The Difference Between Calling it a Mitigation Film vs a Mitigation Video

I rant about this a lot at my trainings but I think it’s an important distinction to make: FILMS and VIDEOS are not the same thing. I’m not saying this to be a snob. I’m not saying this because I’m going to have a meltdown if you call me a “videographer” instead of a “filmmaker” just because I attended a fancy “film school” and worked in the film industry. I make the distinction because linguistically these have TWO SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEFINITIONS. They are TWO DIFFERENT WORDS that are NOT SYNONYMS.

Let me EXPOUND.

Videos are audiovisual content without any implied FORM OR STRUCTURE. It can be an adorable cat using a human toilet for 20 seconds in a PET VIDEO. Or “Clips” of people bouncing off trampolines in a FAIL VIDEO. Or a guy making millions of dollars narrating his video game play in a TWITCH VIDEO. It can also be a SENTENCING VIDEO comprised of little more than a series of taped statements strung together MORE OR LESS ARBITRARILY.

A Video CAN contain a story ….BUT a STORY is not a dictate of the medium.

A Film on the other hand, is, by definition, a narratively structured piece of audiovisual content. Every frame of a film deliberately DESIGNED such that the sum becomes greater than the parts.

People in the legal profession tend to exclusively use the word “video” because for the longest time videos, and not films were the only things USED in the legal world: Deposition videos, “Day in the Life” videos, Video Testimonials, and even “mitigation/sentencing videos” have been around FOR a very long time.

Mitigation FILMS on the other hand are pretty new! So much so that people cannot agree on what they are called and there isn’t any academic literature that might outline the guidelines of what they consist of, how they might be used, etc.

The idea that a real, structured film can be deployed for a criminal defendant somewhere along the criminal defense process that uses all the tools of documentary cinema is quite novel. When making a mitigation FILM the expert tasked with the production should thus be fluent in the visual medium. Why is fluency so important? Because film is a language that communicates all kinds of things a casual viewer is affected by but is not overtly aware of. Everything from the lighting, the music, angles, framing (mi-en-scene) structure, story, lens length, delivery/performance to achieve a VERY SPECIFIC CUMULATIVE EFFECT of mitigating criminal conduct.

Take for example a subject committed a white collar crime and stole millions of dollars from retired people in a time share scheme. Your choices on HOW to present that person are almost infinite. For starters, You can place them in a chair, or a couch. Does it really make a difference, you may ask? Why yes it does. A couch affects body language, it affects delivery of speech. It may also visually communicate comfort, leisure, etc. You can place your subject next to a window, light them from the side. But then you must be keenly aware of something called “lighting ratios” on their face which may have a unconscious effect on the viewer of mistrusting the speaker.

This is just one of many considerations a “fluent” filmmaker might make as they prepare a film for a client.

But returning to the subject at hand: the use of the word “video” vs “film”….

Until more seasoned filmmakers populate the legal space it will be difficult to impress upon people this most important distinction. The vast majority of people asked to prepare mitigation films for clients lack fluency in the film medium. Indeed they are likely preparing videos, and not films. ;)