"It's Alaska" in Review -OR- "How do you make a piece that expresses confusion but isn't confusing"

Well, my project is, for all intents and purposes, finished. Watch it below.



I am exhausted, so I will use these guiding questions formally for my reflection.

What did I actually achieve with this piece of work?

This piece was born out of studying how typography was treated in old trailers. Through observing various examples, I managed to recreate and reinterpret the way type looked and moved in various contexts. I managed to streamline my work-process and consequently became more comfortable with using After Effects. My final piece of work is, in spite of any narrative setbacks, in my opinion a fairly solid exercise in pastiche and style.

Which were the most difficult parts, and why?

It seemed the most difficult part was to find a balance between the audio and the visuals. The visual style did not initially add anything to the source material, an interview with a self-proclaimed alien abductee, because the source material was already ridiculous on its own. I was married to the idea of using these visuals as a jumping off point, and rather than start from scratch, I thought of using a Sarah Palin interview (one of my initial ideas for this project). Through the use of dated typography - influenced by anti-communist propaganda, sci-fi and horror films, and commercial suburban fantasies - I hoped to comment on Ms. Palin's old-fashioned views and the way she appeals to the sensationalist fears of those attempting to hold on to their American dream.

Which were the most straight-forward parts, and why?

I found the entire project fairly straight-forward, in the sense that technically I already had all the tools that I needed to execute the project. The only difference is the extent to which I pushed myself in terms of the shear quantity and complexity of material. I must admit that imitating the old styles was fairly easy, in the sense that I never lacked any motivation. I just kept adjusting various qualities to get that perfect "imperfect" look.

How well do I think I achieved the intended learning outcomes for this task?

I think I deviated from the intended learning outcome in the sense that as I further developed the piece, I was less focused on the typography, and more focused on the visual context. It is no coincidence that the part people responded to most is the map section, because it is the only one where I really deviated from my "rulebook" and played with the camera. I originally planned to play with the conventions more, but in hindsight find that "achieving the look" became more of a priority.

Where could I have improved my achievement? Why didn't I improve it at the time?

In terms of my stated achievement, there isn't a whole lot I would have done in terms of further imitating the style, save actually going out and filming things the old way. However, that would defeat the purpose of using new technology to emulate old technology. As I stated, the piece was successful as a pastiche, however, guided by the general response and the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, I recognize that there were failings in other areas.

What have I got out of doing this project?

Most of what I have learned, actually came the day I presented it... so... yesterday. The response did not quite match the feeling of swelling pride that I had upon completing it Monday night. It seemed that much of the humor, references and overall intention was over-shadowed by the sheer magnitude of disjointed imagery that I packed into the piece. The irony is that I approached this piece with the direct intention of it being just that: disjointed, random, strung together. However it's nature over-shadowed the intent, and it seemed that's what people were responding to most. It makes perfect sense looking back at it now.
I didn't storyboard this project in any linear fashion. Rather, I conceived of it as a series of "set pieces" which formed the primary skeleton: Narrow Maritime Border, Our Neighbors, and Putin Rears his Head. These were the first sequences I created and consequently the most successful. The rest of the piece essentially filled in the gaps. I didn't initially see this as a problem because I thought that my process, fragmented as it was, perfectly suited the effect that I was going for. This made perfect sense in the tunnel-vision of my creative "storm", but looking back I understand how this did not serve me very well.
(In my defense, however, I might also argue that some of the humor was lost on the audience simply because they weren't as emotionally invested in the subject matter as myself or my target audience.... but that is no excuse for bad planning!)

What worked least well for me and why?

There is a specific section which I thought was hilarious, but seemed to lose others. That would be the part where Palin defends herself and can't think of the word "mock". I wanted to show her losing her train of thought by tacking together lots of disjointed images, followed by film scrolling past a broken shutter, implying her train of thought breaking apart. However it seemed to confuse the viewers, and proved somewhat distracting.

With hindsight, how would I go about this project differently?

PLAN MORE! I made the excuse that I could get away without storyboarding because the piece wasn't supposed to look linear. Of course I shot myself in the foot because if you don't properly plan an arc for your piece, you lose your audience. Although I think I did conceive of certain sections carefully, others were inserted without as much consideration, and it shows. However I will also state that my creative decisions in placing things where they were followed the audio very carefully, and the audio's inherent confusion didn't particularly follow a clean narrative arc to begin with.
None-the-less, I acknowledge the need for more planning and storyboarding before diving into the actual making of the piece. By reversing that process I became extremely involved in the visual vernacular and gave less priority to the planning, perhaps losing sight of the final outcome.
I will admit that the irony is slightly frustrating: although I achieved my desired outcome of a visually confusing piece, I ended up with a visually confusing piece. Therefore the inferences I can make as to how I might make alterations range from "subtle changes to make it less confusing" to "total overhaul of the concept".

I will not be editing this piece any further. No-one, that I can recall, commented negatively on my aesthetic choices, or how I could have done any specific sections better. For this, and other reasons, I think the critique reflects the planning and conceptual process more than anything else. The best thing is to take what I have learned, and apply it constructively to my next piece.

Over and out.