Adrian Tan
November 5th, 2012, 05:06 AM
In a Hollywood movie, there's usually something awaiting resolution that keeps you watching. There's some problem to solve, some mystery to unravel, some quest to accomplish; or maybe the movie is about how the protagonist's life got thrown out of balance by some event, and they spend the rest of the movie trying to return to a state of equilibrium.
Now, I've never seen a wedding video that fits any of these common patterns. They're not Campbell heroes' journeys or McKee three-act structures. So, when people talk about how their companies provide "cinematic storytelling", and implying they're doing something different from everyone else, and specially tailored to each couple, I'm always a little bit confused.
So what do you think? Is there such a thing as a wedding story at all? If so, in what sense? Are there different types of story? Are some stories better than others?
If there is such a thing as a story, how do you best shoot to serve it?
The way I've been overthinking this lately: instead of looking for a "story", maybe it's better to think about what makes something structured or ordered. After all, I don't think wedding videos should be random collections of images, a moving-photo album.
So here's five ideas I've been playing with. Do you think differently for your own videos? Is there anything to add to the list of how to bring order to all the various shots you're taking?
1. Chronology. The sheer fact that this happens after that creates order.
In practice, I think this is what everyone does anyway, so I don't know that what "cinematic storytelling" companies do is anything that special...
It also makes all weddings fundamentally similar -- you're telling the same story, following the same script at every wedding (they got ready, they married, they celebrated), but just changing the set, costumes and actors.
2. Illustration. One way people shoot non-wedding documentaries is they film the interviews first, and then -- "If you say it, you should show it" -- they hunt for overlay to accompany the audio. Stock footage, photos and graphics, animations, B-roll, etc.
In a wedding context, I think people sometimes use a similar methodology when shooting pre-wedding videos. I know I have!
And you can to some extent do this for a highlights. If you use a reception speech as your audio, and the father of the groom talks about how the couple met at a bar, maybe the guests had a brief drink in that bar earlier in the day, and you have a shot of the bar's name. But, in general, I think the fact that you're shooting your "overlay" before your "interviews", and that you're restricted in what footage you can get, makes the whole "illustration" approach kind of limited.
Maybe one day wedding companies will shoot a lot of footage after a wedding, in order to get decent overlay to accompany vows or speeches; or else will know the groom's speech far enough in advance that they'll know what overlay to shoot on the day (maybe some companies already do this).
3. Image sequences. Basically, I think this boils down to structuring by information. Carefully parcelling out what information the viewer has access to in each shot. Eg: establishing shot, wide shot, mid shot, close up. Or reverse the order.
Another example: Still Motion covering people playing cards in five different shots, each shot contributing something slightly new -- new information or perspective -- over-the-shoulder shot of a spectator watching the game; mid shot of people playing; over-the-shoulder of a player, showing what's in their hand; close-up of cards hitting the table; reaction shots of faces.
Another example: bride approaching her dress -- you might do a shallow depth of field shot on the dress with someone blurry who's approaching; mid shot revealing that it's the bride; close up of her hand on the dress showing what she does with it; reaction shot of what she's feeling or thinking.
In editing in general, I think people sometimes talk about Q&A patterns. Your first shot creates some question in the viewer's minds that the second shot answers. But then the second shot raises another question.
Thinking about this sort of ordering has definitely changed the way I shoot weddings. Previously, the goal was "graceful reframing" -- covering all the action with a single take, while (hopefully skilfully) moving and focusing the camera to follow action and compose it as harmoniously as possible. Now I think also about moving my legs and grabbing different shot sizes, angles, perspectives.
4. Similarity.
Example 1: Similarity of theme. Show bride getting ready; cut to groom getting ready; cut back to bride getting ready; cut back to groom getting ready...
Or put your food shots together, your laughing shots together, etc.
Example 2: Similarity of emotion. When you're editing to music, you might do it so that the shots are grouped by emotion. Eg: the more reflecting, tranquil shots with the quieter parts of the song; the exciting, impressive shots with the climactic parts of the song.
The groups of emotions can have their own logic: nervousness before the ceremony; happiness during; smiles all around afterwards.
Incidentally, it seems common to choose images that reflect whatever emotion is going on with the music. It's far more rare to pick images that contrast with the emotion from the music -- for instance, to put slow music over exciting visual.
Example 3: Visual similarity. You might put your flower shots together. Or you might dissolve from a circular ring to a circle of people doing a Greek dance.
In terms of how structuring an edit by "similarity" affects your shooting, well, maybe it doesn't...
5. Patterns / recurring motif. I think I've seen this used maybe once, to segue between scenes. The groom was into a football team whose mascot was a crow. So there were crows and footballs used throughout the video. Sometimes the groomsmen would throw a ball out of one scene, and then catch it in a different location in the next. In some shots, crows were composited into the image.
If you were shooting while thinking of motif, and weren't staging anything, I suppose you'd identify visual elements at the start of the day, and then be on the lookout for those things for the rest of the day. A shape, a symbol, a colour...
Now, I've never seen a wedding video that fits any of these common patterns. They're not Campbell heroes' journeys or McKee three-act structures. So, when people talk about how their companies provide "cinematic storytelling", and implying they're doing something different from everyone else, and specially tailored to each couple, I'm always a little bit confused.
So what do you think? Is there such a thing as a wedding story at all? If so, in what sense? Are there different types of story? Are some stories better than others?
If there is such a thing as a story, how do you best shoot to serve it?
The way I've been overthinking this lately: instead of looking for a "story", maybe it's better to think about what makes something structured or ordered. After all, I don't think wedding videos should be random collections of images, a moving-photo album.
So here's five ideas I've been playing with. Do you think differently for your own videos? Is there anything to add to the list of how to bring order to all the various shots you're taking?
1. Chronology. The sheer fact that this happens after that creates order.
In practice, I think this is what everyone does anyway, so I don't know that what "cinematic storytelling" companies do is anything that special...
It also makes all weddings fundamentally similar -- you're telling the same story, following the same script at every wedding (they got ready, they married, they celebrated), but just changing the set, costumes and actors.
2. Illustration. One way people shoot non-wedding documentaries is they film the interviews first, and then -- "If you say it, you should show it" -- they hunt for overlay to accompany the audio. Stock footage, photos and graphics, animations, B-roll, etc.
In a wedding context, I think people sometimes use a similar methodology when shooting pre-wedding videos. I know I have!
And you can to some extent do this for a highlights. If you use a reception speech as your audio, and the father of the groom talks about how the couple met at a bar, maybe the guests had a brief drink in that bar earlier in the day, and you have a shot of the bar's name. But, in general, I think the fact that you're shooting your "overlay" before your "interviews", and that you're restricted in what footage you can get, makes the whole "illustration" approach kind of limited.
Maybe one day wedding companies will shoot a lot of footage after a wedding, in order to get decent overlay to accompany vows or speeches; or else will know the groom's speech far enough in advance that they'll know what overlay to shoot on the day (maybe some companies already do this).
3. Image sequences. Basically, I think this boils down to structuring by information. Carefully parcelling out what information the viewer has access to in each shot. Eg: establishing shot, wide shot, mid shot, close up. Or reverse the order.
Another example: Still Motion covering people playing cards in five different shots, each shot contributing something slightly new -- new information or perspective -- over-the-shoulder shot of a spectator watching the game; mid shot of people playing; over-the-shoulder of a player, showing what's in their hand; close-up of cards hitting the table; reaction shots of faces.
Another example: bride approaching her dress -- you might do a shallow depth of field shot on the dress with someone blurry who's approaching; mid shot revealing that it's the bride; close up of her hand on the dress showing what she does with it; reaction shot of what she's feeling or thinking.
In editing in general, I think people sometimes talk about Q&A patterns. Your first shot creates some question in the viewer's minds that the second shot answers. But then the second shot raises another question.
Thinking about this sort of ordering has definitely changed the way I shoot weddings. Previously, the goal was "graceful reframing" -- covering all the action with a single take, while (hopefully skilfully) moving and focusing the camera to follow action and compose it as harmoniously as possible. Now I think also about moving my legs and grabbing different shot sizes, angles, perspectives.
4. Similarity.
Example 1: Similarity of theme. Show bride getting ready; cut to groom getting ready; cut back to bride getting ready; cut back to groom getting ready...
Or put your food shots together, your laughing shots together, etc.
Example 2: Similarity of emotion. When you're editing to music, you might do it so that the shots are grouped by emotion. Eg: the more reflecting, tranquil shots with the quieter parts of the song; the exciting, impressive shots with the climactic parts of the song.
The groups of emotions can have their own logic: nervousness before the ceremony; happiness during; smiles all around afterwards.
Incidentally, it seems common to choose images that reflect whatever emotion is going on with the music. It's far more rare to pick images that contrast with the emotion from the music -- for instance, to put slow music over exciting visual.
Example 3: Visual similarity. You might put your flower shots together. Or you might dissolve from a circular ring to a circle of people doing a Greek dance.
In terms of how structuring an edit by "similarity" affects your shooting, well, maybe it doesn't...
5. Patterns / recurring motif. I think I've seen this used maybe once, to segue between scenes. The groom was into a football team whose mascot was a crow. So there were crows and footballs used throughout the video. Sometimes the groomsmen would throw a ball out of one scene, and then catch it in a different location in the next. In some shots, crows were composited into the image.
If you were shooting while thinking of motif, and weren't staging anything, I suppose you'd identify visual elements at the start of the day, and then be on the lookout for those things for the rest of the day. A shape, a symbol, a colour...