Problems viewing videos?
Download latest Flash Player
Download the original : 345_The_Golden_Years.wmv
Video: Hard Yakka: The Golden Years
This piece was produced as a group assignment for a Sydney University video production unit in 2006, by Donald Cameron, David Faye, Gavin Chimes and Benjamin Levy. It was the final segment in a half hour documentary entitled 'Hard Yakka', which looked at different stages of 'the working life'. We therefore were exploring the issue of retirement and its effect on personal identity, through three case studies of different individuals who had different careers and who each responded quite differently to retirement.
For an academic ramble (in the form of a 'reflective article') on the video, see below:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This retrospective analysis reflects on the process of theorising the practice in relation to ‘The Golden Years’ segment of the Hard Yakka documentary. The structure of this reflective statement loosely follows Thompson’s (1998) elements of the edit.
Firstly, the motivation behind the piece was to create a contemplative look at individual views on retirement and thus provide a thought-provoking ending to a documentary on the working life. Therefore we chose to combine aspects of Nichols’ (1991) expositional and observational modes of representation. So whilst we have an invisible voice-of-God narrator (in line with the requirements of the production liaison group’s decision), this narrator does not argue a case, nor intentionally exclude other viewpoints. In fact, the narrator deliberately highlights the variety in perspectives on retirement (in the introduction: “people embrace their golden years in various ways.”). As much as time constraints would allow, the piece attempts to show the reality of the subject’s lives as they are, thus conforming to Nichols’ observational mode. Thus the overlay footage of all three characters shows the activities they regularly participate in. In this regard, the piece is situated in between Burton’s (1999) ‘Nature-Historical-Science based’ and ‘fly-on-the-wall’ documentary, with elements of both (the former: invisible omniscient narrator and crew; the latter: footage of subjects ‘going about their business’). These latter elements were inspired by Robert Drew’s (1955) observational documentary style and the French Cinéma Vérité movement, where images bring a sense of people’s real lives to the screen.
However ‘The Golden Years’ is not a pure form of the observational mode of representation, as all subjects were aware they were being filmed and gave informed consent. Nevertheless, in the majority of overlay footage, everything would have happened regardless of the crew (Ray Anderson was actually bowling that day, Margaret Coulter was actually working at the childcare centre, and Gus Clennar was out walking and having dinner regardless). This conforms to Vertov’s notions of presenting life as it is, and Grierson’s (1932) ideas that the original, raw ‘actor’ is much better than a fictional counterpart, thus documentary being the creative treatment of actuality (as opposed to re-enactments in line with Burton’s ‘docudramas’). Nevertheless a few shots in Gus’ segment were contrived such as giving his grand-daughter a medical check-up and dancing with his wife. We did however aim to keep the use of such shots to a minimum. In some respect the interview condition is an element of Nichols’ participational mode, yet our crew was deliberately absent from the frame in order to create a connection with audience who feel as though they are the ones participating in the subject’s life. This leads to Thompson’s (1998) second element: information; which in ‘The Golden Years’ is presented directly by the subjects themselves through the use of interviews. Thus it is a very character-driven piece. We allowed the subjects tell their own stories, despite the potential to create a very ‘information-focused’ and narrative driven piece with an abundance of facts and statistics (by interviewing an academic on retirement age trends) and an argument proposed and supported throughout via the narrator’s voiceover. Instead however, we decided to create an emotive piece which allowed for the telling of the story on its own, and thus the voice-over acts purely as a linkage device to connect the discourse of the subjects.
The next elements, composition and camera angle were especially considered during the entire process. Each subject’s segment in ‘The Golden Years’ begins with an establishing sequence of an extreme wide shot crossfading eventually into a mid-shot of the subject who then walks past the camera. These crossfades act as indicators of the passing of time, highlighting the slowness of the character’s movement. We also considered Entman’s (1993) framing theory when filming. For example, in the first sequence Ray is intentionally framed by the tree and cross-sectioned sidewalk and driveway (with the camera placed to the right of the footpath so that Ray crosses from the right side of the frame to the left). Margaret is framed by the entrance to the child-care centre and Gus by the landscape (fence on right, the lighthouse in left background). The next shot we see of each subject establishes the interview situation. For example, Ray’s interview is outdoors which then contextualises the rest of the piece (e.g. gardening & bowling). We also followed the rule of thirds: Ray’s face is in the top right hand third and his name and age appearing on the bottom left hand third, Margaret is the same, except we place her in the left of the frame, and Gus is in the centre, to differentiate between them. Furthermore we intentionally employed Kuleshov’s 1920s technique (as cited by Agrachev & Belenkaya, 1987) of splitting action up into smaller components where possible. Thus we have mid shot overlay of Ray at the table “having a bet on the horses” then we cut to a pan of racing forms to show his point of view, then back to a shot of him sitting at the table. This also demonstrates Reisz and Miller’s (1968) justification, anticipation and matching an action. Throughout the process we intentionally adhered to their techniques. For example, during filming we employed the 30° rule to avoid jump cuts; and whilst editing we strived to maintain smoothness (e.g. the continuous zoom out montage of Gus reading, then sitting at bench, then standing at fence).
Thompson’s penultimate element is sound. In ‘The Golden Years’ diegetic ‘actuality’ is present during overlay footage to enhance realism, such as the squeak of Gus’ chair as he sits down and the birds chirping and pub noise in Ray’s segment. The majority of the piece uses interview actuality with the subjects’ voice present throughout, with only minimalist non-diegetic narrator voice-over interspersing their speech. Music is employed to create mood, emotion and to differentiate the subjects: ‘The Golden Years’ opens with rhythmic guitar and drums which reflects the introduction’s methodological process. Ray’s segment has guitar strumming loops signifying an Australian country heritage; Gus has classical strings loops to signify a high education; and Margaret has brass and woodwind loops as well as her diegetic singing of “Where the Bee Sucks, There Suck I” (from Shakespeare’s The Tempest) and her almost mournful “The Last Rose of Summer” which ends the piece with the lines “who would inhabit this bleak world alone?”
Thompson’s final element of the edit is continuity, which we strived to achieve through the editing in terms of both the sound (by equalising levels, using audio crossfades, and consistent music style) and video (in terms of storyboard structure, cohesive narrative, and simple transitions) in order to create a sense of seamlessness.
Tags
Alert Moderator
Comments
0 comments
