Due: Tuesday, April 16
We’ve studied sound, and we’ve studied visuals, and now the time has come to study the combination of the two. The goal of this project is to produce two five-minute videos that, taken together, demonstrate how clever use of the affordances of video can change our perception of the same subject.
Option 1: To explore the relationship between sound and vision, write a single script and film it two ways. How different can you make the meaning of the same lines depending on how they are delivered and the visuals that accompany them? This could mean giving the same conversation two different meanings (think some sort of “he said/she said” thing), filming the same scene with the visuals and sounds of two different genres, or even making two entirely different short films. Remember that the two films don’t have to have the same rhythms—there could be long periods of silence and/or additional footage between lines to change their meaning. Don’t forget that you can also play with tools like shot distance and angle.
Option 2: To explore the effects of juxtaposition and editing, interview someone about something and, drawing on your pool of footage, use editing to portray them two different ways—credible/shady, liberal/conservative, etc. Alternatively (and more challengingly), you could film a script and re-order the scenes to create two different functional films. In this option, your meaning will come from how your scenes are fitted together. You may include additional B-roll footage to help make your points. If you are re-cutting an interview, you may also include a framing device if you wish (e.g. a news story).
You may, if you wish, split up into pairs after you shoot your initial pool of footage, but because editing is so vital to the execution of this project, everyone should be involved in editing at least one of the videos. Rationales (600–700 words) may be written individually or as a group.
Things I will be thinking about:
- Does the project make good use of the affordances of video? Does it feel cleverly executed? Are claims supported by plenty of visual evidence?
- If Option 1, is the script the same? Is it truly given two different meanings (and not just two slight variations on the same theme)?
- If Option 2, are the two versions of the interview convincingly put together? That is, are they more than just a compilation of clips that sound “good” and clips that sound “bad”?