Speaking of "light" in the literal sense, I felt that the lighting on Trent & Ali looked much more professional and balanced than on most other interviewees. Did they have it done by some of their own associates (Rob etc) instead of your crew, or what?
Anyway, hope you can take this as constructive feedback - personally I didn't like to see people's facial skin really up close and detailed down to the pores in that reddish/ pinkish glaring lighting. Made them look overexposed (in the metaphorical way - not sure if that's also the technical issue behind what I felt) and hence, not as "cool" as Trent & Ali.
Maybe THAT's even why some viewers felt that the portrayal was uneven? You know, many casual viewers tend to go by the whole of an impression left on them, not analyzing what elements made them feel which way.
(Also, one of the interviewees, whom I won't name here, also has a way of more or less subtly, more or less humorously belittling people next to him. Saw the same thing in other videos of him. That's not a filmmaker's fault, and those other guys seem happy to play along, BUT: the filmmakers can still influence how much of that is emphasized on film - by the position of either guy in the frame, by the cutting rhythm and so on.)
s o l v e n t wrote:
One thing I didn't like about it was how some people were portrayed, it was very partisan, either for or against, and we all know that those folks are in reality probably very liberal, and some people, I got the impression, were treated a bit like circus freaks.
We certainly had no agenda to portray anyone in any unfavourable light. I'd be very curious to hear some specific examples from you that illustrate this.