Thursday 23 February 2017
Saturday 18 February 2017
Evaluation Question 1
In what ways does our short film use, develop or challenge conventions of real media products?
The genre of our short film is called a docu-film. This is because we have made a documentary-style film, but it is not based on real life. Due to this, we tried to stick to all the clichés of documentaries, in order to make it look as close to reality as possible. For each sub-heading below, we have selected a picture to help illustrate the point (view left to right, top to bottom).
Narrative
In terms of narrative, we kept this traditional, matching the conventions of documentaries. Naturally, documentaries explain a story through facts and so they need to be chronological. This is what we did. Had we of strayed away from this, we would lose sight of the documentary, it would confuse viewers. The first picture is a screengrab from our opening narrative.
Plot
As a general rule, documentaries tend to follow an unconventional character with an unconventional story. This is what we tried to do. Of course, real documentaries would work with a real person and a real story. In this sense, it could be said that we stray away from this area of conventions. We also found that documentaries tend to create some sort of decision for the viewer to make e.g. is this person truly bad, or do they need help? (perhaps in the case of crime documentaries). Our question was somewhat similar, we could state it as, "is this person truly selfish and obsessed, or does he need help?" So again, we follow the clichés. Picture 2 was selected as we can see the two main characters in conversation, which we feel best sums up our film.
Settings/Locations
We didn't create a set. We did however add to the settings we planned to use e.g. by placing drawings on a wall in the main character's house. This would go against documentary conventions, as documentary-makers would never manipulate the surroundings of their subject; this would stop it being real-life and factual. Having said this, the settings and locations of our film is true to documentary clichés. This is because we've used real-life settings such as an average house, and a nearby city. It is true to life. Picture 3 was chosen as it shows just one of our locations in which we used a pan shot to illustrate.
Costume/Props
For costume, we went for nothing too crazy. Of course, we tried to stick to real life. This wasn't particularly difficult. We based our presenter's costume on Louis Theroux:
Louis Theroux goes for a smart-casual look which we attempted to match. I would say that we achieved this and so have used conventions of documentaries (as Louis Theroux is a leading figure in documentaries regarding controversial stories.)
We made sure that no one in our cast stood out, the costume was not the main focus for us. We chose picture 4 as it showed both our characters costumes which show how everyday they are.
In terms of props, we did not have many. This would follow the conventions of documentaries seeing as documentaries do not try to create an artificial environment. However, the one main prop we did have takes us away from the conventions of documentaries as we created it (the drawings of the person he is searching for) to enhance the character's backstory. It emphasised our character's obsession.
Camera Work
Our camera work was probably one of the main ways we made our film look like a documentary, we feel this is what made it fit into our desired genre. In particular, we used shots such as tracking shots. Often in documentaries there is time spent walking with the presenter and subject and we tried to include this. We also tried to experiment with focus e.g. pull focus, soft focus etc. This was to add more of an atmosphere to our film. It also puts emphasis on different things. This again is similar to real documentaries.
We tried to include lots of shots of miscellaneous objects in the surroundings of our character. Documentaries tend to do this to help build up a backstory of their character, they then include some sort of voiceover over the top. We utilised that technique a few times in our film. Picture 5 is a screengrab from a shot where we used pull focus. In picture 4 you can see a tracking shot also.
Editing
Our editing has been kept quite simple. Documentaries do not require fancy editing, it simply needs to tell the story somewhat chronologically and coherently. One technique we used, which is used often in documentaries, is overlapping clips with narration to link them. We used this several times. In picture 6 we have a miscellaneous shot in the car, what tied this in with the surrounding shots and film was the linking narration.
Special Effects
The only 'special effects' we used was to add titles/captions such as on the interviews where we captioned the clip with their name. Therefore we have followed conventions. In picture 7 you can see one of the captions we made.
Casting/Characters
In terms of the presenters, it would seem that many documentaries of this type try to cast someone confident and assured, someone willing to ask tough questions. While our documentary is vaguely scripted and isn't real, Jasper is quite a confident person and so we used him. This worked well. Documentaries also tend to include some people to back-up the severity of the story and/or people who are involved with the person to add emotional weight. In this sense, we have the factual side, and then the emotional side. We followed this convention with having the 'expert' and then the 'family'. We chose age appropriate people to make this more believable.
We had trouble casting our main character having originally envisioned him as middle aged. We eventually decided that using a younger person might work better as perhaps it could be said our character is naive. The actor we cast, Henry, is older than us; in his early 20s. This worked well and feel it looks believable - after all, mental health issues can affect anyone. This really sends that message home.
Picture 8 shows the youngest cast member. You can see in the other pictures in the grid that we have a range of ages.
Genre
As said briefly earlier, we really tried to play to documentary cliches in order for it to easily be recognised as one. We wanted no blurred lines as to what our short film is. It might be said that if documentaries are unclear, then they have completely missed their purpose (that being to inform). Some of the most commonly used components of documentaries are;
Costume/Props
For costume, we went for nothing too crazy. Of course, we tried to stick to real life. This wasn't particularly difficult. We based our presenter's costume on Louis Theroux:
We made sure that no one in our cast stood out, the costume was not the main focus for us. We chose picture 4 as it showed both our characters costumes which show how everyday they are.
In terms of props, we did not have many. This would follow the conventions of documentaries seeing as documentaries do not try to create an artificial environment. However, the one main prop we did have takes us away from the conventions of documentaries as we created it (the drawings of the person he is searching for) to enhance the character's backstory. It emphasised our character's obsession.
Camera Work
Our camera work was probably one of the main ways we made our film look like a documentary, we feel this is what made it fit into our desired genre. In particular, we used shots such as tracking shots. Often in documentaries there is time spent walking with the presenter and subject and we tried to include this. We also tried to experiment with focus e.g. pull focus, soft focus etc. This was to add more of an atmosphere to our film. It also puts emphasis on different things. This again is similar to real documentaries.
We tried to include lots of shots of miscellaneous objects in the surroundings of our character. Documentaries tend to do this to help build up a backstory of their character, they then include some sort of voiceover over the top. We utilised that technique a few times in our film. Picture 5 is a screengrab from a shot where we used pull focus. In picture 4 you can see a tracking shot also.
Editing
Our editing has been kept quite simple. Documentaries do not require fancy editing, it simply needs to tell the story somewhat chronologically and coherently. One technique we used, which is used often in documentaries, is overlapping clips with narration to link them. We used this several times. In picture 6 we have a miscellaneous shot in the car, what tied this in with the surrounding shots and film was the linking narration.
Special Effects
The only 'special effects' we used was to add titles/captions such as on the interviews where we captioned the clip with their name. Therefore we have followed conventions. In picture 7 you can see one of the captions we made.
Casting/Characters
In terms of the presenters, it would seem that many documentaries of this type try to cast someone confident and assured, someone willing to ask tough questions. While our documentary is vaguely scripted and isn't real, Jasper is quite a confident person and so we used him. This worked well. Documentaries also tend to include some people to back-up the severity of the story and/or people who are involved with the person to add emotional weight. In this sense, we have the factual side, and then the emotional side. We followed this convention with having the 'expert' and then the 'family'. We chose age appropriate people to make this more believable.
We had trouble casting our main character having originally envisioned him as middle aged. We eventually decided that using a younger person might work better as perhaps it could be said our character is naive. The actor we cast, Henry, is older than us; in his early 20s. This worked well and feel it looks believable - after all, mental health issues can affect anyone. This really sends that message home.
Picture 8 shows the youngest cast member. You can see in the other pictures in the grid that we have a range of ages.
Genre
As said briefly earlier, we really tried to play to documentary cliches in order for it to easily be recognised as one. We wanted no blurred lines as to what our short film is. It might be said that if documentaries are unclear, then they have completely missed their purpose (that being to inform). Some of the most commonly used components of documentaries are;
- interviews
- flashbacks
- voice-overs
- arbitrary clips of objects to do with the subject
- dramatisation/reconstructions
- following the main character in the daily life
There are of course many more. Out of those listed above, we have used 4/6. These being the interviews, voice-overs, arbitrary clips, and following the main character. We felt that for our subject matter, these techniques are what would work best to break up the facts and keep it interesting. We also based the documentary on a somewhat real-life issue, While we are not aware of anybody suffering from our main character's obsession, it could be believed to be real-life. In other words, it is not eccentric or obscure in that it is impossible e.g. the character has super-powers.
We have picked up that many documentaries will create a discussion point - almost attempting to divide the audience up by making them think and ask questions about the situation being presented to them e.g. in our case, is David (the focus of the documentary) deluded and selfish for what he is doing, or does he need help and guidance? Without a doubt, documentaries about the 'nitty-gritty' will pick stories that have more than one perspective. This is what captures the audience's attention. Take, for example, Channel 4 documentaries.
While it is hard to find a shot that demonstrates genre, we decided on using the title screen. However, it is the conventions we use that really make our film recognisable as a documentary.
While it is hard to find a shot that demonstrates genre, we decided on using the title screen. However, it is the conventions we use that really make our film recognisable as a documentary.
Changes to Rough Cut
The changes we made were mostly explained in the audience feedback post but we have changed a few other things, see below;
- adjusted narration timing - we have added some fades and some bigger gaps between clips as we found some clips ran into each other a bit too much.
- reduced background noise - we reduced the background noise in clips such as when the presenter and main character are walking through Norwich.
- adjusted the colour - we decided to tint some clips in order to make the mood more obvious e.g. by adjusting the contrast and saturation we created a colder tone to some of the clips. We found this wasn't necessary in some clips as the lighting was atmospheric enough.
Audience Feedback on Rough Cut
We got feedback from a fair few people, and we realised that some patterns emerged in what people were saying. See below all of our feedback comments:
Some of the most common things said were what we expected, e.g. background noise on some clips is quite prominent, the narration comes in too fast, some repetition. We knew when we finished our rough cut that some of these things would be said, as they were things we were not happy with ourselves. In response to these, we plan to edit our film best we can to improve it e.g. stabilise some clips, reduce the background noise, and add some more fades and transitions to slow down the narration. Without re-filming, we cannot get rid of some of the repetition of the questions asked/the answers. We would like to stay away from re-filming.
One or two people said they felt the film "dragged a bit". There is not really much we can do about this - documentaries are not everyone's cup of tea. Some suggested perhaps adding a plot twist at the end would keep interest. But we feel that adding a plot twist or drama strays us away from real documentaries that tell fact. We felt it would make our film look too staged and unrealistic.
Some of the good comments said most commonly that our shots were varied and interesting and most importantly, that we nailed the documentary style. One person even said it reminded them of Louis Theroux documentaries, who we used as inspiration. One or two people felt it could be shown on the BBC - which was quite the compliment.
We thought we would take one of the longer comments and go through each point;
This person has said they loved the opening shot - we found that a few people said that. Their second comment was that Jasper's voice was not all the same volume throughout the film. We expected this comment as the background noise in some clips is really loud, it competes with Jasper's voice. This is something we will attempt to fix by reducing the background noise in our editing software. on a similar note, the person has said some of the clips were shaky, while in some places it was the effect we were going for, in some places we could stabilise the video in order to keep the focus on what is happening. Again, this is something we will address when we improve our rough cut. It was also said that it was a bit "same-y" in terms of our questions. When watching it back, we felt similarly, but this is something we cannot fix without drastically cutting down our film/re-filming. The narration is said to start early, again this is something we knew we had to address and so we will add in a fade and a gap before the narration starts. This should make the film run more smoothly.
In terms of this person's good comments, they've said they liked the narration and how we have overlapped it with other clips. They also mentioned that we have definitely portrayed the conventions of documentaries, which was our main goal.
Some of the most common things said were what we expected, e.g. background noise on some clips is quite prominent, the narration comes in too fast, some repetition. We knew when we finished our rough cut that some of these things would be said, as they were things we were not happy with ourselves. In response to these, we plan to edit our film best we can to improve it e.g. stabilise some clips, reduce the background noise, and add some more fades and transitions to slow down the narration. Without re-filming, we cannot get rid of some of the repetition of the questions asked/the answers. We would like to stay away from re-filming.
One or two people said they felt the film "dragged a bit". There is not really much we can do about this - documentaries are not everyone's cup of tea. Some suggested perhaps adding a plot twist at the end would keep interest. But we feel that adding a plot twist or drama strays us away from real documentaries that tell fact. We felt it would make our film look too staged and unrealistic.
Some of the good comments said most commonly that our shots were varied and interesting and most importantly, that we nailed the documentary style. One person even said it reminded them of Louis Theroux documentaries, who we used as inspiration. One or two people felt it could be shown on the BBC - which was quite the compliment.
We thought we would take one of the longer comments and go through each point;
This person has said they loved the opening shot - we found that a few people said that. Their second comment was that Jasper's voice was not all the same volume throughout the film. We expected this comment as the background noise in some clips is really loud, it competes with Jasper's voice. This is something we will attempt to fix by reducing the background noise in our editing software. on a similar note, the person has said some of the clips were shaky, while in some places it was the effect we were going for, in some places we could stabilise the video in order to keep the focus on what is happening. Again, this is something we will address when we improve our rough cut. It was also said that it was a bit "same-y" in terms of our questions. When watching it back, we felt similarly, but this is something we cannot fix without drastically cutting down our film/re-filming. The narration is said to start early, again this is something we knew we had to address and so we will add in a fade and a gap before the narration starts. This should make the film run more smoothly.
In terms of this person's good comments, they've said they liked the narration and how we have overlapped it with other clips. They also mentioned that we have definitely portrayed the conventions of documentaries, which was our main goal.
Friday 17 February 2017
Ancillary Research Task 2
Above is an analysis of a famous film poster done in order to understand the conventions of film posters and get inspiration.
Today a typical film poster includes a few key features; bold film title, famous person, famous persons name in large text, ratings and a scene from the film to give a hint. The colour scheme and mood also seems quite considered to match the tone/genre, like in this piece it is very dark with deep blues and a lot of black.
Wednesday 15 February 2017
Ancillary Research Task 1
Our media teacher introduced us to the really interesting, independent film magazine, Little White Lies (designed and distributed by a London graphic designers 'human after all' who also release their own film magazine). Rather than using photos the magazine is mainly illustrated which we think is really effective and we would like to use this idea for the ancillary task. The style of the article is so clean yet heavily stylized in reference to its subject. Emma has looked into some articles to analyse for inspiration for the ancillary task. She also looked at an article from empire magazine in order to compare and contrast the different ways of showcasing films.
Click here to visit the website.
Article 1 - Little White Lies
Click here to visit the website.
Article 1 - Little White Lies
What works well?
The use of the border and colour scheme bring the article together by being consistent and making it stand out. The use of illustration rather than an image makes it much more eye catching and intriguing. The language used in the article is exciting and engaging by relating personally to the audience; speaking about real life issues and looking at the bigger picture and concept around the film.
Do they help attract an audience?
Yes, the visually attractive elements work together to draw in the reader, followed by quality writing which continues to grab the attention of the reader.
Initial thoughts for my own ancillary task.
We would like to take a similar approach to how Little White Lies is presented, it seems it will be much more time consuming but overall will be worth it as it will make a much more effective and eye catching article.
The use of the border and colour scheme bring the article together by being consistent and making it stand out. The use of illustration rather than an image makes it much more eye catching and intriguing. The language used in the article is exciting and engaging by relating personally to the audience; speaking about real life issues and looking at the bigger picture and concept around the film.
Do they help attract an audience?
Yes, the visually attractive elements work together to draw in the reader, followed by quality writing which continues to grab the attention of the reader.
Initial thoughts for my own ancillary task.
We would like to take a similar approach to how Little White Lies is presented, it seems it will be much more time consuming but overall will be worth it as it will make a much more effective and eye catching article.
How will this have a common theme/style along side your main and ancillary task?
The style, content and colour theme will all relate to that of the films and be consistent through out both ancillary tasks.
The style, content and colour theme will all relate to that of the films and be consistent through out both ancillary tasks.
 |
| An example of a Little White Lies cover. |
Article 2 - Empire Magazine
Emma then had a look at the magazine Empire, a much more main stream popular culture magazine. Emma analysed this article comparing and contrasting the difference between LWL and Empire. The key points are annotated and pointed out on the article. She concluded that a magazine style similar to Little White Lies is what would suit our film best as Little White Lies showcases independent, arty films, whereas a magazine like Empire is for the mass audience.
This is my mind map of the key features we intend to use in our own article that we feel are most important in a successful film review.
Thursday 9 February 2017
Monday 6 February 2017
Shot List
We tried to use a variety of shots during filming, but at the same time we did not want anything to look overly staged, as we were creating a documentary.
Some of the shots we used quite frequently were;
Some of the shots we used quite frequently were;
- tracking shots - where we followed behind our presenter or walked with our presenter and subject as they talked.
- pull focus - this is where we changed the focus from one thing to another in a single shot. We did this a few times and it helped to make our clips more dynamic, as well as added emphasis to different things.
- rule of 3 - this isn't a type of shot exactly, but we did think about the composition of our characters within the frame e.g. when they are sat on the bench talking and during the time lapse
- time-lapse - we did two of these and they worked well, this is where a long period of time is sped up into a few seconds.
- close-ups - this is where the camera zooms in close to a person, usually the face. We did this during the city location. This added more emotion to our film.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)