Music video - production ideas:

Snorricam has been a suggested object for use in production. This device is supposed to be built to allow greater movement and stability if self-made camera shots. The original intention was for me to use handheld camera shot techniques in certain shots such as shot 1 for life-like feeling of movement. In shot 1, the man in the video is walking home drunk based on narrative description. The handheld shot shows the movement in a more life like and realistic manner. The Snorricam seems like a very useful device for most videos, as it allows far more to be filmed in a professional looking way. However, based on narrative relevance, I will probably maintain my handheld shot idea. Firstly, it's easy when production purposes are an issue. Second, the camera movement and lack of stability provides a metaphor which assists to amplify the narrative property of the video. This being the drunken state of the character within the video.

The significance of zooming in for verse 4 in the song has been debated and discussed. The zoom in seems to be irrelevant in the sense of the video’s production techniques. While the original I am Kloot Proof video is one whole single close-up shot that gradually zooms in to the man’s face, my new video is based on a more dynamic narrative story and use of shots. In other words, due to the shots I am placing in between verses 1 and 2, and verses 3 and 4, the redundancy and lack of effect seem to be a problem for the use of a zoom in for the video. I have argued against this by stating that the zoom in only occurs as soon as verse 4 starts, so even though the montage of shots plays after verse 2 and sends the viewers of the video to a new focus rather than one shot, the zoom in afterwards would be ineffective to the video’s progression as the amplification of focus and meaning of the technique would be reduced by the montage of shots switching the viewer’s focus over to the shots rather than that close-up. Despite this issue, I have argued that since the zoom in is not to occur until verse 4, that gives the audience all of verse 3 to regain focus of the particular close-up, thereby adding effect back to the use of that technique. Regardless of this, the more technical side of production is also important to consider, since the filming must be my own, I will have to film myself. This will be hard because I will have to zoom in on myself while I look at the camera. This will be a problem anyway. Perhaps I could slightly change production plans so that verse 4 fades out and in from verse 3 and is automatically a further extent of the already placed close-up of verse, i.e. extreme close-up for verse 4 shot.

The shot quantity is an important issue, too. The original Proof video I have been inspired by is a one shot video. My video will be based on it primarily, with features from other videos and music conventions as well, and be a more dynamic and narrative type of video. My video will have a total of 17 shots, or that is the plan as of late September. However, the point was raised that my video is lacking the all or nothing principle. In other words, it was debated that I am merely taking something so brilliantly simple such as Proof and am pointlessly adding in some new shots and narrative content to make a poorly thought of and produced video. It was further stated that in order to truly create a more dynamic video in the way I was describing, I would require much more than 17 shots, a minimum of over 100 shots. This is not only practically impossible, based on production requirements, and time constraints, but is unnecessary for me to produce the video I want. My intention is to produce a video inspired by and similar to kloot’s Proof. But as well as this, it will use properties from other videos and be more dynamic and visually interesting because of its added narrative, target audience appeal, and use of illustration, disjuncture, amplification, and other media techniques. 100+ shots is not needed or desired for the creation of my video. What is being overlooked here is the presence of Proof’s original predecessor in terms of simply produced videos, and its main inspirational source, the video Nothing compares 2 U by Sinead O Connor. This video consisted of many of the same production and media techniques as my planned video will have, it also contains around the same quantity of shots. This video didn’t use a really small or large amount of shots to be successful, what it did was use each shot, as well as each resource and media technique effectively, to produce an overall, amazing yet relatively simple video that was no. 1 in its time. My video plans to use the same method as this and various other music videos have before. The purpose of each of my shots is to provide meaning to the narrative, amplify the story, supply illustration and interest in visualisation to provide effect towards the video and its overall quality and appealing content to its target audience.

The visual properties within each shot during filming must be accurate to the intention, or must be there only they fit in with the narrative content in the story. (I.e. a house full of flowers is hardly acceptable in a music video with a narrative content of a suicide story.) This is why my video choice is apparent. My plan to create a new video based off a simple video like Proof provides much more flexibility in production. Almost all of my shots, as well as my story, and flexible in development, and there is much more freedom in what I can include, since most of the video properties will be original. For instance, in my shots of the living room, the things within the room in the shot will fit in because the artist is 18, thereby still living at parents’ house most likely, so regular house appliances and equipment being within the shots will not be unfitting in any respect. This is why I chosen a narrative story of my own, whatever it was and it included would be capable of being handled by me during production.