Ah yes that would be correct. Just out of interest, I've posted the Spanish song from 1995. It still amazes me how accurate and effective the cuts in this song are - truly well done. Admitttedly, you can see the way the jib in particular only began to move when on-shot a lot of the time. John Comiskey, the director, really did a fantastic job scripting the contest that year. Anybody would think it was a 90s-style conservative Sven!
Pay particular attention to the cuts in the second half of the song - flawless!
Spain 1995
Bit too mix-heavy for me - and a bit static and slow - even for 1995. Also a few shots seemed to start moving as they were cut/mixed up, rather than being moving as they were cut/mixed to.
Nothing excuses a long half-mix/super either...
I love the song though!
I disagree on movement. In fact there isn’t a single shot in that sequence that isn’t moving before it's cut to, or appears not to be. A fantastic song, a great performance, and a suitable directorial style. Agreed though that the jibs are underused. Indeed their use is so conservative as to give them a distinctive style in themselves – so solid, heavy and flawlessly operated as to give the impression of they being tied down like railcam-like cameras attached to a frame! Very odd. The lost opportunity to speed up during the second chorus is also regrettable – the cutting to a wide barely-moving jib of the stage broke the rhythm of the otherwise snappy piece. The composition throughout however was beautiful (as per 1998 ) and without question the principal virtue of this style of direction. 1993 was similar but much clunkier in wider execution.
This clip confirms to me as ever that 1995 still boasts the most sophisticated presentation package that Eurovision has ever had. Beautifully refined to the last detail – if flawed in the decision not to make greater use of the stage form and its rear wall in lighting. It was incredibly ambitious to rely pretty much exclusively on lighting for effect, and no doubt a deliberate backlash against the (necessarily) expansive, but also vacuous and mediocre, 1994 contest. It was subtle, and at once supremely elegant, as evident from as early as the opening sequence.
One of its cleverest features was evident in that clip – the pattern on the floor. Because of the decision only to light subjects, it meant the entire floor could be shrouded in darkness, resulting in the pattern in illuminated areas appearing as a lighting effect. It worked to spectacular effect with Secret Garden. Of course this set wouldn’t stand up to today’s performance requirements, but for its time it worked very well (if lacking in sufficient points of interest). It was a strong artistic decision, of which I think we need more of in modern Eurovision. I agree that presentation ought not consume performances, but equally contests should have a distinguishing style. As the EBU itself often touts, the contest is a flagship for the best in European television production standards - it ought to be used as a varied showcase of broadcasting across the continent. I think format and technical standards are sufficient to hold the brand together with presentation differing from year to year. It's what injects added interest after all. It's far too packaged nowadays. It can also be equally said that on occasion screens can consume the act - particularly evident last year I thought.
I agree that direction and staging are intimately intertwined – I didn’t mean to suggest otherwise. Rather I think that if some of the 90s contests had better direction, combined with their staging they could have been the best Eurovisions ever presentation-wise. And I’m not biased in my argument when I say this – believe me I think RTÉ produce a heck of a lot of rubbish – but I just do not accept the assertion that the 90s contests on a whole were averagely directed. Without question some were better than others, and the direction of 1993 particularly lacking due to the reliance on peds and with poor skills on at least one principal camera, but on a whole I think these contests were no worse and no better than former or current productions relative to their times. The 90s was very much a transitional time – when tight scripting and the art of composition were truly refined – but the bells and whistles of modern-day movement were in their infancy. As such the RTÉ contests stand up as well as any.
Incidentally for 1993, the principal problem was the cramped location in a horse shed, resulting in little room for the orchestra (though not uncommon at other contests) and peds being too close and too low relative to the stage. Excluding the (slightly major!) poor decision on location, on design alone I think 1993 was stunningly dynamic, engaging, deceptive, and as with 1988 the first of Eurovisions to tailor the staging exclusively to television. Compared with 1992 in Malmo – well frankly there’s little to compare. Modern visual artistry versus a cruise ship cabaret fitout.
Also it could be contended that 1993 was the first contest to tailor lighting to each performance, not 1998 (in different ways though). Agreed the lighting of 1999 was wonderfully potent – and indeed the direction in parts most effective. Seemingly the first time telescopic jibs were employed too – or at least properly used. Some spectacularly high shots were achieved.
The crane shot at around 2'22" and particularly the tighten from long shot at 2'45"ish both seemed to start on-shot rather than just before (and the crane move ends quite inelegantly - though this isn't helped by the super/half-mix of the MCU) They were probably the two that lodged in my head.
It is a perfectly nice piece of music direction - though it does feel quite dated and static to me. At times I was crying out for just a little bit of subtle movement (either gentle creeps or tracks) on the static shots, and I didn't particularly like the fast cuts to the backing singers and instruments mid way through (on the second chorus?) It had a very "staged" feel.
I guess the sparing use of the jib/cranes made them stick out a bit when it was used - they were one of, if not the only source of tracking (rather than zooming) moves in the sequence. I'm also not a fan of the slightly predictable shots framed so that they mix nicely with the next shot style when done statically - you kind of know what is coming next. I love it when moving shots work so that they mix together - but somehow statics doing the same thing just appear a bit contrived, and don't give it that "live" feel.
Still love the song though!
I have very fond memories of that contest - and enjoy watching it - but it has never stuck out as a "pinnacle" for me.
I rather liked Copenhagen 2001 - not consistently excellent camerawork - but there was a real sense of flow to some of the songs - for instance Energy from Slovenia's Nusa Derenda (only chosen it as an example as the song got stuck in my head!) - almost every shot moves, but not excessively. It is probably one of the final contests before the steadicams took over (the handheld doing the piano sweek towards the end would certainly have been a radio stead these days). Sure there is a total silhouette of a ped in one wide - but it is in a totally different league in energy IMHO. (Pardon the pun)
As for your comment about telescopic jibs - presumably you are talking about the advent of the Technocrane? It is interesting how these devices were in vogue in the 90s but have dropped back a bit since - probably because they require a lot more operators than a jib - and cost a lot more. Chatting to various camera supervisors - they can be great for very scripted stuff - but if you want a lot of bang for your buck you're better off spending the money on a couple of jibs (which is what appears to happen most years and at MF) as they are operated by one or two people - and can be more intuitive and reactive. If you're busking stuff you really want a jib not a technocrane.
:-(
A former member
someone in one of the papers: telegraph, has wrote that we got A LOW sorce because will our entry was black.
someone in one of the papers: telegraph, has wrote that we got A LOW sorce because will our entry was black.
Don't think that entirely explains just two countries voting for us - unless there is suggestion that only San Marino and Ireland are not racist...
There have been suggestions that some of the newer European countries are, for want of a more politically correct way of saying this, more racist than some of the older, more integrated countries. However Estonia won in 2001 with Dave Benton (a black singer from Aruba if I remember right) and Tanel Pader (an Estonian native) - though Eurovision has changed since then...
If colour and race are issues - then that is really regrettable - however I don't think that we should even consider it as an issue. Altering who we enter because we think other countries might not vote for non-white entries is not something we should even consider.
Personally I think we should go all out and do something that makes a statement about modern Britain - and not in a naff Six4One Switzerland 2006 way... I still think we should go for something really different - Bollywood would be a good theme I think. Real statement about the UK - really colourful, loads of staging opportunities, and potentially a really good fun entry.
That's interesting about the technocrane noggin, thanks for that. What's the principal benefit of its use - extreme heights? Can it be extended and contracted at speed? It seems a well operated jib can largely equate to one anyway. I remember the last time they appeared to be used at Eurovision was quite a while ago - possibly Latvia five years ago if I recall... They most certainly be expensive to man alright.
I think we'll agree to disagree over 1995. The first cue you pointed out worked perfectly well I thought - in fact the just-beginning-to-move nature of it eased the new shot in beautifully, though yes moving into blatant movment would have been equally successful. I'll concede the latter cue was dodgy , and fully agreed the final jib shot was cumbersome. Cutting to a sweeping pulling back wide would have been so much more effective.
I know what you mean about the 'staged' quality of the sharp cuts - all very effortful isn't it. But I like that - looks like a lot of work was put into it, and appears very refined. Sharp cuts reveal refreshing new information that at least equates to a gradual reveal as generated by movement. Both are valid, but the former is completely dependant on perfect composition which this sequence pulled off stunningly. I think it highlights how refined and machine-like RTÉ's approach to Eurovision had become by then. The 'don't give an inch' style! All scripted within a millimetre of its life...
And it would be remiss of me not to point out that the same sharp-cut technique was used for Dana International at 1998 - although a rather different context! What a great piece of direction that was incidentally - the zooming tracks were wonderfully effective, and the cuts exactly what the viewer 'wanted'. Malta was perfect, if not overly mad on composition the odd time. Oddly, you raised the only performance I expressly remember watching live all those years ago
(Btw
what
and infectious song Vuelve Conmigo is! Listened to it about five times now...).
The direction of Slovenia at 2001 worked well also - though it certainly highlights how dodgy peds can be on location! Quite wonky at times. However I thought Copenhagen generally hit a dud note by appeasing the location audience too much - it was more of a live event than a television one. Shots were compromised by overly telefocussed positions with shallow depths of field and flat backgrounds. It also demonstrated the same problem as 1993 - the cramped positioning of peds along a straight line of stage. Both demonstrated too much of a sharp angle looking up at subjects, while movement was constrained along the horizontal. Movement and shooting locations were linear and dull - and thus predictable throughout. But agreed on shooting style for 2001 - fluid and snappy.
That's interesting about the technocrane noggin, thanks for that. What's the principal benefit of its use - extreme heights? Can it be extended and contracted at speed? It seems a well operated jib can largely equate to one anyway.
Technocranes can extend and contract their arms on shot - jibs have a fixed length boom. Jibs usually operate from a fixed base, which can move between shots, but is less often moved on shot, whereas it is very normal to run a Technocrane on track and track the base on shot.
What this means is that a Technocrane has grips tracking it, swinging it and extending it, with the camera operator remotely operating the hot head for pan/tilt/zoom/focs. This gives you many more degrees of motion than a standard fixed length jib. However it also needs about 6 people to know what is going on to achieve a shot - lots of talkback and lots of planning. With a jib the person swinging is also remotely operating the camera - so one person is responsible for the on-shot movement and framing - and thus it is much easier to translate a shot in your head to on-screen.
Quote:
I remember the last time they appeared to be used at Eurovision was quite a while ago - possibly Latvia five years ago if I recall... They most certainly be expensive to man alright.
Think I may have spied one in Finland last year.
Quote:
I think we'll agree to disagree over 1995. The first cue you pointed out worked perfectly well I thought - in fact the just-beginning-to-move nature of it eased the new shot in beautifully, though yes moving into blatant movment would have been equally successful. I'll concede the latter cue was dodgy , and fully agreed the final jib shot was cumbersome. Cutting to a sweeping pulling back wide would have been so much more effective.
Horses for courses - it was fine for its time - but I don't think it was exceptional.
Quote:
I know what you mean about the 'staged' quality of the sharp cuts - all very effortful isn't it. But I like that - looks like a lot of work was put into it, and appears very refined.
Hmm - I don't agree. It struck me as a simple way of following a fast cut bit of music. I'd have been more interested if they'd done something like cutting repeatedly from the moving jib on the punctuated phrasing, or at least not repeating the same shot twice so quickly (the backing singer two shot)
I don't think anything successful should look refined or planned - it should just look effortless and in keeping with the song. Something that looks a bit contrived doesn't work for me.
Quote:
Sharp cuts reveal refreshing new information that at least equates to a gradual reveal as generated by movement. Both are valid, but the former is completely dependant on perfect composition which this sequence pulled off stunningly. I think it highlights how refined and machine-like RTÉ's approach to Eurovision had become by then. The 'don't give an inch' style! All scripted within a millimetre of its life...
Yep - but well scripted numbers shouldn't appear scripted - they should appear to flow. On a number of occasions in that contest you could predict the next shot based on the previous (such as people being framed left or right throughout an entire shot because the next shot was framed to match etc. - rather than an on-shot move flowing into that composition)
I'm not dissing RTE - for its time many of the contests were pretty good - especially when compared to many others of that era. I'm just not convinced they are a pinnacle of music production.
Quote:
And it would be remiss of me not to point out that the same sharp-cut technique was used for Dana International at 1998 - although a rather different context!
Ah - I think the treatments are quite different. The use of DVE effects, whilst now dated, worked quite well for the song, and the fast cut sequence was less contrived IMHO (following the instrumental rather than the vocal ISTR) and was much more of a surprise on viewing.
Quote:
What a great piece of direction that was incidentally - the zooming tracks were wonderfully effective, and the cuts exactly what the viewer 'wanted'. Malta was perfect, if not overly mad on composition the odd time. Oddly, you raised the only performance I expressly remember watching live all those years ago
Malta was my favourite that year - the staging and shot composition worked beautifully to capture the slightly ethereal / breathy nature of Chiara's delivery at places, and then also captured the belty bits.
I'm seldom a fan of wipes and DVE effects in music - but both the effects used on Dana International and Chiara worked for them.
Quote:
(Btw
what
and infectious song Vuelve Conmigo is! Listened to it about five times now...).
Yep - it is a fan favourite AIUI.
Quote:
The direction of Slovenia at 2001 worked well also - though it certainly highlights how dodgy peds can be on location! Quite wonky at times.
No reason for peds to perform poorly on location if the operators have the right space to work in - but that is the province of the designer often...
Quote:
However I thought Copenhagen generally hit a dud note by appeasing the location audience too much - it was more of a live event than a television one. Shots were compromised by overly telefocussed positions with shallow depths of field and flat backgrounds. It also demonstrated the same problem as 1993 - the cramped positioning of peds along a straight line of stage. Both demonstrated too much of a sharp angle looking up at subjects, while movement was constrained along the horizontal. Movement and shooting locations were linear and dull - and thus predictable throughout. But agreed on shooting style for 2001 - fluid and snappy.
Yep - the lack of on-stage steadicams is striking in light of later contests.
That said I'm much more of a fan of the current style of integrating the audience and their flag waving - and love the mid-audience rail cams that most Swedish-directed contests have had that give that fantastic fast "tracking through the audience" look. ISTR that in 2005 there were two cameras on the same mounting, so you could cut between wide and tight versions during a move - which can look amazing.
For me Copenhagen gave the event a real feeling of occasion - as if it was a real televised concert rather than an event that could have been in a big TV studio or film sound stage. When you have an audience that big (I believe it was massively larger than most other contests - apart possibly from Stockholm which was also a ridiculously large arena) you have to make the show partially about them - such as using the huge "back of arena" establishers etc. Much more effective than just a stage wide showing performers only IMHO.
Just got an e-mail from Christer Bjorkman, head of Melodifestivalen.
Dear James,
Thank´s for your e-mail. Unfortunately you are not allowed to enter the Swedish selection. You have to to be a citizen or you have to live in our country.
Sorry.
Yours sincerely,
Christer Björkman
If the last few years are anything to go by, contests tend to contain songs similar in style to the previous year's winner.
After the wins from Sertab Erener "Every Way That I Can" for Turkey in 2003, and Ruslana "Wild Dances" for Ukraine in 2004, the 2005 Eurovision Song Contest featured several eastern style drums and dance performances. The UK was one of them "Touch My Fire" by Javine, and as we all know, it did badly: 22nd with 18 points. Another song of that style "My Number One" sung by Helena Paparizou for Greece won that year (230 points).
Lordi won for Finland in 2006 with "Hard Rock Hallelujah", which was a thrash metal entry. Not surprisingly, there were a fair few heavy / thrash metal entries in the 2007 contest (some only made it as far as the semi, some in the final).
This year, Ireland entered "Irelande, Douze Pointe" from Dustin the Turkey. Thankfully that awful entry failed to qualify. Just suppose that had qualified, and won outright! According to TV & Radio Bits, Eurovision 2009 may have resembled The Muppet Show, with several other countries submitting puppet entries similar to Dustin the Turkey.
The group Pirates of the Sea represented Latvia with "Wolves of the Sea". It finished on 83 points, and 12th place according to the official Eurovision.tv scoreboard (TV & Radio Bits show it as having finished 11th). At the time I described this song as the adult kids' version of the Boogie Beebies dance "Pirate Gang". Just suppose "Wolves of the Sea" had won, I bet the whole 2009 Eurovision Song Contest would have resembled an adult edition of Boogie Beebies, with over half the countries resembling one of the many different Boogie Beebies dances. Plenty of which would have been like Eurovision 2008 "Wolves of the Sea" (Boogie Beebies "Pirate Gang").
So this year's winner was Russia - Dima Bilan "Believe". A ballad with one significant gimmick thrown in,
ice skating
. So where will Eurovision go from here? My current prediction is that the 2009 Eurovision Song Contest will be
"Eurovision On Ice"
. Over half the countries will want to include ice skating in their entry, so the contest will have to take place on a large ice rink. Of the entries which include skating, many will be ballads like "Believe". How many other TV Forum users think this prediction will be correct?
Whilst Eurovision on Ice is quite a funny thought, I, and I'm sure most TVForumers, do not think that your prediction is worth betting on. But you are right about the ballad - it does seem to be back in vogue alright. Therefore my prediction is this: Ireland + Johnny Logan + Eurovision 2009 = Eurovision 2010 Dublin!
A reminder for all Eurovision Fans that the official triple DVD was released in the UK on Monday 30-Jun-2008.
(Amazon atow have it below a tenner)
I've never watched one of these official DVDs - is it a post-produced version of the contest more-or-less as broadcast, or is it just official videos of all the competing songs?
) and without question the principal virtue of this style of direction. 1993 was similar but much clunkier in wider execution.
