- The content of video was quite successful. The range of people for interviewed was effective, providing a good variety of arguments. The residents had an incredible wealth of knowledge, providing facts and figures to create strong arguments rather than just being based on subjective opinion. The senior management team gave a level of authority to the arguments about LCA, whilst speaking to students who will be affected made the points seem personal as well.
- News style of editing seemed to work well with the content – put across the points in a formal manner with supporting visual evidence. Screen shots of articles worked well in this, enhancing the factual style of the video.
- The visual quality let the film down a bit – some shots were very dark.
- The interviews were very long, and not concise enough. This meant I had to cut and paste together bits to summarise their points, so cut away shots were necessary to cover the cuts, hiding the constructed sentences, this caused a few issues (see next point)
- The cut away shots sometimes seemed out of place; at times I struggled to find something to cut away to that was relevant to the audio. E.g in the beginning shot it cuts away from the residents interview, which seems too early. In places, there are too many cut away shots one after another, but they were necessary to cover up breaks in the interviews.
- Because of people not pausing between phrases, some of the cuts in middle of sentences are noticeable in the audio.
- Although it is possible to hear what they are saying clearly, because we interviewed in rooms with air-conditioning there is some very noticeable background noise.
- Audio of different interviews was not consistent, this meant editing levels which is sometimes noticeable, and quite distracting.
I have learnt how to think critically when producing work which will be viewed skeptically. This has taught me to be very brutal, and decisive when cutting aspects out of the final piece if they are not strong enough. I have learnt how to cut a lot of footage (28 minutes) down to a brief concise video, that is dense in content and moves at a fast pace.
I have also learnt how to successfully collaborate for a brief. Tom and I worked well together, probably because we took on very clear, different roles. Tom acted more as a project manager, organising and setting up interviews, helping mange time plans, and assisting me getting to and from locations with heavy and expensive equipment. He left the creative decisions to me, including both filming and editing. We both contributed to planning interviews, and we shared decisions about content.
It was much more enjoyable collaborating for a film project, because it made it more manageable, and separating out the roles took pressure off trying to drive a whole project along on my own.
Tom was excellent at organising time, and arranging meetings / interviews, which is one of my weaknesses. This was helpful, but meant that I didn’t get to challenge myself to try to improve these aspects. Perhaps in the Responsive module, where I am working in a group to make a film for Hamara, I will take on some organisational responsibility, to help me improve.
I really enjoyed working to a brief, for a social cause. I found it useful knowing what the local campaigners wanted to be communicated, and knowing who the audience would be (people attending the enquiry). This allowed me to make decisions based on the most appropriate way to communicate the message persuasively, rather than making judgements based on what I thought looked best. In future projects I will try to work in consultation with the social cause/person/group, based around what they want or need.
I think I work most successfully, when I have a very clear idea of who my audience is, because It helps me understand how I need to communicate.
Below: Thumbnails of my footage