Poorly structured, poorly edited, overly bloated, and distractingly so.
The takeaways:
> Did they spend two years filming and simply feel compelled to make a six-parter when two, or at most, three parts would have sufficed?
> The show lacks a proper introduction to the town and its surrounds. History and imagery are only peppered into the episodes in a haphazard fashion.
> The viewer is never allowed to truly appreciate the harrowing events of the fires as footage and accounts only appear as fleeting cutaways.
> The editing is extremely repetitive. Why are the same interview clips recycled again and again as if we'd already forgotten? There's no faith in the viewer's intelligence. Why are they so often afraid to linger on one individual's story, and instead cut between multiple talking heads in rapid succession? It's not as if they've cleverly woven them together. In some ways, the editing reminds me of a mystery or true crime show, where new information is presented between excessive recaps.
> A sense of chronology is lacking. The episodes are strongest when they get to the point and stick to one story at a time, instead of flip-flopping between disconnected events. The show doesn't sharpen its focus until the third episode.
> Show, don't tell! This documentary relies on its talking heads to explain everything to the audience over and over, when it could efficiently convey the point by >documenting< their activities and struggles, with said talking heads providing their own personal viewpoints, not just summarising the situation. This isn't the fault of the interviewees.
> This doesn't do justice to the people of Mallacoota and their situation. The documentary's shortcomings actually interfere with feeling empathy towards them and that's a real shame.
> I just know that critics are scared to appear insensitive towards the victims of the fires by appearing negative towards this. The dazzling reviews I've seen are so far off the mark.
The takeaways:
> Did they spend two years filming and simply feel compelled to make a six-parter when two, or at most, three parts would have sufficed?
> The show lacks a proper introduction to the town and its surrounds. History and imagery are only peppered into the episodes in a haphazard fashion.
> The viewer is never allowed to truly appreciate the harrowing events of the fires as footage and accounts only appear as fleeting cutaways.
> The editing is extremely repetitive. Why are the same interview clips recycled again and again as if we'd already forgotten? There's no faith in the viewer's intelligence. Why are they so often afraid to linger on one individual's story, and instead cut between multiple talking heads in rapid succession? It's not as if they've cleverly woven them together. In some ways, the editing reminds me of a mystery or true crime show, where new information is presented between excessive recaps.
> A sense of chronology is lacking. The episodes are strongest when they get to the point and stick to one story at a time, instead of flip-flopping between disconnected events. The show doesn't sharpen its focus until the third episode.
> Show, don't tell! This documentary relies on its talking heads to explain everything to the audience over and over, when it could efficiently convey the point by >documenting< their activities and struggles, with said talking heads providing their own personal viewpoints, not just summarising the situation. This isn't the fault of the interviewees.
> This doesn't do justice to the people of Mallacoota and their situation. The documentary's shortcomings actually interfere with feeling empathy towards them and that's a real shame.
> I just know that critics are scared to appear insensitive towards the victims of the fires by appearing negative towards this. The dazzling reviews I've seen are so far off the mark.
