the different screen sizes discussed previously show what high speed connections could and should be offering, imagine the variety of what could be available. Especially if Google develop a video search facility as good as the one they offer for images. Or maybe Yahoo will do something decent for a change. Last year most of the TV I watched was downloaded, so where's the incentive for broadcasters? Higher speed connections will further facilitate the distribution of pirated programs and, if there's any advertising left outside of the program, better methods of removing the breaks.

Content is key and, with increasing variety in options of distribution, the onus will be on matching the medium to the message. Consider this observation by Richard Walsh, former director of PBL, Text Media and Cinema Plus, in a recent address to the Australian Shareholders Association:
"Free-to-air television is holding onto Test cricket and rugby by the skin of its teeth. Sport, news and films have for a very long time been the mainstays of network television. As sport moves to pay TV, as datacasting becomes more important in the news area and DVD availability destroys the feature film business, the networks face a very challenging decade."

I'd guess there's potential in tailoring material to the consumer. Perhaps offering a unique experience of a narrative, complete with advertisements customised to your demographic. Hell, if they could make it really entertaining, you might even be able to charge for it. It's been suggested to me that, with the ability to make free phonecalls online, telephonic companies will need to package new services to continue to compete. This has been called the Triple Play option. Or maybe producers could sell their programs directly to viewers?

Either way, television broadcasters will need to embrace the move to improved digital services or invest in local content to compete with people downloading what they want, when they want it. Broadcasted content will need something to distinguish itself from what's readily available and bigger pictures, better sound might be it. (Unless, of course, the author was right in an article I read about how the detail in high definition isn't always pretty. He quoted a plastic surgeon as saying the on air talent are very nervous.) Hell, maybe Mike Rebbechi was right when he speculated whether we'll be watching 3DTV in the near future?

Whatever may come, I'm sure I've made the right choice in studying television production. The skills in creating and producing compelling content will only grow more valuable as the cost of distribution decreases. Previously my studies focused on print journalism and I considered graphic design. But, at this rate, print will increasingly be limited to packaging and journalism will need to be as engaging as television if it's going to compete. Bring it on.

Mismatch

My other roles on Mish Mash were recording sound for the commercials Erin produced, filming the segment Sam produced and editing the commercials Joel produced. Again there were a number of frustrations to deal with, first and foremost being limited to dodgy and occassionally broken handheld microphones instead of Sennheiser 416s. Or the radio lapel mics.

I thought the second best bit of my audio work was Shane chewing into a Kit Kat but for some reason that didn't make it into the final ad. Recording Sally was also fun and she's got to be the most professional actor I've worked with yet. Probably the best of my audio work was the theme song I composed for the Barrel of Monkeys ad. Sadly, Erin thought it too dark so it didn't get used but I reckon she picked a tune that sounds similar. Then again, maybe I should leave production music to the professionals. My Mish Mash theme song was also passed over :(

Sam's segment was really well produced. Sometimes group assignments have been painful because plans fall apart or you're given notice at the last minute. Sam had it all running smoothly, under control and made sure you felt appreciated too. And he had a good story. Shame I had no joy filming it. Part of the problem was the location, the lighting, the lack of a wide angle adapter for the camera, the camera's sound not working - hell, then there was the speed of the gymnast going through her routines. The day was difficult from the 6am start until the following Monday when I wondered how Eliza was going to sync the sound in the interview.

I had something of an epiphany while working on Joel's ads. While putting one shot next to another, I realised how changing the camera angle added to the narrative. It doesn't look like much written here on the page but at the time it was a breakthrough in my head. I also realised this was the first time I'd edited someone else's footage and I felt incredibly fortunate because Joel had provided me with more than enough. Even if half of it was 4:3 instead of 16:9!

Aside from the Myer commercial, the main challenge in editing was shortening the running time. The Reaper Runners commercial could've gone for 45 seconds easily but making it run for a minute seemed too long. I considered trying a bit of ADR since it had been relatively easy to mix and match different vocal takes. The Wicked Hairspray commercial was going to get a new voice for the boyfriend character. Here is an early draft of the commercials:

The Producers

The role of producer seems to be a lot like that of manager. There are people to organise, deadlines to schedule then meet and, ultimately, an audience in mind to please. Indeed, the role of producer seems under acknowledged by film studies, particularly auteur theory.
For this blog entry I'll quote from successful producers such as Jane Scott and Aaron Spelling, using their opinions of the role to discuss my experience of producing the first episode of Mish Mash.

"We should be seen as manufacturers," says Jane Scott, one of Australia's most successful producers for the screen with credits including Barry McKenzie, Storm Boy, Crocodile Dundee, Strictly Ballroom and Shine. (Quoted in Enter the producer, Penny Hackforth Jones, Australian Financial Review 17-18 Sept. 2005.)
I was interested Scott attributed her impressive array of credits to inspiration more than avoiding typecasting:
"Each project needs to be very different from anything you've done before. You want to find something fresh and new and interesting."

The most prolific producer on television would seem to agree. Aaron Spelling, like Scott, looks for new subjects to develop for inspiration. In his 50 year career he appears to have tapped into the zeitgeist and made television shows people want to watch. His credits include Dynasty, Charlie's Angels, The Love Boat, Beverly Hills 90210, Fantasy Island, Starsky and Hutch, The Mod Squad, Seventh Heaven, Melrose Place and Charmed. In total 4220 hours of television, some 176 days of viewing. Apparently Spelling has an entry in the Guinness Book.

E. Duke Vincent, Spelling's business partner for 18 years, believes Spelling's talent has been knowing who audiences want to watch:
"Any television show starts with a concept, and if you don't have a story you don't have anything, but probably the most important thing in television is casting, and that's where he's king."

In an interview with Michael Idato in The Sydney Morning Herald of 19 Sept. 2005, Spelling characterises the production process as collaborative, where ideas are distilled by conflict. A kind of cerebral Darwinism where the strongest concepts survive.

Jane Scott and Aaron Spelling each reflect something of my own experience as a producer on Mish Mash, where I took my own interests as inspiration and fed them into the content. The production meetings were a process of proposing ideas and watching them be battered or praised. I'd have liked to have contributed to casting but for most of the process my focus was on developing content. Occasionally this meant arguing with people but I took the view I should be flexible and tried to find merit in their proposals. Stephen made a couple of decisions where I wanted more consideration but otherwise I find myself agreeing with his vision for the show and admiring its extent.

What I like about producing is the creative process and its realisation. On the day I really appreciated seeing the script being enacted. I'm not sure where I got the idea I should let the director run the control room unhindered as I gave directions to sound, actors and the floor. By the time I got to the control room I found I'd never established that part of a working relationship with Aaron where I'd tell him how it looked to me and he'd appear to care. So when I suggested we skip the performance from Sheldon in the last rehearsal as it was obviously draining him and one of the hosts needed a break, it was ignored. Then again, he had a heap to worry about so maybe it would've been better if we'd compared notes earlier in the day. Anyway, this is nothing.

Mish Mash was a great experience and lots of fun (like most of the assignments this year). I'm told that people start developing a keen sense of their studio roles in second year, so it'll be interesting to see what experiences my classmates take from Mish Mash.

One thing is sure - Dave can really drive the Yamaha desk

Friday, October 21, 2005

Interview in review

For this blog entry I'm going to reflect on issues involved with interviewing people. Interviews are something I've done for assignments, articles for print and, most recently, for marketing videos. In each case the interview was arranged in advance but I can see potential for being more opportunistic when collecting interviews for television.

I haven't filmed many television interviews (only one entirely by myself so far!) but the best advice I've learned is to ask the subject to try and repeat your question in the first line of their answer. This provides context for their statement and can save having to script something later.

A good interview provides insight, a bad one feels like a waste of time for everyone involved. The process of extracting insightful material can be unexpected or, more often, it's the interviewer's role to know what insights they're after and create a conversation in which they'll be recorded. Andrew Denton is very effective at doing this. I like how he (or his researchers) will dig up old interviews and use previous statements to segue into a question.

I remember first thinking about this during a revealing interview with Toni Pearen. Actually, to write it was 'revealing' is wishful thinking. Anyway, she must've been bored talking about All Men Are Liars because she started explaining how her experience of interviewing people for television was that you know the sound bite you're after and you usually end up frustrated by the process of trying to record it. Thinking about it now it shows how research ensures you have some insights that can be extracted and questions to ask if the flow of conversation doesn't go where you want. And to know where you want it to go, you need to know. And that's why you need research.

Am I repeating myself? Maybe if I keep it up I'll find a sound bite. That's the other problem sometimes: waffle. I'm prone to it at times but thankfully in interviews the focus is on what the subject is saying.

In some situations the sound bite is all you can get and the insight is more of a statement. Sometimes the interview subject will be following their own script, either pushing a particular point of view or repeating a response to a frequently asked question. For the former the interviewer needs to try different approaches, testing the logic of the subject's responses and hoping to find an inconsistency or new bit of information to expose new detail. For the latter the interviewer needs to surprise the subject and break the pattern of previous interviews.

I once interviewed Stuart Coupe, a prolific Australian music journalist. The second thing he said to me was "How the fuck are you?" It seemed really effective in setting a light-hearted tone. Obviously it wouldn't work in all interviews but it impressed me as an attempt to establish friendly communication. This seems a good approach since the other thing an interviewer needs to do is establish trust. I'm curious how television interviewers manage this because my experience from print is it can be hard to establish over the phone and face to face interviews aren't usually allocated enough time.

There seems to be a direct relationship between how important the interview subject is and how long you get to talk to them. Consider how George W Bush has largely avoided interviews while president. His Australian counterpart seems to prefer phoning a radio shockjock but will appear on television (frequently sparring with Kerry O'Brien) more often than in print. Political interviews tend to be characterised as adversarial, in broadcast more so than print (where the journalist always gets the last word).

In Crikey yesterday there some interesting advice from interviewer Jonathan Coleman, formerly of Simon Townsend's Wonder World and now appearing in a weekly segment on Sunrise. Coleman believes you need to match your personality to that of your subject.
"When I'm interviewing Elton (John), I become more gay. For Meatloaf, I become more fat. For Billy Idol, I just become 'More'."

This degree of empathy seems right for celebrity interviews. Andrew Denton also said something similar recently:
"I try to be as vulnerable as they are."*

It's said nothing should be treated as off the record with a journalist. However, if you think about what John Brogden said to a couple of journalists, it would appear you can be held accountable for anything said anywhere these days. I'm hoping it will lead to a higher degree of wit in public announcements because politicians will be employing considerably more consideration while writing them?

(Sadly the lesson learned from Brogden and also Frank Sartor is that humour should be avoided. Luckily for media consumers used to news filled with short bursts of sensationalism, the media have proven adept at trivialising policy and condemning off the cuff remarks. Brogden and Sartor's remarks generated oodles of columns but it was mostly so shallow it didn't get beyond whether they were racist. It seems to me the real issue to tackle is how we acknowledge this misnomer called 'race'. I mean, I thought there was one human race with many genetic variations. Culturally we view these variations as significant yet in public discourse we're unable to discuss them. There are plenty of examples of how not to discuss 'race' but few promoting how to acknowledge it without offence. I think Sartor's comment was taken out of context and, as Brian Toohey's observed, Brogden was hardly saying all asian women are mail-order brides.)

This leads me to the other thing a good interviewer does and that's keeping the interview relevant. It's got to have an angle, a kind of narrative that establishes and resolves. Otherwise it's got to be packaged up to the consumer as being relevant or else it risks being a disjointed series of points. Hope this hasn't been the case here.

*Quoted in a great piece on this subject in The Sun-Herald, Interviewing the interviewers by Steve Dow, published in their magazine on 2 Oct. 2005

Nothing idle: sound resources and design

When thinking of sound resources on television I could think no further than Australian Idol. And, since Jo records the Sunday night performances most weeks, I didn't have to plan to be in front her parents' TV set. (We've bad reception in the shed.)

They had an 80s theme for the night and the white suits made that nasty hiss. The sound was further degraded by being recorded on a mono video recorder. A shame as I couldn't hear the full extent of their large group of musicians. It was interesting to hear what they chose to focus on in the single audio channel: vocals, bass and drums. There was usually a lead instrument in the mix too, keyboard or guitar. But none of the strings or wind or the freaking harp.

The sound design of the show was interesting in how effective that seemingly two-note theme track in the background when the presenters were talking kept the pace up. It maintained energy in the show and pushed the aural identity. I quite like songs with this kind of unresolved riff built from snippets that sound like they came from something even cheesier than the enthusiastic sample.

While the theme bubbles along the hosts do a good job of sounding relaxed and in control. James occasionally gets that faltering, emotive tone in his voice but otherwise they play it very cool and professional. The presenters used different microphones than the performers and it made me wonder if the foam covers were needed to stop breathing or just to rest against their chin as they talk.

The attraction of the show is obviously the performances. The singers all seemed to use the same sort of wireless Shure mic. Watching the young vocalists mostly belt through their tunes, I wondered whether someone was manually adjusting their levels. It wasn't like the performers were making a lot of effort to adjust the distance of the microphone. Maybe they just heavily compressed the signal to be fairly forgiving. If that's the case, it might explain why there's nothing subtle in the mix. A mate of mine who works in mastering tells me he's seen commercial radio stations feeding contemporary recordings through six compressers in series for broadcast. I'd expect television does something similar and it must remove most of the dynamics of the performance.

A really striking sound in the show was the stamping on the floorboards in one section. The audience mics gathered a deeper sound than the claps, whistles and cheers you'd anticipate they'd need to capture. It seemed the studio audience were totally hyped for the show and it struck me as being an extremely orchestrated production, from the short burst of cheers to the near silence when the judges were talking. It ran incredibly smoothly for a live broadcast. And, except when some of the performers would respond to the judges and forget to raise their mic, the audio levels were there.