Unit 9 Evaluation | |
File Size: | 1063 kb |
File Type: | docx |
TV Production
Planning and research
Title sequence
The first part I made was the title sequence. I was inspired by the title sequences of news programs and political talk shows such as The Daily Show. I found that they’re usually quite flashy and impressive, designed to emphasise the importance of the show and give an impression of authority. While I lack the skill to make a flashy CG title sequence and I had limited time on this production that I didn’t want to waste, I narrowed them down to three significant features:
I used Adobe After-Effects because it’s better designed for animating though I probably could have made it as a sequence in Premiere Pro.
First I found a picture of Earth and imported it into After Effects and adjusted its colour balance to make the blue more saturated.
For the title I chose a professional-looking sans serif font that wouldn’t look out of place.
I also added a lens flare to make the title sequence more visually interesting.
I animated all these elements with keyframes, a process I explained in the following annotated screenshots (click to enlarge).
- A globe (to suggest the “global” nature of the news/stories covered)
- The title (which flies into frame or moves in some other way)
- A theme song (orchestral, dramatic)
I used Adobe After-Effects because it’s better designed for animating though I probably could have made it as a sequence in Premiere Pro.
First I found a picture of Earth and imported it into After Effects and adjusted its colour balance to make the blue more saturated.
For the title I chose a professional-looking sans serif font that wouldn’t look out of place.
I also added a lens flare to make the title sequence more visually interesting.
I animated all these elements with keyframes, a process I explained in the following annotated screenshots (click to enlarge).
I then looked for an appropriate song that I could take a 4-second section from. I found a generic news theme-song on a royalty free sound website and took the last 4 seconds.
Filming
I filmed myself presenting in the college's TV studio in front of the green screen.
I'm not exactly sure why but all the footage I took came out quite dark. I tried to light the scene well to make keying the footage in Premiere easier but it didn't really work out. I decided to read off a telepromter which I projected onto the whiteboard as this is a technique used in many live TV productions but this meant my delivery was quite stilted and I probably would have been better off learning my script. |
Editing
The editing was quite simple as I was using long takes interspersed with archival footage.
I think some elements of my production were to a professional standard but other aspects were disappointing. Particular issues were the lighting problems when I was presenting in that I appeared underlit and the quality of the audio when I was reading the script. I also framed it poorly with the top of my head outside of the frame. However, I felt that the graphics and animations I created were consistent with the standards of a production of the type I was aiming at, and the quality of the narrative was of the standard of a professional production.
I matched many of the codes and conventions of a late night talk show by covering a topical story in the way it would be on one of those programs. These conventions include a presenter talking to camera in front of a constructed cityscape and taking an important topic and explaining it, but using sarcasm and irony, visual prompts, relevant clips. My production is appropriate for the audience of a late night talk show in that it is darkly humorous, and raises important questions about gun control.
In terms of the lighting, I turned the studio lights up to the maximum and assumed that this would mean I would be fully lit when filmed. However, I needed to position myself off to the side so that I could read from the projected script and look over it at the camera, which meant that I wasn't at the point of peak illumination. I could have avoided this by having learnt the script, or by experimenting more with the angles of the lights. The lighting had appeared sufficient in the camera when I tested it in the studio, and it only became apparent when I imported the footage into Premiere that there was an issue. I attempted to fix this in Premiere but there where limits to what I could do. Similarly with my framing, I believed this was OK during filming but noticed after importing that the top of my head was not fully in shot. With the audio, I used the camera microphone to record sound, and this was not great for recording my voice. It would have been better to have used a separate microphone as I had done for recording on some of my earlier project work. Some of these issues I were made more difficult becase I was both filming and presenting and had limited time to reshoot. If I was doing this project again I would do a test shoot first and import a sample to be sure that the lighting and audio quality and framing was correct. I would also ask an other student to check for these factors during the filming. I felt my vocal presentation was OK but more shooting time would have allowed me to get this smoother (or I could have used an experienced presenter).
I felt that I had been succesful in creating an interesting and amusing narrative about the issue of gun control, and that I had been able to blend together my presented text and archive footage. My research had identified some interesting information and footage that would be new to most viewers, and I had combined them in a way that was fluent. I think that the way I was able to use images and text to support the arguments worked well - both in terms of the way I highlighted relevant text, and the transitions to bring the images on screen. My cityscape backdrop looked professional.
-----
I have learned how to construct a humorous narrative around a serious issue, and how to create the key visual elements of a talk-show segment. I feel I've gained an understanding of how to create the appropriate tone for this sort of production.
Most of the technical elements of the production used techniques and skills I had developed in earlier projects. Creating a project directly based on factual research was new to me, and this is a key component of satire and news-based comedy - for this to work viewers need to know that the evidence presented is reliable, even if they are mainly watching to be entertained rather than informed. This project involved more presenting to camera than previous work - and whether I am actually presenting myself or filming others it is very useful to have a greater knowledge of what comes across well in speech and how to present a presenter to best effect.
In my feedback for my research I was given two articles about the differences between American and British satire which I read and incorporated into my research. This helped me in scriptwriting as it identifed key traits in these different styles of humour. American talk-show humour tends to be more didactic, more obvious in its use of irony and less surreal, so I followed these conventions.
After I completed the project, I had the feedback that I should consider casting a presenter if I was to do another similar project so that I could focus on the production aspects. I think this is good idea, and I have some ideas of potential cast, and appreciate that I would be freed up to ensure the filming was of the highest quality.
Screenshot comparison
My main point of reference was the late-night talk show Last Week Tonight. As you can see in these stills, I imitated its visual style and composition quite effectively. I made my own versions of the skyline background and overlayed thumbnail graphics I have used the same type of medium shot with the desk slightly visible, although my footage is closer up making the frame a bit claustrophobic and the top of my head is out of frame.
The screencap from Last Week Tonight is much better lit and colour graded than mine due to my problems with lighting so it looks more professional and you can clearly see John Oliver's face whereas mine is in shadow.
The screencap from Last Week Tonight is much better lit and colour graded than mine due to my problems with lighting so it looks more professional and you can clearly see John Oliver's face whereas mine is in shadow.
My title sequence is quite minimal in comparison with the one for The Daily Show but I think it conveys what it needs to. I used similar imagery with the Earth in the background (to imply the show would cover stories from across the globe) and a lens flare to make the text more visually interesting. I also animated the text because the eye is drawn to movement.
I think the title itself is also effective in comparison to other shows of the genre. Many late-night talk shows have titles with some reference to time such as "today" or "tonight" to suggest immediacy.
I think the title itself is also effective in comparison to other shows of the genre. Many late-night talk shows have titles with some reference to time such as "today" or "tonight" to suggest immediacy.
Documents and articles are often shown on these types of programs with the relevant quotes enlarged as in this screencap from The Late Show. I used this technique to present articles in my production as well as including a logo to show the publishers of the sources. I think the quotes I chose may be a bit too long to read in the time they are shown.
Radio Production
Planning
After my research, I came up with a central idea, and then developed a script, through several drafts on which sought feedback. I booked the radio recording studio. It was hard finding people to agree to act in my production, but I did identify two individuals.
Recording
I found the studio simple to use. I had previously recorded some of the background crowd sounds on my phone, and also used some from FreeSound.org.
Editing
I took the speech audio, and edited in effects such as the 14-gun salute. There were some minor mistakes that I didn't notice whilst editing: for example, you can hear "Mary MacDonald" breathing before the crowd noises begin.
I think the production sounds fairly professional. The style is close to the conventions of BBC Radio 4 humour programmes and thus it would fit within a sketch show. The overall sound quality and audio effects are of a good standard. I felt there were some limitations in the delivery of the actors.
The conventions of British radio comedy include a level of surrealism, irreverance, integration of sound effects into speech for humour, spoofing of stylistic tropes of other radio programmes. In this case I was poking fun at the conventions of news coverage of royal events - especially royal births - the desperation to make news out of non-news and to be reverential. In researching I listened to both real events and also in particular "On The Hour", which spoofs radio news coverage. In this tradition I made fun of the "pips" at the start of the sketch.
I had limited rehearsal time with the actors, and so it was difficult get across exactly the stylistic tropes I was trying to convey, so they didn't fully capture the vocal conventions of the radio presenters they were spoofing . If I was doing this type of sketch again, I might have played the actors examples of real broadcasts of royal births so that they could engage more easily with the acting style. se
I was able to use the radio studio and using the mics and mixing faciliities meant the recording was of good quality so that the individual contributions were at appropriate volume levels.
Overall I felt I had managed to subvert the royal news convention in a way that was original and entertaining.
The feedback I had recieved had highlighted the surreal and more indirect irony that typifies British satire, and I had incorporated this into my script. The feedback I recieved after the production was that it would be good to use more experienced actors. If I was to do a production like this again, I would seek to identify the actors earlier in the process and also to spend more time in rehearsal in advance of recording.
The conventions of British radio comedy include a level of surrealism, irreverance, integration of sound effects into speech for humour, spoofing of stylistic tropes of other radio programmes. In this case I was poking fun at the conventions of news coverage of royal events - especially royal births - the desperation to make news out of non-news and to be reverential. In researching I listened to both real events and also in particular "On The Hour", which spoofs radio news coverage. In this tradition I made fun of the "pips" at the start of the sketch.
I had limited rehearsal time with the actors, and so it was difficult get across exactly the stylistic tropes I was trying to convey, so they didn't fully capture the vocal conventions of the radio presenters they were spoofing . If I was doing this type of sketch again, I might have played the actors examples of real broadcasts of royal births so that they could engage more easily with the acting style. se
I was able to use the radio studio and using the mics and mixing faciliities meant the recording was of good quality so that the individual contributions were at appropriate volume levels.
Overall I felt I had managed to subvert the royal news convention in a way that was original and entertaining.
The feedback I had recieved had highlighted the surreal and more indirect irony that typifies British satire, and I had incorporated this into my script. The feedback I recieved after the production was that it would be good to use more experienced actors. If I was to do a production like this again, I would seek to identify the actors earlier in the process and also to spend more time in rehearsal in advance of recording.