Really, your attacking the editing. How exactly would you have liked it to be edited? Maybe you didn't like the font they used either?
Since you asked a question, I'll answer it.
Many of the individual editing choices end up reducing the audience's ability to understand the facts of the situations and feel the emotions of the narrative. Because we cut between locations so rapidly, we need to see an establishing shot of each location to understand where we are. Because of this, we lose valuable time that could be spent providing information and telling the story.
A major aspect of reality TV is telling the audience about what's happening rather than showing it. In the context of reality TV, this is a good thing. You're trying to take complex events and create a narrative that gives them meaning in a larger context. If we just see the Jersey Shore cast partying in a club, the camerawork isn't sophisticated to let us see the little pieces of body language that really tell us what's going on. We need the confessional cuts to keep us up to date.
But the narrative of this documentary is incredibly simple, and because the situations aren't so chaotic they can be filmed in a way we see their subtleties. Again, the biggest thing I hated was when ANTR started. Just as someone seeing this for the first time, I got mild chills. Instead of playing Mangini talking to tell us what we already know, cut to the other band members and their anticipation to make us feel it more.
The biggest problem though is aesthetic. Dream Theater is a relatively sophisticated band for a relatively sophisticated audience. Why did whoever was is charge of this creatively feel the need to dumb down the events into a reality TV format? I feel like the image of the band is cheapened a little bit by the narrative construction. When Petrucci is talking about Portnoy leaving, we see three cuts to Rudess of him making dramatic faces. In the actuality of the moment, he was reliving something emotional through Petrucci's story. But simply to us watching it, the way it's cut it implies "LOOK AT JORDAN FEELING EMOTION. NOW LOOK AT IT AGAIN. IT'S DRAMA!" Drama doesn't come from us being told it's dramatic, it comes from being dramatic.
If you like it, that's fine. There's no objective reason for you to like or dislike it. But the editing objectively influences the tone and subtext of the narrative quite a bit, and I don't like the result. The nuances are few and far between. And it feels like a lower standard of product than what I'd expect from the band. Obviously since the documentary brings a lot to the table, it's free, and I appreciate its mere existence I'm going to keep watching.
I remember that interview was from the chaos in motion DVD and after MP said it can be "stale", he also mentioned a positive side after.
In the documentary, they made it look like MP was bored of everything but that interview was way back in 2007.
Yeah, exactly. MP left for a lot of reasons, and DT becoming stale wasn't even the biggest. When you reduce the difficulty of comprehensibility to the lowest common denominator, the harder to understand (though not necessarily more complicated) facts and truths aren't expressed, and we ultimately aren't actually told anything important. In this case, it's actually misleading.
Topic: An Exclusive Look into The Band’s Search for a New Drummer (Read 665007 times)