'Urbanbugs' Analysis

Urbanbugs (2010) is a Turskish documentary about street art directed by Aykut Alp Ersoy. What is firstly immediately striking is how different it is to Getting Up. It starts off in a similar way with a montage of a lot of the graffiti around, then precedes to introduce us to all the interviewees inter cut with more images of Turkish graffiti.

The title screen

I quite liked the idea of holding the interviews for a longer time like they do in this. I did the same test as I did for Getting Up and timed the amount of time people were on screen before it cut and also the amount of time their interviews went on overall. Interestingly in this doc with only a few exceptions the whole clips of the interviews they show they show in full, without cutting away, the average length of the interviews before they moved on came out at about 40 seconds. This is the complete opposite of Getting Up but allows for much more of a bond to build with us and the people talking, the interviewees probably say about the same amount as they would if they were in Getting Up but here it is in blocks rather than in short quick shots. It is worth noting that this is obviously a foreign film, so with a similar edit technique to Getting Up it would be visual overload to be reading all the quick subtitles while also looking at the graffiti, so this might not be a negative point and rather a tactical one. This also allows them to develop on points and elaborate on what they're saying, so you get a whole image through the detail their time on camera allows them rather than just a snippet, or sound bite.

One of the interviewees

One of my criticisms of the piece is that I noticed quite a few of the shots were repeated later in the film as well as early. This just feels like the crew didn't quite get enough footage and although this may not be the case it's the impression given off, one I'm sure they don't want to. This is something I'll definitely avoid when it comes to our edit, since it just makes it look like we didn't get enough footage while on location.

One of the cutaways

Furthermore it feels a bit too much like a film that has stuck to a formula. This is most evident from the first 5 mins where it almost religiously follows the idea of: montage of graffiti- time-lapse of Turkish location- montage- clip of interviewee- snapshot them- repeat. This is not to say in its self this is a bad idea, the structure works quite well, however it is repeated for the first 5 minutes until the title comes in and for me i found it a bit monotonous after the first few.

This film too had to hide some people's identities

As a final note that is perhaps a bit redundant but I still feel it's worth mentioning, I don't feel like there is a constant street art feel to the piece. The shot with the title on if I were to look at it and not know what the film was about I would say it's a sci-fi because of the odd missing of parts of letters in the font coupled with the shot they chose. Furthermore if it wasn't for the music over the end credits it would look like the end of some rainy rom com drama, this again coupled with the font as a single screenshot doesn't seem very street art at all. For our doc I want to keep a much more consistent theme and not sway from it, so it stays focussed and has a clear point.

The end credits sequence background

What is nice about the introduction however is how all the shots have a unity at the very beginning, they are all tracing shots of graffiti and they all track to the right. Cut together as they are they get a feeling of constant movement, something I think is definitely intentional, and is something that definitely works well.

Another of the interviewees

One of the things we'll definitely use in our doc is the idea of keeping the music running throughout the interviews subtly in the background and raising it when they cut to keep a consistent beat and energy to the piece. This also tells me for our edit I'll need to make sure there is enough gaps within the interviews for the soundtrack to kick back in to keep injecting the piece with energy.

Another example of the cutaway shots

Also in terms of editing this film uses techniques to make it very obvious it's been edited, for example a few times it cuts from one interview to the came interview, so the person just morphs slightly and keep talking. Also through (what I personally find) cheesy transitions such as wipes, they're very obvious and personally to me it feels a bit unsubtle and amateur, they aren't used much but enough for me to notice. I'd rather go with a more subtle editing technique and not put in different transitions, and if I do keep it to a few standard ones, not falling into anything cliché but not being boring.

Notes I took watching the film.