<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Realizations As We Approach Month 2 of Production</title>
	<atom:link href="http://lifeswaltz.com/2009/01/realizations-as-we-approach-month-2-of-production/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://lifeswaltz.com/2009/01/realizations-as-we-approach-month-2-of-production/</link>
	<description>A doc about triumph in old age</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 Jun 2010 04:47:04 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: sam</title>
		<link>http://lifeswaltz.com/2009/01/realizations-as-we-approach-month-2-of-production/comment-page-1/#comment-55</link>
		<dc:creator>sam</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Feb 2010 02:56:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lifeswaltz.com/?p=52#comment-55</guid>
		<description>After watching the coverage on the YouTube/Sundance short and the card trick footage, I thought I would weigh in on the new kinetic style you all are employing. &lt;br&gt;&lt;/br&gt;&lt;br&gt;In the short bit I saw, I thought it looked a bit forced. There was a lot of movement. However, I think this may be because it was a short bit and my expectations were to see more conventional coverage. It might seem less forced if it was presented as part of the overall narrative. &lt;/br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;/br&gt;&lt;br&gt;I found it partly distracting to watch the visual jumps and listen to the stories. Perhaps the coverage ought to be used as italicization to the narrative? &lt;/br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;/br&gt;&lt;br&gt;What I didn&#039;t see were very slow, broad pans. These subjects are not speaking quickly, and maybe the coverage could be more in harmony with the overall speed of the place; what you have identified as not the active you once imagined.&lt;/br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;/br&gt;&lt;br&gt;An idea: Maybe employ a Ken Burns effect post editing, to give subtle movement to the subject. I know they do this all the time in historical docs for pictures, but I have not seen this done in film for moving images. I suppose the idea here would to keep the coverage looking refined and controlled (predictable) and get away from the guerrilla style of coverage you are on the verge of in the clips.&lt;/br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;/br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Anyway, good luck! We are all pulling for you.&lt;/br&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>After watching the coverage on the YouTube/Sundance short and the card trick footage, I thought I would weigh in on the new kinetic style you all are employing. </p>
<p>In the short bit I saw, I thought it looked a bit forced. There was a lot of movement. However, I think this may be because it was a short bit and my expectations were to see more conventional coverage. It might seem less forced if it was presented as part of the overall narrative. </p>
<p>I found it partly distracting to watch the visual jumps and listen to the stories. Perhaps the coverage ought to be used as italicization to the narrative? </p>
<p>What I didn&#39;t see were very slow, broad pans. These subjects are not speaking quickly, and maybe the coverage could be more in harmony with the overall speed of the place; what you have identified as not the active you once imagined.</p>
<p>An idea: Maybe employ a Ken Burns effect post editing, to give subtle movement to the subject. I know they do this all the time in historical docs for pictures, but I have not seen this done in film for moving images. I suppose the idea here would to keep the coverage looking refined and controlled (predictable) and get away from the guerrilla style of coverage you are on the verge of in the clips.</p>
<p>Anyway, good luck! We are all pulling for you.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: sam</title>
		<link>http://lifeswaltz.com/2009/01/realizations-as-we-approach-month-2-of-production/comment-page-1/#comment-27</link>
		<dc:creator>sam</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 11 Jan 2009 16:28:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lifeswaltz.com/?p=52#comment-27</guid>
		<description>After watching the coverage on the YouTube/Sundance short and the card trick footage, I thought I would weigh in on the new kinetic style you all are employing. &lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;In the short bit I saw, I thought it looked a bit forced. There was a lot of movement. However, I think this may be because it was a short bit and my expectations were to see more conventional coverage. It might seem less forced if it was presented as part of the overall narrative. &lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;I found it partly distracting to watch the visual jumps and listen to the stories. Perhaps the coverage ought to be used as italicization to the narrative? &lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;What I didn&#039;t see were very slow, broad pans. These subjects are not speaking quickly, and maybe the coverage could be more in harmony with the overall speed of the place; what you have identified as not the active you once imagined.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;An idea: Maybe employ a Ken Burns effect post editing, to give subtle movement to the subject. I know they do this all the time in historical docs for pictures, but I have not seen this done in film for moving images. I suppose the idea here would to keep the coverage looking refined and controlled (predictable) and get away from the guerrilla style of coverage you are on the verge of in the clips.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Anyway, good luck! We are all pulling for you.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>After watching the coverage on the YouTube/Sundance short and the card trick footage, I thought I would weigh in on the new kinetic style you all are employing. </p>
<p>In the short bit I saw, I thought it looked a bit forced. There was a lot of movement. However, I think this may be because it was a short bit and my expectations were to see more conventional coverage. It might seem less forced if it was presented as part of the overall narrative. </p>
<p>I found it partly distracting to watch the visual jumps and listen to the stories. Perhaps the coverage ought to be used as italicization to the narrative? </p>
<p>What I didn&#8217;t see were very slow, broad pans. These subjects are not speaking quickly, and maybe the coverage could be more in harmony with the overall speed of the place; what you have identified as not the active you once imagined.</p>
<p>An idea: Maybe employ a Ken Burns effect post editing, to give subtle movement to the subject. I know they do this all the time in historical docs for pictures, but I have not seen this done in film for moving images. I suppose the idea here would to keep the coverage looking refined and controlled (predictable) and get away from the guerrilla style of coverage you are on the verge of in the clips.</p>
<p>Anyway, good luck! We are all pulling for you.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Emily Volkert</title>
		<link>http://lifeswaltz.com/2009/01/realizations-as-we-approach-month-2-of-production/comment-page-1/#comment-26</link>
		<dc:creator>Emily Volkert</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2009 03:01:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lifeswaltz.com/?p=52#comment-26</guid>
		<description>I learn so much from your blog! Not only about film making, a subject that I know very little about, but your debates on subjects such as how to portray senior life and how to define &quot;active&quot; are very engaging. Keep it up!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I learn so much from your blog! Not only about film making, a subject that I know very little about, but your debates on subjects such as how to portray senior life and how to define &#8220;active&#8221; are very engaging. Keep it up!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
