This last week I have had the pleasure of working in 2 very different environments and on 2 very differing projects – one of the major bonuses of having my own company.
The first was filming on behalf of GOD TV the Call in Las Vegas. This was a 12 hour live broadcast from the Thomas and Mack Centre and was a mixture of prayer and worship – it was a very powerful event and I’m sure the people who watched it would have been incredibly blessed. It’s the 2nd one I have done and we will be doing a number more – check out www.thecall.com – BUT I won’t do it the way we did it again. Let me explain.
Understandably these kinds of events cost considerable amounts of money to put on AND to broadcast and GOD TV and the Call split picking up the tab for it. This time the Call had the idea to try and save cash by getting local volunteers to help (I have to say at no point did GOD TV ask me to do this – though budgets are always tight they are getting to the stage they know if you want a job done properly it costs money) – but I foolishly went along with the idea (at least I only have myself to blame for nearly losing my sanity). In itself it seems a sensible idea – and let me say this right up front I though the guys who showed up did a very good job – to the viewer at home it would have looked OK – well done to all of them!!!! Though I personally know how much better it could have been.
However here is the major problem, on the day when we were rigging we had virtually NO ONE turn up – and those who did as eager as they were had little clue so there was a lot of handholding.
If we’d have had a pro crew rigging it would probably have taken us 5 hours to get everything set up checked and ready for the programme the following day. BUT instead we arrived at 10am and left at just after 11pm – and still had to do 2 hours more preparation in the morning – so instead of 5 it took 15 hours. That in itself was a problem as it meant we were all going into a live 12 hour broadcast shot!! BUT the major problem was the stress and strain it put on the professional crew we were working with (all 3 of them – Sound Supervisor, EIC for the Brits that’s the Engineer in Charge and the Driver) – plus me. Remarkably they stayed with it and didn’t walk away – though I know they must have been severely tempted – and we all agreed that the event itself went remarkably well – considering.
The biggest problem here was the strain it put on relationships and also the fact that none of us could focus 100% on what we were doing so we did not function to the best of our capabilities and couldn’t necessarily produce as good a broadcast as we could have done otherwise as we were always trying to work within the limitations of the crew – who as I said above did a great job. Is that a problem – yes, for me it is I want to give 100% and produce the very best broadcast possible and if I can’t do that I don’t feel the satisfaction of doing a good job. The other thing is the taste it leaves in the mouth of those you are working with – some of whom this time were not Christians – it’s just not a good witness. Also while in some ways you save some money (and I’m sure they will) when all the overtime of the pro-crew are costed in they certainly won’t save nearly as much as they thought they would.
Bottom line is – this is not the way to do it, at the end of the day we’re short changing the audience and that’s never a good thing.
NOW – contrast that with what I went onto do on Monday – I had the absolute pleasure of working on our first Feature film. It’s produced by Global Creative Studios in South Africa and is the life story of Hanse Cronjie – called simply “Hansie” – check out www.hansemovie.com – we (Cloak) were basically providing the production services for their UK shoot. This including organising crew, equipment, logistics (food, hotel, transport, phones etc.) and filming permits etc. It was only a one day shoot – they had 2 scenes in London to do – but it was SO unstressful and it went incredibly well – they walked away very happy and we walked away very satisfied.
So what was the difference – simple, it was 2 fold – planning and skilled people. We had been planning this for over a month and even though things were changing up till the last minute the planning that had gone into the shoot meant we could be confident we could cope with pretty well anything – and we did have some challenges to overcome – such as radio mics not turning up, noisy builders on one location etc. BUT all we got round – son much so that our wrap time was set at 5pm and we wrapped 2 hours earlier – I couldn’t believe it.
The other key ingredient was the skill of the crew (both the ones who came from South Africa – about 14 – and those who we hired from the UK). They were all a JOY to work with and the great thing was they all knew what they needed to do and got on and did it – meaning we could do what we needed to do – as they say a well oiled machine.
It was filmmaking at its best. They spent the money needed to get a good job done freeing them from the stress so they could concentrate on the creative element NOT the problems – surely that’s what it’s about at the end of the day – building a platform for creativity. I’m not saying they were not budget conscious they were very much so BUT they spent what was needed to ensure the success of the project – and I really wish more Christian companies approached it in the same way – Global Creative you are welcome back anytime!!!
So what is the lesson – basically what the title is – there are only 2 ways of doing things – the right way and the wrong way, pick which you want – BUT be prepared to put up with the consequences of that choice – and I would recommend for the sake of your sanity AND if you value the ultimate experience you are giving the viewer choose the right way.
Saturday 27 October 2007
Thursday 4 October 2007
True or not true
I have been struck recently by the debate in the media here in the UK over trust in television. For those of you who may have missed it and for those of you outside the UK, TV is currently in a bit of a state here. The most recent controversy stems primarily from 2 instances – firstly the BBC (of all people) were responsible for showing a press preview of their upcoming programmes a clip of the Queen (if your going to pick a subject to get into trouble over there are few better) where she apparently stormed out of a portrait sitting during filming of an observational documentary – however it turned out that the production company RDF had edited the sequence out of order and in fact this had not happened at all – it was purely an attempt to “spice it up a bit”. The second instance was again related to promotional material and here a renowned film maker (Paul Watson) seems to have been a bit naive at best over a piece of literature put out by ITV (the broadcaster) regarding a documentary he made which alluded to the fact that the end of the programme showed the death of one of the characters – it was a film (a very worthwhile one) about the devastating effects of Alzheimer’s – however as it turned out the end scene in fact showed the man in question slipping into unconsciousness and he in fact died some days later. Again it seems another attempt to sensationalise a programme for the sake of ratings. You also need to be aware this comes on the back of a recent furore over premium rate telephone rip offs and several other serious errors of judgement by producers and broadcasters – so have probably been given more weight than they may have got otherwise.
It has however sparked an interesting debate in relation to deception in TV programmes so much so that some are even questioning the place of the noddy (cut away of someone nodding shot later so an interview can be edited) in TV programmes. The majority of the debate has however been focused on the editing process to make content say things that are maybe a bit of a stretch from the truth but are more interesting than the truth. Now let me say I have been in TV for some time and have in my time changed sequences etc. in the edit room – HOWEVER I have never tried to deceive – let me give you 2 examples. I was making a documentary and as part of an interview the guy we were interviewing got confused over a meeting and inverted a couple of names (we didn’t notice at the time) but in the edit suite what he said was completely 180 degrees away from what he meant to say – so we corrected it by cutting the 2 names out and swapping them round under a cutaway – so that it was correct BUT was it dishonest as it was not what he said – my answer is NO as it is what happened and we were in fact correcting his error. The second example is from a documentary as well. Here we had 2 conflicting stories from 2 people both involved in the same event – 1 remembered it as one thing the other as something totally different. They were conflicting views of the same event which was a key part of the programme BUT there was no way we could put both views in the programme as it made no sense. So as the director I chose the one I felt best suited the overall thrust of the story – I don’t know which one was true and probably never will as the 2 people who do know still disagree – was I wrong, did I misrepresent the facts – I don’t think so, instead I applied “authorship” to the project as I was telling MY TAKE on the story so I believe it was totally justifiable – I also believe authorship is critical in any programme – as you are the programme maker and have to own the project ultimately.
Now I do believe this does raise some really interesting questions for us as Christian TV Producers – and it’s possibly a debate we should be having. Should it not be the case that our standards MUST be far higher than the secular world who ultimately are driven by motives of profits and ratings, whereas we are driven by a desire to put out a message of faith and hope – so should we not always prioritise the truth above all else?
Let me pose some questions that I have encountered and explore what our responsibility should be – here are some examples (certainly not exhaustive) what should we do in these circumstances?
1. We are telling the story of the impact that a ministry we are involved with has had in a person’s life. As we tell the story it becomes clear that whilst the ministry has no doubt had an impact it may not have been AS significant as we first thought. BUT we have the material in the can to make it so the impact seems greater and thus the ministry we are working for looks like it is having a greater impact – should we edit that way OR be true to the story? I would submit we should be true to the story and the integrity of the person we are interviewing we should not enhance the truth for the sake of making us or our employers look better – after all in one sense is that not what a lot of people level as a criticism of some of the stories in the bible (for example the Israelites crossing the red sea, the miracles of Jesus etc. EVEN the resurrection) – people are always questioning if these stories have been exaggerated of these or if they did in fact happen at all. If we are confident we can defend the integrity of these stories – should we not be very careful about how we tell ours?
2. Live or not live – here is one I run into a lot. The temptation to say that a programme is “Live” when in fact it is pre-recorded. There are a couple of issues here – sometimes some of the programmes I work on are promoted as LIVE events – but sometimes for the sake of scheduling they can in fact be time shifted by an hour or 2 – should we promote these as LIVE? I’m not sure there is a straight forward answer to this but I don’t have too many problems with saying it is LIVE if in fact we are sending it off the site as it happens even if a transmission site somewhere in the world is delaying it by a couple of hours – because in reality there is no time to reedit things and in fact what the viewer sees WILL be what we recorded LIVE – others may have a different view on this. HOWEVER what I do object to is when we “pretend” that something is live when in fact it is something that may have been recorded months before and we are now replaying BUT it suits our purposes to pretend to be live – that I personally do feel steps over the bounds and we start deceiving our viewers – never a comfortable place to be.
3. How about this one using tools such as laughter tracks or telephone backgrounds to enhance the viewing experience – making things seem funnier or busier than they really are. I’ve not totally made up my mind on this one, but overall I think I favour not doing it as again it seems a bit too deceptive to me – but what do you think?
These are just some examples, I’m sure you can all think of plenty of others from your own experiences and situations.
Overall though I am convinced that as Christian TV producers we have to operate at a far higher standard than the secular media and that our integrity should never be able to be called into question. There are MANY detractors of Christian media – plenty of people who due to the excesses of some tar us all with the same brush – lets ensure we don’t give them more ammunition by our own actions.
My advice and the place I have come to personally is that if it does not resonate with the “still small voice” inside you then you MUST question it.
How you then deal with the repercussions of that however is a difficult one – for example, imagine you are working for a Christian Leader who wants you to do something (I’m referring to things like the above – NOT things that are illegal or immoral – if that happens RUN) that just doesn’t quite sit right with your conscience – what do you do? Well I would suggest there are a number of approaches:
Firstly PRAY – take the issue to God and see what he would have you do – I’m dreadful on that BUT when I have done it I often find the problem either goes away or I get clarity on what to do.
Secondly (this and all the rest are determined by the result of praying) – make your feelings known IN A NON CONFRONTATIONAL WAY – tell the person asking you to do the deed why you feel uncomfortable.
Thirdly – let it go. That’s a hard one, however I do believe spiritually the Christian Leader has the responsibility before the Lord for his decisions – we are entitled to disagree with them and question them BUT ultimately if they still decide to go ahead it is their responsibility to make that decision – you then have 2 choices either you let it go and get on with your job or you let it eat you up – and believe me letting it go is far easier.
Fourthly – ultimately if you keep running into these situations that compromise your integrity and you can’t see beyond them – LEAVE – get out and move on – but do so with a right attitude.
I’ve found these 4 things usually sort out most problems one way or another and allow me to continue to work with people who sometimes I disagree with BUT without compromising my integrity or my conscience.
I hope you find this helpful – and let me know what you think – should we be worried about telling the truth truthfully or does it not matter so long as the message gets out there?
It has however sparked an interesting debate in relation to deception in TV programmes so much so that some are even questioning the place of the noddy (cut away of someone nodding shot later so an interview can be edited) in TV programmes. The majority of the debate has however been focused on the editing process to make content say things that are maybe a bit of a stretch from the truth but are more interesting than the truth. Now let me say I have been in TV for some time and have in my time changed sequences etc. in the edit room – HOWEVER I have never tried to deceive – let me give you 2 examples. I was making a documentary and as part of an interview the guy we were interviewing got confused over a meeting and inverted a couple of names (we didn’t notice at the time) but in the edit suite what he said was completely 180 degrees away from what he meant to say – so we corrected it by cutting the 2 names out and swapping them round under a cutaway – so that it was correct BUT was it dishonest as it was not what he said – my answer is NO as it is what happened and we were in fact correcting his error. The second example is from a documentary as well. Here we had 2 conflicting stories from 2 people both involved in the same event – 1 remembered it as one thing the other as something totally different. They were conflicting views of the same event which was a key part of the programme BUT there was no way we could put both views in the programme as it made no sense. So as the director I chose the one I felt best suited the overall thrust of the story – I don’t know which one was true and probably never will as the 2 people who do know still disagree – was I wrong, did I misrepresent the facts – I don’t think so, instead I applied “authorship” to the project as I was telling MY TAKE on the story so I believe it was totally justifiable – I also believe authorship is critical in any programme – as you are the programme maker and have to own the project ultimately.
Now I do believe this does raise some really interesting questions for us as Christian TV Producers – and it’s possibly a debate we should be having. Should it not be the case that our standards MUST be far higher than the secular world who ultimately are driven by motives of profits and ratings, whereas we are driven by a desire to put out a message of faith and hope – so should we not always prioritise the truth above all else?
Let me pose some questions that I have encountered and explore what our responsibility should be – here are some examples (certainly not exhaustive) what should we do in these circumstances?
1. We are telling the story of the impact that a ministry we are involved with has had in a person’s life. As we tell the story it becomes clear that whilst the ministry has no doubt had an impact it may not have been AS significant as we first thought. BUT we have the material in the can to make it so the impact seems greater and thus the ministry we are working for looks like it is having a greater impact – should we edit that way OR be true to the story? I would submit we should be true to the story and the integrity of the person we are interviewing we should not enhance the truth for the sake of making us or our employers look better – after all in one sense is that not what a lot of people level as a criticism of some of the stories in the bible (for example the Israelites crossing the red sea, the miracles of Jesus etc. EVEN the resurrection) – people are always questioning if these stories have been exaggerated of these or if they did in fact happen at all. If we are confident we can defend the integrity of these stories – should we not be very careful about how we tell ours?
2. Live or not live – here is one I run into a lot. The temptation to say that a programme is “Live” when in fact it is pre-recorded. There are a couple of issues here – sometimes some of the programmes I work on are promoted as LIVE events – but sometimes for the sake of scheduling they can in fact be time shifted by an hour or 2 – should we promote these as LIVE? I’m not sure there is a straight forward answer to this but I don’t have too many problems with saying it is LIVE if in fact we are sending it off the site as it happens even if a transmission site somewhere in the world is delaying it by a couple of hours – because in reality there is no time to reedit things and in fact what the viewer sees WILL be what we recorded LIVE – others may have a different view on this. HOWEVER what I do object to is when we “pretend” that something is live when in fact it is something that may have been recorded months before and we are now replaying BUT it suits our purposes to pretend to be live – that I personally do feel steps over the bounds and we start deceiving our viewers – never a comfortable place to be.
3. How about this one using tools such as laughter tracks or telephone backgrounds to enhance the viewing experience – making things seem funnier or busier than they really are. I’ve not totally made up my mind on this one, but overall I think I favour not doing it as again it seems a bit too deceptive to me – but what do you think?
These are just some examples, I’m sure you can all think of plenty of others from your own experiences and situations.
Overall though I am convinced that as Christian TV producers we have to operate at a far higher standard than the secular media and that our integrity should never be able to be called into question. There are MANY detractors of Christian media – plenty of people who due to the excesses of some tar us all with the same brush – lets ensure we don’t give them more ammunition by our own actions.
My advice and the place I have come to personally is that if it does not resonate with the “still small voice” inside you then you MUST question it.
How you then deal with the repercussions of that however is a difficult one – for example, imagine you are working for a Christian Leader who wants you to do something (I’m referring to things like the above – NOT things that are illegal or immoral – if that happens RUN) that just doesn’t quite sit right with your conscience – what do you do? Well I would suggest there are a number of approaches:
Firstly PRAY – take the issue to God and see what he would have you do – I’m dreadful on that BUT when I have done it I often find the problem either goes away or I get clarity on what to do.
Secondly (this and all the rest are determined by the result of praying) – make your feelings known IN A NON CONFRONTATIONAL WAY – tell the person asking you to do the deed why you feel uncomfortable.
Thirdly – let it go. That’s a hard one, however I do believe spiritually the Christian Leader has the responsibility before the Lord for his decisions – we are entitled to disagree with them and question them BUT ultimately if they still decide to go ahead it is their responsibility to make that decision – you then have 2 choices either you let it go and get on with your job or you let it eat you up – and believe me letting it go is far easier.
Fourthly – ultimately if you keep running into these situations that compromise your integrity and you can’t see beyond them – LEAVE – get out and move on – but do so with a right attitude.
I’ve found these 4 things usually sort out most problems one way or another and allow me to continue to work with people who sometimes I disagree with BUT without compromising my integrity or my conscience.
I hope you find this helpful – and let me know what you think – should we be worried about telling the truth truthfully or does it not matter so long as the message gets out there?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
