Comparing Multimedia Journalism
- Sep 9, 2018
- 4 min read
I have chosen three distinct and special video interviews to compare and contrast, while keeping technical multimedia skills in mind. The first represents a true storytelling experience, similar to what you would find in some documentaries involving characters in their natural environments. The last two and more standard, question and answer style, but they still contain interesting elements that make for more exquisite interviews than if different cinematic choices were made.
The first video is an ABC 20/20 feature from January 2018, titled "My Reality: a Hidden America". Diane Sawyer conducted plenty of interviews in the complete video embedded below, but the one I am specifically interested in begins at 15:16, at a man's house. From a storytelling perspective, the main character is named Ronny Thomas. Thomas represents a group of Americans called "super commuters", where the only affordable housing is 40, 60, or in Ronny's case 80 miles away from his work. The distance paired with inability to afford a car, causes people like Thomas to make these extraordinary commutes with multiple forms of transportation. The interview is very interesting both content-wise and from a technical approach. The bulk of the interview is done early in the morning, before the sun comes up to demonstrate the conditions that the character wakes up in. That, paired with the lack of sunlight and very harsh, white studio lights constructs an aggressive feel. It really looks like a black- almost artificial- backdrop, with a flatly lit man. This is likely intentional to lean into the troubling message of the story, but it also could have been a lack of resources in the given setting. He his holding his bike, dressed in work clothes, and was shot so it looked like Diane Sawyer just caught him for a quick interview before he took off for work. This was vital to the story, because if we saw Thomas after work, or give an interview from a studio in a button-up and khakis, I wouldn't understand what is happening nearly as well as I do when the cameras follow him in his natural environment. From there, the camera crew goes with Thomas on his commute, and includes shots of him biking, riding the train and bus, with a voiceover detailing parts of his life. There are graphics that help illustrate just how long the commute is, and aid in the story telling by adding visuals. Also, the sun rises with his commute, effectively showing the passage of time and emphasizing the length of his ride. By this point in the interview, the audience knows that it is not easy waking up before the sun and traveling hours and hours to get to work every day, so the narration circles back to Thomas at the start of the day washing his face at his sink, telling us the WHY behind the commute. This was cleverly structured to juxtapose the commute struggle with the reason he does the commute. As a story, I loved it and know it would not have been the same without these important technical decisions.
The next video, also embedded below, is a January 2017 David Muir interview with President Donald Trump. At first, I was intrigued by the interview because Muir was walking with Trump in the White House, automatically giving it a casual and therefore unusual feel, despite the formal dress and setting. Not very often are Presidents portrayed casually. Trump and David Muir were both dressed in expected attire, and the well lit, in direct lighting gave a very objective feel. That continued when the pair sat down for a more traditional documentary style shot, and it came across very differently than ABC's 20/20 choice of lighting and setting, because two utterly different messages were being communicated. In the first video, it was an interview attempting to describe the struggle of working class, while in Muir's interview, it was to communicate presidential procedures and policies. "Objective" or neutral lighting and a white house setting makes sense for this story, and stories similar to it, but that combo of setting and lighting is usually not transferrable, and definitely would not be transferrable to the first video. Also notable, there is always shallow depth of field when focused solely on a medium shot of the the subjects, drawing the eye away from the setting and putting emphasis on the person. That changes when Muir asks his questions, there are panning shots and deep depth of field that really put emphasis on the setting, as opposed to the characters. This is important because it reminds the audience of where we are, the white house, which ties back to what they are discussing. That covers the majority of artistic, intentional choices.
The third an final video interview I will be considering is a classic Hollywood/pop culture style interview, discussing the movie "A Quiet Place". With the content being a horror movie, I thought it was dimly and harshly lit, but not enough to make me positive that is was an intentional decision. Also, the lighting was different between the two characters. This could've been a low budget interview, or poorly directed, but if it was intentional, I liked the choice because it matched the content of the story they were telling. However, it should have been done even more strongly, so the audience could assure that it is an intentional choice. The video also made use of green screens, using the interview as a promotional platform in addition to a genuine interview, which what I think makes it a more unique interview, compared to any number of ones done without the green screen. The camera angels were fairly standard, if not a bit boring.
Comments