Plussing

[David Quakenbush]

I recently put together an animation course at work where they discussed the concept of "plussing" -- doing things to a character, or a frame, or a gesture, or a performance to really focus and emphasize what's there.

 

How can I use this concept in my own work? I've been mulling this over a lot lately, and it snapped into focus for me when I bumped into these two clips.

 

Same script. Different..... everything.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lq1eUpd9dco

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzToNo7A-94

 

My question to you: what did you see? Comment with some specificity -- don't just say "better camerawork".... try to figure out exactly HOW and WHAT was better. Comparing these two clips is a goldmine for folks in every department.

 

--DMQ | We Drink it Black

 

---

[Jim Brennan]

Thanks David.  This is a great conversation because the original one worked. It was a funny concept that was competently assembled.   It would have been easy to NOT see how it could have been improved.  That's probably one of the hardest lessons to learn.  

 

For me, the two things that really stood out were the editing and production design.

 

The second version was much tighter.  We establish what Terry does, and then move on to see it in different circumstances. For example, in the first one it takes a lot longer to get to the point where we are anticipating what he will do when the guy doesn't recycle.  Most of that is redundant and unnecessary, and the second version illustrates that.  The quick sequences of him doing his "job" are much tighter and more effective in the second one as well.

 

The production design was not only more thoughtful and "richer" in the second one, the addition of more "walk-by" extras made a huge difference to me in establishing the illusion of a real environment.  

 

I thought the acting was marginally better in the second one, and the addition of the little knee rehab clip was also a good addition.

 

The use of profanity also made a difference for me.  It was overused in the first one from a relative standpoint.  I use profanity a lot in real life, so I wasn't offended.  But in the second one, when we hear Terry say "Mother fu---" and then it cuts to the placid boss before he finishes, I laughed.  It was funnier hinting at it, but not hearing it.

 

The only thing about the original I liked better was the slo-mo effect on his injury.  Overplaying the drama of that was entertaining to me.

 

This is a good exercise because, at least for me, good editing and production design are over looked in the indie world.  Because things "work" or "make sense", they are left in, even if removing them makes the overall product better.   And production design is usually just shooting what's there, or throwing a few things in the background without really thinking about how this illusion can be maximized with thoughtful and intentional background detail.

 

Thanks for taking the time to do this. I'm looking forward to further discussion.

[Todd Geer]

Jim's all over everything that is above my skillset, but some things I noticed:

 

Mise en scene.  The CEO was framed well with appropriate stuff in the frame.

Lighting.  The subject was pulled from the background.

Composition in general.  Rule of thirds, vectors.

Audio.  Duh.

Constant action.  In the pilot one, there were dull, slow moving moments like when Terry just walked away from the dude with the pens instead of storming away.

 

[David Quakenbush]

"Constant action."  -- awesome!

I've started noticing that other projects, but haven't really pulled it out as an element. It seems so simple...

[Todd Geer]

I guess in the "big world," that equates to "beats?"  'Cuz you wouldn't want constant action, like Terry Tate, in a love story but there would certainly be a tempo.

[Ken Hendricks]

"Constant action" well done within the frame is one thing, "constant action" because of crappy hand held camera work is something else entirely.

 

 

[David Quakenbush]

@Ken: absolutely. It's like choreography. Every little thing should have a purpose.