REDUX - how to produce deeply affective, immersive stories for the screen generation.

Speakers point of view at Newsrewired

Former broadcast journalist, turned academic, Doctoral student and trainer David Dunkley Gyimah on Affective Reportage. He has previously presented to BBC Execs at the World Service and trained newspapers such as the Financial Times in videojournalism


Last Friday I presented at Newswire, where I attempted to explain an unveiling manner of engaging storytelling that used subconsciously or otherwise information as an affective aesthetic artifact.

It can become 'Integrated News [c]inema which you could called 'Vinema' - a hybrid source horrible word. I use this [c] term because of how ideologically loaded cinema as a word has become.

BBC Reportage from david dunkley gyimah on Vimeo.

I played this clip from BBC Reportage circa 1992, which I worked on at the time, and compared it to something else. Here I'm using the trailer from Tahrir Memento, which I made last year.

Tahrir Memento from david dunkley gyimah on Vimeo.

The production modes might look remarkably similar, even though they are almost 20 years apart. However there are huge differences, which you may not notice. The obvious in (i) it's a team effort of around 8 people. In (ii) it's just me.

The differences become more acute when you compare me here reporting for London Tonight. However these aren't necessarily new points.

Reportage ITV's London Tonight from david dunkley gyimah on Vimeo.

But all of a sudden my method of explaining change can be delineated through the programmes I have worked on over the 20 years, such as WTN, Newsnight, Channel 4 News etc. It's a process called Phenomenology.

Meaning of words
The term aesthetic, I used about in this context refers to the look and feel, whilst [c]inema is how configured shots and narrative give over to a physical form of film making that uses technique, process, and style to affect us.

News experts may argue it's always been there.

It's called getting "close to the story",  or "good solid journalism",  but I would argue it's been a challenge to create as late and, that is "getting close", because it's dependent on a number of esoteric variables.

The more generic reasons include: zealous control of media and pictures by story sources, our own self-censoring, how reporting has often slid into get-it-out-quick churnalism and the lack of meaningful thought given to constructing a report.

Getting close to a story is the hallmark of great journalism (re: Murrows et al),  but an Integrated [c]inema is a contemporary quality - a 21t century concept that collapses a host of forms and aesthetic platforms.

It's almost as if CSS which bears no relationship to video now share common features... and they do!

And I don't proclaim to own it the process. Other than state that it's happening, and is growing.  The goal posts are being inexorably moved.

And whilst getting close to a story has a cinematic effect, it does not make Integrated [c]inema. The  sustained semiotic we, as news viewers* have become accustomed to means there's a way in which we differentiate news from cinema-like pictures, which I tried to get across in my Pecha Kucha.

Again, the idea of getting close physically and metaphorically comes with problems. Say you've been told there are gunmen or snipers nearby. You'd much prefer to be 400 metres way than 100 metres. It's human instinct. Good reportage though depends on you getting close, seeking out trouble, but ill-defined lines of conflict do not make give you that blanket safety zone anymore. The risks you weigh up now are more heightened. The society you once knew has changed.

David reporting from South Africa in BBC Ariel 1992

Getting to the story
If you'll allow me this slight deviation and personal story. I was always amazed how close Soweto was to Johannesburg when I freelanced as a reporter in South Africa during the 1992-94 conflicted transition from Apartheid to democratic state.

Residents in Sandton, an affluent surburb, could virtually live in peace, while thirty odd minutes away in the townships there were massacres. So to report we (reporters) had to search out trouble.

Oh and less I forget, the term [c]inema requires all sorts of unpacking and then describing what sort of cinema you're employing, which I do in my thesis, so I can only touch the void in this post.

I aim to give a master class in this soon.








Breakdown of the story
So, to BBC Correspondent Paul Wood's report with his Cameraman Fred Scott in Homs, Syria.

The team are risking their lives to bring us this report. I have picked up a segment to deconstruct. Woods has announced they've been smuggled in by forces opposed to President Bashar al-Assad's forces.



 A metonyn of war - the shattered glass. It's how close up the lens is to the shards that tells us this is a dangerous area. Side shots equals snipers. And then the pan, to the next shot.


A deserted street. the grey cubic architecture, space... Cinema.

Importantly, this cinematic shot has been found. The team could easily have not got into a car, or could have chosen not to film this section. The narrative has them being smuggled into a conflict zone. You could hold this shot for as long to reinforce  Wood's point.

In this PTC or stand up Wood's cameraman Scott is employing a shallow-depth-of-field. Though as a period style I don't place emphasis on this for [c]inema, its the composition and muted colours.

Our focus is drawn to the defocused end-of-street-shot. There's something lurking there? This is playing with repressed or symptomatic feelings. Paul makes no specific mention to this. If you're a student deconstructing this, what would you have said and do next, particularly as a videojournalist.

videojournalist story, because this form of categorisation would be crass. This was a reporter-camera shoot. However its worth thinking about this as an exercise and what you might have done.

This shot emphasis where the reportage team is. The end of the cold war heralded this shift in what could be defined as fast changing front lines in conflict. This is one such example. Close quarter fighting in which the reportage team are in as much risk as those with guns. This is cinematic. You're right in the action.

The same with this shot. Life imitates art imitates life. If I showed you this shot and said this was from Greenzone ( Dir Paul Greengrass)  you might say, "yeah and so?"

Fictional cinema has often stolen from factual cinema to look believable and the dominance of cinema at large means we become accustomed to shots that say something from fictional cinema, rather than factual. But show this to a class without the captions and see how a large proportion may tell you this is Greenzone.

If the cameraman was ten feet away from where the fighters it may not have produced the impact the camera man desired.

A metonymic shot if there ever was one. This shot above embodies all there is about war. The cameraman is at eye level. He's noticed the fear writ across the fighter's face; a blurred gun turret in the background, and that one fleeting gaze captures the moving image moment. 

Any photojournalist would be pleased with this shot. Again its compositional arrangement and blue background isolate the face. 

One...

 two...

 three..

four..

Four frames that I have chosen portray Wood's experiences as he reacts gun fire. This is not embedded journalism. This is the risk that this BBC team have taken to produce footage to verify the denials of what's going on in a region.

There's no grandstanding, looking for the perfect akimbo stance to deliver the stand-up. This shot places the reporter within the zone of peril. "We are in the thick of things here",  the cameraman is telling us, specifically referring to the reporter.


This shot pulls the focus onto the movement of the fighters but also draws attention to the cameraman moving at pace to catch up but also acting cautiously.

Journalism not for the meek. Independent verification. Please note, a construct could possess many cinematic effects and not classify as cinema ( whose cinema, what cinema??)

But there is an overall hacceity that comes to bear when watching something in which you suspend the gaze attributed to television for the sustained look - something you give over to darkened room cinema.

I can only allude tot this as it requires far more unpacking than I have spaced for, but as a general term it possesses the currency,  others have limited to personal, immediate, immersive and so on.

NB * Viewers - here I'm looking at those who would say they grew up on television as opposed to cinema


In my next post I use semiotics t show you how Sherlock Holmes faked his death in the BBC TV series

Log onto viewmagazine.tv for more media

Phishing, Mad dogs and Police Camera Action - the difference a day makes

Mind your security

You couldn't write a script for it, but the last 18 hours have been eventful to say the least.

On my way home passing a friends house, we noticed two burly men in a dark car looking down into a laptop.

There was it appeared to be data streaming.

They could have been innocently surfing broadband networks - which in itself constitutes a crime - sans permission.

Phishing has become increasingly popular as most broadband users have not secured their networks.

It's most common on high rise estates where criminals are known to lie in wait siphoning off traffic data which could include your sensitive financial details.

When we went online we counted at least 9 overlapping wifis open to attack.

So we went in doors and called the police and handed over our findings.

My colleague unable to contain himself crossed the road and asked if they were detectives.

They laughed- all 6 foot 16 stone of them and then moments later drove away.

When we spoke to our ISP, they were dismissive, assuring us such things did not happen and no one could get into your network.

Riigghhhht!!


+++++++++++++
Mad Dogs

Out on a bike ride this morning, I spot three dogs Rotweillers strolling with their handler.

We had three dogs as pets during my teens, but if I can I'll avoid them.

Which is what I did, until two decided, barking furiously, to home in on me.

I stood still and shouted out to the owner.

"Madam your dogs!!!"

"Oh they don't bite"

"Of course they don't, they're your dogs"

"No really, they don't bite"

'They're still coming at me". Meanwhile I'm standing still looking peripherally at them.

She made some feeble attempt to call them, they continued on their path snarling.

Within normal voice range, I pointed out, firstly I should be able to walk anywhere in this park without being threatened.

And how would she like it if three mean looking men peeled of from the pavement and walked close up to her, whilst muttering we're not going to hurt you.

And furthermore, if I did manage to grab something to defend myself, she'd be pretty furious.

Yes dog owners, you need to be a little bit thoughtful sometimes.

+++++++

My package on multimedia is taking shape, but it's too slow, so in an attempt to inject some action, I'm hoping to go out witt he police on a night raid.

That way too I can illustrate multiple entry points for multistrand storytelling

Area police press office isn't being too helpful, asking what they'll get from this.

How journalists may well be covering crime stories as videojournalist, didn't quite cut it.

And that's part of the problem.

Institutions are still insulated from the changes taking shape on the ground

Sacre Bleu! BBC walkies

Gasp ! A walkies shot on BBC News - a sport report on who will succeed the sacked England coach.

What's a walkie?.

Well, it's a set up shot, where often the camera operator asks the interviewer to walk from one point to another. In this case to walk inside a room and sit at a desk.

What's the problem?

It's a staged shot and the media have been saying they want to stamp that out.

Channel 5, a national news channel, said it was ridding the news of noddies (another staged shot) and others.

Why should it matter?
It's staid and lazy tired visual journalism; the construct of journalism can be done without set up shots.

My experience working for ABC News in South Africa was the networked eschewed set up shots.

As a videojournalist all I'll tell my interviewer is to do whatever they'd be doing and to ignore me as I film around them.

The shot then is more natural.

Doesn't sound a big deal then really

Depends whether you're into expanding the visual language of reportage in the same way that we should avoid cliches such as " their dream became a nightmare", and "It remains to be seen".

Cannabalising post from Prof Monck - Shark Attacks

Before leaving for his two weeks of the exclusive island resort somewhere near the Fijian Islands, Super blogger and author, Crunch Time, Adrian Monck posted this.

The Sun got itself well and truly stung. Us TV types look forward to a full independent inquiry into how the paper was fooled and how it carried the hoax forward to its readers.


In a shameless deed of cross canabilisation, I posted this on his blog and just in case you're not one of his regular readers, posted my response here.


OK, so we won’t be holding our breath.

. . . but was it fooled? No one's talking. Well at least that's what being reported.

Can't remember where I read/heard, but what appears to emerge is the local newspaper which first showed the pictures had a circulation bonanza. So, The Sun?

Coast authorities are reported saying rather than deterring visitors and surfers, it's done the converse.

So could this not be an up to date version of The Sun's 1986 headline "Freddie Starr ate my Hamster" ?

It is after all the "Silly Season", though that's hardly true looking at other news events.

In the end you could argue:
* No one was injured from the piece's publication. No that's not a reason to publish unsubstantiated claims.

* Some (?) made a tidy sum from the event; the original photographer claims not to have profited.

*Our penchant for the occasional whaky story retains our chutzpah for eccentricity and the Monty Pythonesque: "It's a dead Parrot !"
!
* Tourism to the UK will be boosted as a result: Hey those zaney Brits are at it again.

* David Letterman will probably have done a sketch by now, thus aiding the Sun's brand quotient.

Letterman: 10 things associated with Brits that are just er, mad funny.
1. They put custard on apple pie and eat jelly, yuk! (bum, bum)
2. They soak vinegar on their chips. (Ba-de-bum)
3. They call the sidewalk, the pavement. (ping)
4. Soccer is football £@&*% (hahahaha)

Drum roll

5. They speak with a funny accent (Boo)
6. Body wind jokes are funny ( no sfx here please)
7. He has a blond flop, speaks with rotund vowels and wants to be Mayor of England.
What?
Oh he want's to be Mayor of Hackney.
Where then? C'mon researchers do yer work!
8. Beckam turns down movie role to play soccer (swoon. whaaaat. He's maaad)
9. They named this bell here Ben. No, it's not an ex-boxer.
10. More Sharks, this time in the middle of London. (Hahahahaha..that's funneee)
(whispers to Letterman) Er, yes they're actually at this place that used to be city hall.
Oh!

* Itt's invigorated further talk/column inches of "what is journalism?"
*And finally The Sun has a good stab at achieving google-rank supremacy with the word, "shark". One last push.

I reckon there are a couple of execs at Canary Wharf with a G&T in one hand and a mobile in the other to Kelvin MacKenzie having a wee giggle.

In front of them is Peter Snow's (BBC Newsnight) retired war pit and they're shuffling pieces around looking for the next big story. No sorry, that's some other newspaper exec (Black).

There are lies, damn lies and statistics. But then factually with this story we might never know.
NB: A footnote for someone's autobio.

BTW, did you hear about the network news broadcast which flagged up a pic of a very famous rapper with a reference to the dark side of pharmacy? Surely shum mistake.

p.s. Apologies for any typos in advanced Prof Monck :) Have a good hols Adrian

BBC impartiality at risk says Guardian's Emily Bell

Fascinating piece providing an insight into a seemingly new trend at the BBC in which programmes made by the corporation are presented as news. Worth reading all the comments which add to the layers and indeed Emily Bell's response to blog poster the BBC's Kevin Marsh.

Journalism embraces a spectrum of grey which can often require bifocular vision to differentiate the grades; and what's good for some can easily be picked out by others. What makes it all the more "sticky" is that in the cauldron of web something zero (where are we now) the propensity to trial new approaches has to increase. Innovate or atrophy! And this time saying nothing - "Don't feed the trolls" Wiki's James Wales would say - is increasingly not cutting it.

Has the BBC got it right on this one or has Ms Bell found a flaw ? You decide here