SERVO NOTE 02: (The references posted here are not absolute either. I am not saying that Kalium's AMV Primer is wrong, but instead a guide. Nor am I glorifying Edward Dmytryk's rules for editing as right, but instead lines to follow. The reasoning for this thread is to hopefully merge the two together.)
INFLUENCE: (This topic was influenced by the latest AMV-Review session held on October 22, 2007. The topic of the session concerned on Beat-Synch as a whole, and how it affects AMVs. Quadir should have the discussion posted in the General AMV thread soon. This Dmytryk vs. The AMV Criteria thread is NOT an extension of that specific discussion, but it was influenced by it. Quadir should have information for AMV-Review as a home for such discussion.)
Reference used can be found here in Film Editing.
And now to the topic.
DMYTRYK vs. THE AMV CRITERIA:
Stanley Kubrick believed that editing was the one truly unique attribute to motion picture production. It was his most favorite phase in filmmaking and stated that it's the only art born straight from motion pictures.
Today many editors have picked up the art as a practice and many have found their way here to the Anime Music Video Community. Through my years I've picked up on the hobby and noticed something peculiar about the AMVs. The majority of them seem to base their overall on synch. Whether it be beat, lyrical, or lip, the majority combine visuals in synch with music alone. I do understand that the music used by the editors serve as mirrors for the anime footage used, yet one thing seems to usually be missing for me. That's substance.
Kalium's AMV Theory Primer is an excellent guide for every AMVer to see. Anyone who hasn't read it should.
Notice that Kalium specifically said "viewed as the most important TECHNICAL aspect of a video." If statement is true, then synch is not necessarily the most important face of a video. Yet I find that many AMVs top face is that of synch. Many from the overrated Naruto videos using the most used action sequences, to the prevalent themed AMVs that have a face but still depend on synch first. In other words, both good and bad AMVs have depended on synch.Kalium wrote:Synchronization, or synch, is the idea that in a music video the audio and video should be connected. Synchronization is typically viewed as the most important technical aspect of a video, the medium through with everything else can be conveyed. It is the connection between music and video. Without synch, you have anime, and you have music, but no real connection between them. Synch can be subdivided into musical, lyrical, and mood synch.
In my opinion, the status quo of popular viewed AMVs is this: it depends on FORM.
An AMV that depends on form is a product that if synchronization is missing from the video, the video becomes less interesting.
I absolutely agree with above statement for an AMV if...
...if the video only has form and is missing SUBSTANCE.
NOTE: when Kalium said "to strengthen a concept in a video that doesn't need it can kill," he wasn't saying that dismissing the concept is the way to go. He was merely saying that staying with a simple idea is probably better than making it complex.Kalium later wrote:A video concept is a deceptively simple thing. The best way to describe it is as a vision. What you want the video to be, how you want the viewer to feel, what you want them to think, to understand. In short, why you're making the video. This is hardly an exhaustive discussion, so what is possible goes far above and beyond what I make mention of. It should also be noted that sometimes a concept doesn't need to be stronger than an anime and a song - not every video needs a strong concept. Attempting to strengthen a concept in a video that doesn't need it can kill the video. That said, when to apply the concept and when not is a matter of taste and style. After all, the overall goal of an AMV is to communicate something, right?
Substance is emotion, story, and concept.
Form is technical and deals with synch.
Now I don't mean to sound like some flattering romantic but I'll go ahead and say it. Substance comes from within.
Majority of AMVs in my opinion only have form.
In his book, On Film Editing, Edward Dmytryk outlines seven rules that good editors should follow:
"Rule 1: Never make a cut without a positive reason.
"Rule 2: When undecided about the exact frame to cut on, cut long rather than short" (Dmytryk, 23).
"Rule 3: Whenever possible cut 'in movement'" (Dmytryk, 27).
"Rule 4: The 'fresh' is preferable to the 'stale'" (Dmytryk, 37).
"Rule 5: All scenes should begin and end with continuing action" (Dmytryk, 38).
"Rule 6: Cut for proper values rather than proper 'matches'" (Dmytryk, 44).
"Rule 7: Substance first—then form" (Dmytryk, 145).
Rule 7, is greatly an important one, but majority of AMVs however contradict it.
Walter Murch also gave six criteria concerning good editors. They are listed from top to bottom 'most important':
* emotion — Does the cut reflect what the editor believes the audience should be feeling at that moment?
* story — Does the cut advance the story?
* rhythm — Does the cut occur "at a moment that is rhythmically interesting and 'right'" (Murch, 18)?
* eye-trace — Does the cut pay respect to "the location and movement of the audience's focus of interest within the frame" (Murch, 18)?
* two-dimensional place of the screen — Does the cut respect the 180 degree rule?
* three-dimensional space of action — Is the cut true to the physical/spatial relationships within the diegesis?
Murch assigned notional percentage values to each of the criteria. Emotion, with 51%, outweighed the combined value of all the other criteria.
NOTE: Above information of Dmytryk and Murch is referenced from wikipedia article Film Editing.
Notice that rhythm is third on Murch's list and doesn't even assign close to 51% of all other criteria.
Again, AMV's contradict this, in my opinion.
Personal view of the status quo of popular AMVs:
1)Rhythm
2)Visual novelity
3)Sound novelity
4)Editing Style novelity
5)Story
6)Emotion
7)Eye-Trance (Optional and is often overlooked.)
This is merely a personal view, but I highly disagree that AMVs should consider above criteria in their order. Emotion and Story must be on the top, hands down.
So what's the solution here? It's not like I'm going to say "HEY! Make your damn videos they way they're damn suppose to!"
No, no. That itself is biased and a form.
All of us need to take time to adjust our AMV storytelling. Fortunately, a lot of editors out there are going down a similar path in focusing mainly on substance. But we all need to know what's going on and learn from our past works, as well from each other.
There needs to be a balance between Substance and Form.
My father conversed with me last night after watching me work on my latest video. He said that hopefully one day there will be a generation where this medium is appreciated and set up artistically with the test of time. But in order for that to happen, there needs to be a movement where AMVs become something more than just visuals and music. Much much more.
I understand that there are a lot of you who enter this practice for fun and I totally respect that. It's the same thing for me too. The great Stanley Kubrick said that the best practice of making movies is to go ahead and make them. Keep in mind that your practice for fun should evolve and become something greater.
Kalium said something to me that AMVs are part of an aesthetic capable of evolving.
And you know what? He's right.
It's up to us to evolve the medium.
