A personal opinion by Dan Chung
Filmmaker and blogger Ron Dawson recently interviewed both Khalid Mohtaseb and myself for his excellent podcast Crossing the 180. Here it is for those who missed it. You can hear and read more on Ron’s great website here.
″
Download MP3 | Subscribe in iTunes | Permalink
I have to admit to being a little surprised by the strength of the reactions to Khalid’s piece from Haiti. Having given it a lot more thought I think the debate around the video actually highlights a complete lack of consensus among pros about what forms visual journalism should take. For me Khalid’s piece did what so many other news videos from Haiti had failed to do – draw me in emotionally. It was not presented as a straight news piece and Khalid was very open and honest about how he shot it and what he intended to produce. Both detractors and advocates of Khalid’s video talk about the context, or lack of it, in the piece – for me it didn’t need the voice over or narrative structure because it came in the light of weeks of news coverage from all major sources that gave it the necessary context. If this had been the first and only news video from Haiti it would have been completely wrong, but this is not that – it’s a colour piece, several weeks in, designed to show a different side of life in Haiti.
Khalid Mohtaseb shooting in Haiti with the now famous Kessler pocket dolly slider
As I say in the podcast there are many different forms of journalistic video and the more cinematic ones are really a very tiny percentage of the news pieces produced right now. Personally I will continue to use many different genres of news and documentary video depending on how in my opinion the story can best be told.
I have for a long time argued for a more photographic quality to video on news websites; there is no reason that video cannot be used in the same way as a still photograph to illustrate a written piece. We have all got used to the established genres and their ways of presenting news and documentary but these are not written on tablets of stone and were largely defined by an era where TV and cinema dominated, not the internet. I believe now there is room for variety – there is absolutely nothing wrong with a well-told story done using purely visual story telling. That is essentially what a stills photo essay is (the context can come in the accompanying text). I do not see this as conflicting with my belief that we should also create more structured videos that give voice to the subjects of the video – we can do both. I liken this to photographs in the main news section of a newspaper and photos in the magazine section from the same story – one can be a straight news picture of a real event, the other can be a posed flash lit portrait of the subject of the story in a studio – both help tell the story from different perspectives. The fact you shoot a studio portrait of someone involved in a news story does not denigrate the medium of hard news photography, likewise when I say I like Khalid’s piece it does not mean that I dislike or in any way denigrate more conventional documentary from Haiti. On the contrary, one of my favourite pieces is by well known videojournalist Travis Fox for PBS Frontline. It is far more conventional, beautifully shot and very effective (incidentally, much of it was also shot on a Canon DSLR).
One of my favourite examples of a more photographic/cinematic style of journalism is by no less than Christopher Morris, the multiple award winning VII photo agency and Time magazine photographer.
Obama’s Burden from Christopher Morris on Vimeo.
While Morris photographed the President Obama on assignment for Time magazine he also shot short films on Canon 5DmkII and 7D DSLRs. In each film he tries to convey a message – he uses black and white along with tilt and shift lenses to give unique feeling to his films. His great eye and unique access give a totally different view of a Presidency to that of the broadcasters. I would argue that this is good journalism, and that his ideas and his methodology are laid out – it is that magazine photo essay but in a moving format.
The New Leader from Christopher Morris on Vimeo.
Obama’s War from Christopher Morris on Vimeo.
One thing is clear to me; news and documentary video from photographers on the internet is struggling to find an audience. If we continue to do only the same old formats as our TV brethren we won’t be able to compete for long – the likes of the BBC will do it better most of the time. I’m glad there are photographers, cameramen and women and videojournalists out there who are prepared to try to move the medium forward.
25 responses to "The Cinematic journalism debate continues"
Mark Says:
April 5th, 2010 at 9:52 am
Re: the Chris Morris videos, funnily enough i’ve never felt they matched up to the original ‘Dear Leader’. The over use of tilt shift bugs me in the new ones (and i have several large format cameras and have shot using movements). For me it was the interesting compositions and non direct way of covering the Bush era that made the original work for me.
http://www.rethink-dispatches.com/issue/in-america/the-dear-leader/
But i don’t think you can compare these to what Khalid made. The subject matter is just completely different. As mood pieces Morris’s work very well and the subject suits the treatment. They’re also very sombre and subtle.
Having looked a round at various peoples websites, Ron, Khalid, there’s some professionally produced work. Not necessarily to my taste but thats all subjective personal opinion which is fair enough.
The problem comes when there is a real story. With a stylised wedding video i might not like it but thats ok, it suits a market and i’m sure lots of people love it. But apply those same aesthetics to disaster and miss out the story i just don’t get how you think thats ok?
With the Bush/Obama videos the voice of the president is already widely heard. In Haiti there were many small stories and experiences that weren’t being told. There was the distortion by the mainstream media of the looting and violence that could have been given a fresh voice. But these important aspects were passed up for a style piece. Its that thinking that i question.
Its the same comment i made about your Chinese revolution parade video. Where other colleagues of yours had written about how the ‘people’ couldn’t even attend their own parade and had been warned to stay in all you got was pretty slo mo footage. I don’t doubt there are difficulties working in China and maybe thats all your editors wanted but still it missed out on being a fully formed story.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/30/china-national-day-parade-communism
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/sep/30/china-60th-anniversary-communist-party
Mood pieces fair enough. Tell stories in different and exciting ways thats great (as i’ve said all along). But a lack of journalism that does not fundamentally do anything to cover or do justice to a story as desperate as an earthquake that killed quarter of a million people in one of the poorest countries on the planet?
Anyway you’ll be pleased to hear i’ve pretty much done repeating myself on the whole topic now. Listening to a very one sided (and certainly not very journalistically rigorous) podcast where people’s views were taken out of context or blamed on petty jealousy just really makes me despair at an industry i was already increasingly cynical about.
taylorgary Says:
April 5th, 2010 at 12:23 pm
this is were I think you should stop trying to pigeon hole people, especially when they take a different view. I’m 27 and I’ve had to deal with nay say’ers all my adult life. From my time at college, being told I had to wait to use certain equipment and being taught by people who wanted to limit my potential. Then taking advantage of what I produced and selling my efforts to potential students wanting to take the course. Up to the present day, walking into an interview for a newspaper and being told my work wasn’t ‘tabloid’ enough.
So maybe to your surprise, I COMPLETELY AGREE “I have for a long time argued for a more photographic quality to video…continue”
Just because I didn’t like Khalid’s attempt at being a cinematic vj, bares absolutely no relation to this idea as a whole. In fact I completely endorse it. Ever since Dear Leader’ Which isn’t shown here, but I feel was the strongest of Chris Morris’s work, shot in this style and I love it!
“Khalid’s drew me in emotionally” It clearly didn’t for me and some others, because it was too overwhelming by the music used, the stylised MB colouring and over used glide-track. I’m not saying don’t use those tools either, just think about the reasons for needing them. Personally I think it’s a clever way of avoiding what would potentially be a very bland image. Apart from the first couple of moving images, the rest convey NOTHING at all, and tells me NOTHING. So I find it hard as to how it struck a tear in the eye.
I love the 2 opening shots of Khalid’s piece from Haiti. When it failed to develop beyond that point, it was waiting for it to stop, rather than sucking me in emotionally. We’re talking about peoples lives here, don’t you think it’s important to go into telling others more about the Aftermath? You seem to come to the conclusion on the Ron Dawson show, that everyone would know all the information they would need from previous reports. Personally I’ve not seen a lot of reports, I think people would like to know more. All I see is rubble, and people laying around, while others go out to collect water- along with some comedy value as the woman pushes her way into the water collection point! Maybe it was too soon for the ‘Aftermath’ reports, but doesn’t help anyone all this. Well where’s my contribution? A question I’ll raise my self and say “none, so I’m not going to waste my time anymore trying to find inspiration. There’s clearly no need.
Dan Chung Says:
April 6th, 2010 at 1:38 am
Gary, I’m not trying to pigeonhole anybody and I my comments in the podcast are certainly not aimed directly at you. I also hope you can see through to understanding that some people were genuinely moved by Khalid’s piece, after covering the aftermath of several major disasters I felt this piece really conveyed a sense of being there in a way my own work has not. When in those places I often feel a strange sense of detachment as though you are gliding through some strange dream, watching people get on with their lives. Even though Khalid is a relative newcomer for me he captures this so well.
If you are interested you can see several of my Sichuan earthquake video like this one http://www.vimeo.com/4569147 on Vimeo.
Clint Etzel’s response over on his solo VJ blog are also very interesting and well worth reading – http://www.solovj.com/cinevj-a-new-paradigm-in-story-telling
taylorgary Says:
April 6th, 2010 at 9:03 am
Dan, My only concern was it was a very 1 sided radio debate, from 3 people who really liked it and basically tarnishing the ones who didn’t like Khalid’s work, as some what old fashioned and a bit of a joke. It’s very difficult to express frustration and thoughts within written comment boxes I suppose, without sounding like you hate everything and everyone. Most of all being misunderstood from what direction you are coming from.
Sichuan earthquake video was interesting, it’s shot and edited very traditionally I feel, which to me, puts it on the opposite end of the scale. If you compare it to the cinematic pieces. It would be an interesting comparison if you left out the narration, added some glide-track shots, and add some sombre music over the top, to see if it was just as informative.
Personally I’d really like to see a combination of styles here. You tried it in Uganda http://www.vimeo.com/2611564 – Ed Jones did something similar again http://vimeo.com/8380596
However, although their very nicely done, they do still have a sense of that traditional video reporting style. Danfung Dennis has done exactly what I’d love to do and see more of. I am a little bit bias as I was in the army a few years back, but he did it with the subjects integrity at heart. Not to suggest that Khalids or anyone else trying something different hasn’t, I think sometimes it can come off all wrong.
A great benefit to this debate, my understanding mainly on who’s viewing these pieces has heightened. I understand not everyone is interested in video/photography at this level, in any genre, and would be totally unaware at what we’re doing/and what we’ve previously done. So this is when we should really look at yourselves, and examine what we’re doing. If we look back through the past year and more, since the 5DmkII was released. All these wide aperture close-ups of people starring into to the lens, and progressing on to glide-tracks, have all too commonly become a trend. Just as a quick example: http://philipbloom.co.uk/dslr-films/sofias-people-canon-5d-mk2/
When you see this transition from – test footage, to personal short films, to then naming them as documentaries, and on to journalism, without any significant changes or improvement, I find it slightly worrying. Then I suppose you can argue again, not my people outside this industry would of seen all this happening, or even care!
I do believe video is better at replacing still images, when applied to certain subject matters and done well. I think it really can work very well. I think still images came out trumps documenting scenes like the Haiti earthquake. I will be prepared to change my mind. At the present, too much attention is focused on how beautiful dslr video is, and less about trying to match like for like the power of conveying a scene with stills. A very strong photo-essay like these for example http://noorimages.com/index.php?id=3681 – http://www.viiphoto.com/showstory.php?nID=1071
are far more honest, far more powerful, and far more emotional.
I feel when you have the opportunity to really apply fundamental elements to a video documentary you should at least try. Even if you don’t use the sound bites or interviews. Going to a place after an earth quake and rarely speaking to the people, and finding out from them personally how they’ve been effected, is all I can say ‘lazy. Like in the Sichuan earthquake video, stories like that come out!
I do start to confuse myself sometimes, because I really like ‘no comments’ on EuroNews haha, but I think hardnews is different and it’s down to raw honesty, authentic sounds and authentic scenes. I personally find them powerful, even though the images are shakey and not very inspiring in terms of ‘composition and style. http://www.euronews.net/nocomment/2010/04/06/pakistan-blast/ I would like a combination of great footage and great source of context, with a personal or artistic twist. I think that’s what the industry needs and what the viewer needs.
I apologise if I’ve wasted my time again, with another thoughtless and humours long ramble on how I see it. I know I’ve got to loosen up a bit, as I’m slowly dying trying to care, I’ll make more of an effort.
Dan Chung Says:
April 8th, 2010 at 9:13 am
Mark, apologies for not moderating this sooner, I completely understand where you are coming from but personally I feel there is room for both kinds of reporting. I wish to hear the voices of the people of Haiti just as much as you do but I think Khalid’s piece served a valid purpose – simply putting you there with Khalid’s eyes. I feel his piece supplements the other reports out there like those by Travis Fox. It cannot be avoided that much good video journalism online is just not watched by a mass audience and that we as profession need to examine what can be done about it, sure Khalid could have done things better and the colour grade is a little over done for my taste, but he did one thing that many other have failed to do – engage an audience.
As for my piece from the national day parade I should point out in the interests of full disclosure that the first text piece you site was written by my wife, we edited and filed the national day coverage side by side. I would argue that my piece is simple an illustration of what when on that day, it in itself is not supposed to be a fully formed story, simply a moving version of a stills essay I would have shot that day. In my view it is similar to how other people did it in stills http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2009/10/china_celebrates_60_years.html The context and fuller account events are to be found elsewhere on the Guardian. I guess my point is just because the video format can be used to tell you more doesn’t mean that it has to be used that way, In my book journalism is not just about giving all the facts and debate but also about colour and giving you a sense of being in a place.
Dan Chung Says:
April 8th, 2010 at 9:30 am
Gary, you’ll have to ask Ron about the balance of the show, it’s his not mine and I can’t decide the balance. That said I think the dynamic of podcasts and the web in general is that the comments that you and others make here and on Ron’s site give anyone who takes a different view a chance for redress. There is a trend for ‘one sided’ webcasts where the debate follows in comments – some people don’t like , but its certainly a trend online.
Try looking at these and give me your opinion -
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2009/may/18/shenzhen-migrant-workers
http://vimeo.com/4999835 – password is gary (this has rights expired archive footage so please don’t download or publish it)
Manus Says:
April 8th, 2010 at 1:00 pm
From your work Dan I love this piece http://vimeo.com/5385390 (although i’m not a fan of the voiceover in the english version!)
I guess this style is crossing over into documentary from journalism? A cinematic style in documentary is i guess generally acceptable and appreciated by most these days.. maybe the issue people have is in the labelling of ‘journalism’ which seems more applicable to the traditional tv news and newspapers rather than internet news where more and more people are consuming news daily, and there isnt the urgency of having to cram the top stories into a 20 minute show..
Tim Says:
April 9th, 2010 at 2:34 pm
I think Khalid’s video is just okay on it’s own. Nothing more, nothing less. He gets points for getting out there. However, it’s not my taste, it’s nothing special and it’s nothing new. To me it’s just another “DOF test” but this time in a disaster zone set to music. What he claims is where I direct criticism-
“this was my first time shooting with a journalistic mindset”
and-
“showcase how modern technology can revolutionize journalism and the way news coverage is shot”
I’m sure Khalid is talented but first time thinking like a journalist and already trying to revolutionize it. Wow! Really? Is he serious?
I think we’re all hopeful of a fresh approaches and to move things forward and to a higher level etc, etc. But does anyone out there really believe that this can all be done with narrow depth of field and lots of awkward heavy kit balanced on top of a DSLR and pocket dolly? Isn’t film making about new and old ideas put together in a fresh, thoughtful and creative way? I know it isn’t just about unmotivated camera moves and post production.
On his day out thinking like a journalist, did Khalid plug in a mic? To at least hear some sync FX would have drawn me a little closer. Instead, as a viewer, I was held at a distance. This isn’t just a journalistic criticism, it’s a film language criticism.
I thought journalism was about informing the audience. We knock the conventional approach to TV journalism because it may be too reporter driven or whatever, but aren’t we risking our work being too gadget driven. Cinematic. Really does anyone care? Does anyone out there really notice? Is this just cinematic journalism for our peers? Who is our intended audience? Shouldn’t journalism be about the subject? Do those who criticise Khalid’s montage have to have a website? The audience we’re aiming at don’t all have 25 years experience shooting news features and a website to their name. Do our real intended audience really care if it’s colour graded or not. I believe the audience just wants to watch a well crafted film that informs. In my opinion, Khalid’s montage failed to inform, and it failed to revolutionize journalism and the way news coverage is shot.
pixelkisser Says:
April 15th, 2010 at 6:42 am
Hi I’m a promo producer (radio) for the BBC – I interviewed Philip Bloom about Social Networking and DSLR Film Making. I think there are several issues that people are missing when it comes to DSLR’s and ‘news’.
As I promo producer I automatically gravitate towards doing things in a cinematic and dramatic way. But a huge amount of the things I have to promote are news and current affairs based, and I think people have to be aware that for whatever reason, there is a very clear delineation in the average punter’s head as to what constitutes news, and what doesn’t.
More than any other discipline promo production means having to really be ‘in the audience’s head’ and have an instinctive feel for the way people are going to react to they things they see and hear, because you’re often trying to be controversial, or creative or do something quite different. For the promo to work, you need to know whether people are going to ‘get it’ in the first place.
And to me this is the first problem with a lot of the pieces here. For them to be appreciated by a wider audience they have to be understood, and for that people have to know where they’re coming from, and they have to be seen in a context which supports it’s aims. People have a subconsciously clear idea of what’s news, what’s a documentary, and what’s artistic license, and the best content producers take advantage of those subconscious audio, visual and stylistic clues to carry the audience with them and have them engaged in the story of the content as opposed to wondering what it’s supposed to be.
Nobody who watched Khalid’s piece cold without knowing the context would ever describe it as ‘news’, and if was shown on a news show as a news piece it would confuse the hell out of the audience. However, stick it on a plasma down at London’s South Bank and it’ll look great.
Terry
pixelkisser Says:
April 15th, 2010 at 8:55 am
(…following on from my post which I had to stop short on to go film an interview
Ask yourself, why did the DP of District 9 use an EX-1 to shoot all the ‘missing footage’ elements of the film? So the audience could clearly work out what it was they were looking at.
I’m not saying there aren’t hundreds of news stories which are done in an incredibly unimaginative and hackneyed way (see Charlie Brooker’s brilliant piss take : http://bit.ly/bCNSyb) and I’m not saying people shouldn’t experiment with doing things differently and trying out new tools (says the man who just shot his first Interviews on a 7D but had an EX-1 as backup just in case of pear shaping!) but I think you’ve got to have a clear idea to begin with of what the hell it is you’re doing and who’s going to care enough to watch it or consume it.
I think for a lot of people who are they’re own editor & director and shooting stuff on DSLR’s this needs to really be thought about a lot more beforehand, because as Dan says in the interview, you don’t want this stuff to go nowhere. You want to make stuff people are going to appreciate, and get something out of. But to do that you have to speak in a visual and sonic ‘language’ that your intended audience understands.
2nd point : Photos vs. Video
Sorry if this pointing out the obvious but there is a fundamental different in the behaviour when they consume stills as opposed to video (ergonomics schooling kicking in here!)
A still is a still. A person looks at it, and can look away any time they want. When they’ve had enough. It’s up to them. A video is different. Video is ‘real time’, stills are not. You’re saying to someone, “You have to spend the next 3 minutes watching what I’m going to show you”. That doesn’t happen with stills.
So you’re asking a lot more of your audience, and you have to put a lot more into it to get them to a) care, and b) stay interested. The skills of editing, narrative, story telling and being mindful of ‘what happens next’ are so much more important.
It can’t just be beautiful, poetic pictures. It has to beautiful pictures AND sound and a story, re-enforceing each other in creating something that engages people and makes them feel like they spending their 3 minutes on something worthwhile or beneficial.
In short, and with my promo hat on : tell your audience something interesting, and do it in an interesting way.