Film re-edit by Callum Norton + Josh Perrée

Our final film was originally pretty poorly and editing wasn't completed, so Josh and Callum re-edited it to make it the best we could in limited time and also well behind the deadline.

We decided to remove the 'infomercial' text, as an infomercial isnt quite what we were aiming for and so the style doesnt really fit the genre, as we made more of a mockumentary style video.
The sound levels throughout the production have been changed, losing the diagetic sound from some clips in favour of the backing music, and adding fades between louder and quiet sections to allow for the voice over to be clearly heard. The sound had to be turned up on the first shot to ensure Alex could be heard, but this level of boosting has added a bit of hiss/background noise too, although there is little that could be done about that.
The bed scene has been edited, removing a shot to prevent it getting boring and changing the cuts so they're quicker and cut to when I am lead still rather than just as I get in to position, as I could be seen moving and bouncing on the springs.
Finally, fades have been added/altered between scenes to ensure there is a definite feel of a passage of time, making sure the viewer can fully understand and follow the story line. The scene outside college had to be edited to fix a slight continuity error, which is still slightly present but not as noticeable any more. - Callum.

Radio Trailer

To create the radio trailer we used Avid Pro Tools 8 HD to record and arrange audio clips for the overall product. Me and Callum went and recorded the voiceover parts in one of the college recording studios. We then imported the music used in our film and then also imported the sound clips we recorded of Alex used in the film. We used a Neumann U87 Ai microphone to record as it produces crystal clear vocal recordings for both spoken and musical voices. This mic is also used in most circumstances in the industry.

Movie Poster

This poster fits in well with the generic style of a movie poster. It has the title across the top in the center, easy to see and easy to read in a very clear white font on a black background. It also features the standard Steel Tongs font for the cast and crew names, as well as a short tagline to describe the film, the production company logo and the BBFC rating. In terms of production, this poster is up to a professional standard of film poster.
However, the image used and the dark colours give a very eerie, horror/thriller feel which is not what is wanted for our film at all. Our film is intended to be light hearted humour, and so the dark colours do not fit in with this theme. The image of a man standing looking at screens does fit in with the production in the sense of the student is being watched, but the picture of many screens and the fact the man is all in shadow gives it a sinister 'Big Brother' surveillance feel, again not suitable for the film. - Callum. 

Critical Evaluation Q1

For our production we chose to follow the conventions of a mockumentary rather than subvert the genre. We adhered to ideas such as exaggeration and parody to ensure it would fit in with the genre. During production we made sure our film observed conventions of continuity quite well throughout. We made continuity quite a big point, as we all agreed small mistakes in continuity can ruin a production, as it detracts from the overall feel and it becomes the entire focus. There are even television shows now dedicated to continuity mistakes, such as ‘Greatest Movie Mistakes’. For this reason we made sure to observe the rules of continuity as best we could, such as the 180-degree line rule in which all shots must be filmed one side of an imaginary line down the shot, to ensure characters dont swap from left to right or something similar that would confuse the viewer. 

This was a particularly easy rule for us to maintain, as our film context of a ‘nature documentary’ meant most cameras were static and only used one or two for each location, as if they were set up and left filming like in a nature documentary. Because of this we did not break the 180-degree rule at any point. We also ensure the sets were the same each time we filmed which meant things such as re-arranging the room and changing bed sheets to match what was previously filmed.

Another continuity feature made us of match on actions to keep the video flowing between different shots and allow for the audience to be fully submersed in the viewing experience, such as during the scene below. In this we cut between the two shots just as the light was switched on, as this gave us the sound of the light switch and the change in lighting to carry over to the next shot. The light also allowed for us to make use of graphic match editing and keep the light in the same place, adding a more flowing feeling.

In all shots we waited for the character on screen to move to the edge of the shot before cutting to the next, ensuring the motion wouldn’t seem jumpy but carried over the cut to keep it continuous. Where we did want to indicate the passing of time though, we made sure to use fades between the scenes. This is useful as a fade to black is much like a human eye closing when we sleep, and when it opens time has passed, like when the shot fades back in. We used these on the scene where the student falls asleep, as it allowed us to show how long a student can sleep for by fading between different sleeping positions, giving the feeling of a lot of time passing.

We also used an eyeline match in our production, to make it so the audience understands what the student is doing and his situation. We used this on the scene where our student is looking for money, as it allowed us to show the audience how much money the student had found in the pocket of some trousers.

A slight continuity issue we had was the length of the characters hair, as at the start of the production it is a lot shorter than the end, due to the time take to film the final shots. This is an issue as the production is supposed to be set during a single day, and it is a noticeable difference as the student is the main character.
Another issue is the lighting of the scene when the student comes back home after college. When he leaves college and the shot fades to black, it is daylight. When he enters the door, it can be seen to be dark outside. This isn’t as noticeable, as there was a second door with frosted glass between the camera and the house door, but it is a slight issue. This was because filming had to be carried out by me alone as we were approaching deadline, as no other people in my group were available/willing to help. This meant taking a camera home after college to film, by which point it would already be dark outside.

In these shots the difference in hair length can be seen.

         It can clearly be seen that it is dark outside the house in this shot.

In terms of genre, we chose to try and adhere as much to the ‘mockumentary’ genre as we could. As a mockumentary is intended to be a comical take on either a real issue or a fictional one, there can be different kinds of mockumentaries. We chose to do a parodical mockumentary of a nature show, and therefore had to take in to account elements of documentary genre as well. The first thing I felt we should do to make the production feel like a ‘nature’ documentary is have a narrator who is for the most part off screen. To make this fit the mockumentary element, we chose to parody the most famous nature documentarian, David Attenborough and so named our narrator Donvid Artenburg. Another thing I felt a lot of nature documentaries have is vast shots of landscapes and time lapses of things such as flowers growing and the sun coming up, much like on Planet Earth.

We tried to combine these two elements in our title sequence and did a time lapse shot of the outside of college from the highest floor we could reach. 

Another genre convention we adhered to is the kind of language used in the voice-overs. Rather than referring to the character as ‘He’ or ‘Callum’, we took a more objective view and adopted the idea of ‘let nature take is course’ as is in most nature documentaries and so reffered to the main character as ‘The student’, making it seem like an animal. This also adds to the mockumetary feel as it is dehumanizing the subject and making them seem to be an animal, whilst still mentioning things that the audience can connect with such as ‘gathering in large groups on grassy areas’ and ‘almost nocturnal’ adding the humour element of a mockumantary as the audience can then compare to their lives and laugh at the things they do.

We also used a very ambient, relaxed guitar track for our non-diagetic sound throughout the production to give the relaxed nature feel, like a nature documentary would have.

One final genre convention we followed is the semi-open narrative. Often nature programmes will show a story for a day, leaving the narrative on a cliff hanger so the audience is enticed to come back and see what else happens. We also did this, choosing to have a complete day in the life of a student, but then end on the ‘DEAD LINE’ shot, so the narrative of that day has been finished but the narrative of the life is still ongoing, like in nature programmes.

When making our short film, we decided the kind of audience pleasure we aimed to provide would be, according to Richard Dyers utopian theory, ‘Community’. We feel that we achieved this to a good degree. Whilst there may be a lack of characters in the film, which is the first thing thought of when reading the word ‘community’ we tackled the problem of fragmentation differently. Rather than have an extensive cast with lots of interactions which would take time and planning to film we decided we would show some of the classic yet slightly odd traits of a student, such as sleeping during the day, missing deadlines, searching for money and so on. By doing this, we show the audience, intended to be students, that they are not the only ones who have deadlines they cant keep; who are always tired or who have little money.

This image shows the student being ignored by a girl, a common problem for students. We highlight these problems and make humour out of them, giving the audience a feeling of belonging as other viewers are also likely to be in the same situation and so they are not alone in their troubles.
There is also a slight aspect of the conquering of scarcity/abundance, as a very poor student manages to find enough money to get food and then is quite happy with going on in their life. This may make viewers who are lacking in money feel better, as if someone can be happy with little money then they can too.

In comparison to real media texts such as Borat and Spinal Tap, the mockumentaries I looked at for inspiration, the film fits the genre well. We followed the same structure of having a ridiculous narrator as Borat, and having them introduce the film: 

Our narrator with a heavy Russian accent and Borat, who also has a heavy accent.

 There is the element of humour with the extended sleeping scene and the rejection by a girl, things most students will be able to relate to, things that have been overly exaggerated to make them stand out like the ‘turn it up to 11’ line of Spinal Tap.

We also have the elements of parody with our narrator Donvid Artenburg and the Planet Earth-like camera shots and voice over, much like Borat has the aspect of informative documentary with his visiting different locations and learning about them, albeit whilst mocking them at the same time. To do this we added a 'Rec.' effect fram to our scenes, as well as adding a blur and missing out frames to make it appear as if the camera is of a lower quality like the ones that are designed to be left waiting for animals. 

Critical Evaluation Q2

Here is a link to my presentation on question 2 of the evaluation:
Prezi On Ancillary Texts

Critical Evaluation Q3

Our original idea was to make a short ‘fly on the wall’ documentary around a student in a ‘Pete Vs Life’ style, with commentators narrating everything and having a 'stat sheet' on characters, like the one below.

With this idea in mind we went out and asked people an initial questionnaire to get an idea of the audience for short films and how they access the films, and to see if they would be interested in this kind of film. People said they would happily watch a short film, and would usually watch them online as they were unaware of any institutes that screened short films. With this interest in short films in mind, we then briefed people on our idea and asked what they thought. A couple of the responses were positive and said they would watch our production, but others said there would be nothing to draw them in to it. For this reason, we changed to a mockumentary, so the humour element would make our production more appealing. We then asked the same people if they would now be interested and they said they would be. We made a video of all the questions whilst doing this, but unfortunately this has been lost as it was never edited by the person who’s job it was to edit it.

During the filming of the production we made sure to keep with the theme of a mockumentary, as this is what the audience said they wanted to see. For this reason we were sure to make things as exaggerated and ridiculous as possible, such as the sleeping for a long time and the being rejected by a girl by simply walking past. 

We presented a rough cut to people and asked what they thought before we finalised the production in editing, and used their feedback to help. 

For instance, the rough cut had been very badly done and rushed by the editor, so the sound levels were very erratic and drowned out the vocals in certain parts such as at 3:32, and certain transitions were wrong; cuts were used instead of fades which detracted from the ‘passage of time’ feel. With this feedback in mind I did a final edit myself to ensure it would be what the audience wanted and produced our final film.

We also asked for feedback on our radio trailer and our poster. Again, this was done in the form of a google questionnaire which was shared around on Facebook and Twitter.
The results of the radio questionnaire can he found here.

Again, not many responses were given which is a problem as this gives us limited views on the trailer, but of those we did receive there was only 1 that was negative. Every response said they found the radio trailer professional, which we are glad of as we put the effort in to using Pro Tools to make it professional.

Some of the people that answered the questionnaire said they felt it didn't give them an idea of what kind of film our production was. I agree with them that the trailer doesn't give everything away, but I feel this is a good thing and so opted not to change it, as if everything was given away there would be no reason to see the film.

We also collected feedback on the poster we did. The overwhelming view from this was that the poster felt too dark and ominous to be for a light-hearted comedy film. Whilst I agree with this and did make an optional poster to use, my skills with photoshop are nowhere near professional level and Josh was unavailable to create a better themed poster, so we made the decision to stick with the one we had to keep the professional feel. I feel this may have been detrimental, as the poster doesnt work well with our film, and in future more time should be allowed to ensure all ancillary texts are correct.

When we presented this final edit to people, we got a variety of feedback via a Google questionnaire, which can be found here. Unfortunately we got very limited responses as group members failed to share this questionnaire. From these responses, every person said they enjoyed the film. 

We got some feedback in regards to the voice over, saying it was a bit unclear. This was mostly down to the accent, as the microphones and techniques used were tested and I know they produce crystal clear sound. Next time someone with less of an accent should be used, or we should ensure the voice over is perfectly understandable so we can still use the accent as a parodical feature. 

We also got feedback saying the audience they think it would be aimed at is mostly 10-19, the age we had in mind as this is college student age. One thing I expected to get but didn’t was a view different to the one of a college student. A student would find this product funny and entertaining, but I also expected to get a response from an older person, with the view that the student was lazy. This did not happen, but this could be put down to lack of questionnaire exposure. This film project has highlighted the importance of audience feedback and keeping in touch with your viewers, and in future projects it would be beneficial to ensure all questionnaires are promoted as much as possible via social media such as Facebook, Twitter and Tumblr and we ensure the answers can give us full insight in to the audience opinions.  

Critical evaluation Q4

Here is a link to my mindmap on the digital technologies we used and how they helped or hindered us

MINDMAP
Make your own mind maps with Mindomo.

Evaluation Question 1 - Joshua Perrée

In our film we tried to use the best technology available to use make the high quality product that we could. We used the Sony HD1000 Camera for the most part and we also used my Nikon D5100 DSLR for some of the shots as a second camera angle to reduce the amount of time we had to spend filming as we didn’t have to waste time setting up one camera for multiple shots and retakes. The quality of the two cameras are both very similar and they are both full HD and have the same frame rates. Last year during our Preliminary Task and our main project we used a Sony Handycam which was HD quality but not to the same standard at the HD1000 and the D5100 we used this year, this means that we have superior footage to that of last year to enable us to create a more professional looking product. The Sony is an Industry Standard product for Film and Television and recently more and more filmmakers have started using DSLR cameras because of the great quality, and also the size compared to the larger cameras. 

This year we have also had more ease in editing due to our practice last year. We were able to experiment with using effects layers for things such as the ‘Rec’ text and the slowing down of frames to make certain angles look like CCTV footage.

We also used Gaussian Blur on the title sequence part to keep the focus on the title and just have the timelapse as a lesser item.

   We have also progressed in the way we incorporate audio into our films, in our preliminary task and our introduction to a film we mainly used the audio captured from the camera microphone and we used a Zoom recorder for the voice over if necessary. This year we used ProTools HD to record the voiceover in one of colleges industry standard recording studios and used a Neumann U87Ai microphone which is often used for vocal track in some of the best studios in the world. This gave us crystal clear sounding recordings for the voiceover where the Zoom did not give us that quality. We also used ProTools to add effects to the audio such as reverb and delay to make the audio sound more natural, ProTools was also used to create our Radio Trailer for both recording the voice over and cutting and inputting all the other audio clips.

   When filming/editing we constantly went over the scenes to make sure that continuity was in place or was the best it could be and not noticeable. When filming in Callums bedroom we made sure that things on his desk were in the same place as the last time we filmed there by going back over the footage and putting things back in their place.

  When we were filming panning shots we set up the tripod to make sure that we got the smoothest panning shots that we could get with the equipment used.

In our film we didn’t really use conventional narrative because there isn’t any that applied to our story since our film is meant to be a documentary which doesn’t have a story that gets resolved at the end because it’s following a day to day life.  We mainly researched mockumentaries for our film as we wanted the story to be comical but also be in the style of a documentary. We looked at films such as Super Sized Me and Sicko, these gave us an idea of how documentaries are put together using voice overs and also camera angles and editing techniques. We based the style of documentary on a typical wildlife show by people such as David Attenborough and then twisted it so that the student would be seen as an ‘animal’ and have a presenter doing the voice over. I think we have made a film that follows the genre we chose pretty well although I don’t think it was as comic as it could have been.

Our film is based mainly around parody of the documentary genre, known as a mockumentary. This means that we deliberately tried to ‘play’ with the documentary codes and history to try and make comic value from it. The main parody is the fact we treat the student as an animal rather than a human because of the typical student attitude and appearance. We also parodied the presenters name, Donvid Artenburg, which is obviously similar to David Attenborough who is probably the most famous documentary presenter. The film we looked at to research parodies within genres was ‘Blazing Saddles’ which is for the most part a cowboy film but includes characters dressed as Nazi’s and the KKK which is completely comical for the western genre.

The audience pleasure we tried to achieve was ‘Community’ from Richard Dyer’s Theory of Entertainment, and I feel we made this to some extent although it may not be clear at some point as the character may seem lonely when his mates leave him and the girl ignores him. The community aspect is appropriate because the character is someone most of our target audience could relate to at some point as they have been/are students at some point and have also probably felt isolated at some point in that period. The character also follows typical student traits such as sleeping through the day and having beer bottles laying around and also having small change to get by on.

The comparisons between our film and a real 

media text can be found if you watch such films as Borat and Spinal Tap as Callum has mentioned in previous posts, but you can also see similarities in how our film has been shot and editing in tv shows like Trailer Park Boys and The Office where the story is based around real life scenarios and has comic value by either narrations or how the characters act and the viewer can associate situation with stereotypes and experiences. The scenes in our film that use the ‘Rec’ frames are made to look almost Big Brother-esque so it is like people are watching the subject without them knowing which can also be seen in wildlife programs like Planet Earth when the producers leave low-res infra-red cameras out in the wild to try and capture wildlife movement and activities which is what we have achieved here in our film.

"Badger Watch"

"Trailer Park Boys"