- For this project, Mike and I were supposed to be the videographers (camera, audio) while Evan and David were the editors/post production chiefs (editing, voiceover), however that didn’t really go to plan. Mike and I did all of the videography, Evan did nothing, and David didn’t execute his editing job as well as we thought he would for the first edit of the video. Thusly, Mike and I decided to take over the editing for a second cut; for that, I also did most of the editing as well as the voiceover.
- Pre-Production and Production:
- I contacted the University facilities management office, got in contact with the man who heads that department, and then got in contact with not only the writers of the recent potholes article but the undergrad student who created the poll for the University of Maine student body to sign in protest of the poor road conditions.
- We interviewed students, as well as faculty and staff, and did our best to interview the facilities manager and the creator of the petition. We also interviewed two people getting towed, as well as the men working to tow cars that had been damaged due to potholes
- Extensive research was conducted for this project; who manages the roads at UMaine, who has authority to control when or if something is paved, why nothing has been done, the reasons behind why nothing has been done, the accessibility of asphalt in Maine, Maine climate and how that played a role in the issue at large, the production of asphalt and the University access to asphalt.
- We filmed everyone getting interviewed, which included a few one-on-one standups and plenty of car window interviews, and then the majority of our b-roll was related to the pothole situation on campus; we went around campus and got footage of people going through the potholes as well as plenty of footage of those being towed because of damage to their cars due to going through potholes.
- Again, the first post-production attempt of this project went less well than initially anticipated. I’m not sure what David and Evan did (there was very little productive communication during the process of editing), but Mike and I worked to create a cohesive storyline that followed the events that unraveled to reveal the petition and response of the University. I worked to create a narration that followed the story of the University’s refusal to do anything about the potholes, the inevitable backlash they received because of that, the creation of the petition, and then finally the university response to that petition. The way I edited the video reflects this progression of these events as well as utilizes the footage to enhance the viewer’s understanding of the situation.
- I’d say the objectives of the production were almost fulfilled through the final product. Because we couldn’t get in contact with anyone who could participate in an interview from neither the University facilities management nor the person who created the petition, I’d say there’s a lot that could be added to this documentary; this being said, it’s not like we could do much about the schedules of busy people. I think the final product is a little Frankensteined as a whole; because my and Mike’s final edit was an edit off of David’s edit, the entire thing seemed a little less than glamorous, but I think we did well with what we had to work with.
- More collaboration, more communication. Hands down. Evan fully missed class the majority of the time we were working on this project, so he was of little importance to this project. David was a trainwreck; he and Evan very obviously did not communicate, and I don’t think he understood what an undertaking the editing process would be. Any kind of effort from my teammates would have been greatly appreciated throughout the process of making this video.
Related
Comments