The Power of Pictures

Recently one of our clients, Booz Allen Hamilton, asked us to create a video series to show some of the cool things their people are doing that sets them apart.  "They call it Missions That Matter."  


The first one features Sandra Davis, who volunteers at The Children's Inn, where families stay for free while their seriously-ill children are treated at a NIH Medical Center.  We approached the story in classic documentary fashion, with an in-depth interview and filming Sandra as a volunteer, interacting with children, staff and parents.  I didn't work on the piece, but it shows Sandra in action and has a lot of heart.    

The next piece is about John Cobb, who is helping develop a special program with the Department of Defense.  We planned to approach it in the same way, do the interview and then shoot him working on the program.  But after we did the interview, we were only allowed to show him in a neutral setting talking with colleagues.  Couldn't show the program, couldn't show the room where he works, couldn't show anything that depicts what he actually does.  Leaving a huge visual vacuum.


Big trouble, and this is why:  the words you hear in a video are always edited.  So, I typically join several phrases to make a complete thought, chop out extraneous comments, add pauses, delete false starts, ahs and ums, and shape the material to build a flow of words and ideas to tell a story.


But every time you make an edit in the interview, the picture jumps.  And cutting down a 30-40 minute interview into two and a half minutes means lots of edits.


So the visuals serve a dual purpose.  They help move the story along and they make all those edits invisible.  So what to do?  I needed visuals.

As you might say "necessity is the mother of invention."  I was told about a DoD photo site and searched through about a thousand images to find some I could use to tell John Cobb's story.  I looked for photographs that were more symbolic or abstract, so the viewer could read into them.  And I looked for ones that could show why what John was doing was so important. 


I think the final piece turned out pretty well and clearly shows the power of pictures.
  

What You See What You Get

Is what you see inevitably what you get? Well not necessarily. Here's an example of what I mean:

Working on a video for the US Conference of Mayors about JFK and the Call to Public Service. Using still images from his presidency and moments from his speeches to capture that sense of who he was and how he inspired others. And opening the piece with just a few comments from mayors talking about how he inspired them and the nation.

Since this was to be an introduction to the video, I wanted to keep the comments short and succinct. So I chopped up their statements to pare down their thoughts and organized them to get the flow I wanted. So far, so good. But then the question: what images should I use? It would have to be something to visually play off what was being said.

Since this video is being created for the 50th anniversary of his presidency, I wanted something dreamy and nostalgic for starters. That, plus the right kind of music, would give more emotional weight to the opening and more power to the comments. When I saw this photo, I decided to shape the introduction around it. This photo is a great example of the difference between seeing and perceiving. What do you "see" when you look at this image and how do you perceive or take in what you are "seeing?" In considering the creative process, each question gets a different answer. Here's what I mean:

Objectively speaking, the photo above shows President Kennedy consulting with his brother Robert, who was then Attorney General. Their body language shows a personal and "private" moment and reflects the seriousness of what they are discussing. The president is obviously distracted by something or someone. Probably the photographer. He is looking away from his brother, and facing the camera. That's the first thing I "saw." But I perceived something else. If the photo was cropped to focus just on the President, it would give the image a totally different context. Still a serious moment, but more abstract. And now you can read much more into the photo. The President's gaze seem as if he was looking right at the viewer, as if sending a message. Which makes it very engaging.

And look at the background. You can see leaves, but they're white. Meaning it was a sunny day and the Kennedy brothers were in shadow, probably standing under a portico at the White House. Also, the photographer was some distance away, using a telephoto lens, which flattens the image. Now the background is out of focus, making the image a little less "real" and more abstract. If the photo was exposed for the sun striking the leaves, the President would be in darkness. But printing the photo so you can clearly see his face also gives it a grainy quality. Again helping make the image more abstract. And that abstraction takes you out of the "reality" of the moment and makes it easier for you to add in someone's thoughts or feelings. The bottom line? You get a dreamy, almost ghostly quality to the image. Perfect for a representation of nostalgic memory.