EVALUATION QUESTION 7

There were 3 stages which both the preliminary and the main tasks entailed. I have chosen to consider these areas and make my comparisons and conclusions as to what I have learnt, having done this. There is no doubt that the journey from the preliminary to the main task has been one where I have learnt a huge amount of skills. I found the following method to be the most efficient in showing this as part of my evaluation. The 3 stages are:

The Brief
Production stages (pre-production, production, post production)
Reflection/Evaluation

THE BREIF
There were many differences between the briefs for both tasks.
Although the main task was an opportunity to show our creative skills, the lack of specific demands made the process of getting started a lot more difficult, with so many decisions to be made. However, the main task provided the chance to interact with the group and brainstorm a lot more. This was difficult with the preliminary task as the time constraint was so tight.
As a result of group interactivity, we came to the conclusion, fairly quickly, that the best genre, by which we could exhibit all that we had learnt so far, was horror.
The time limit also meant that we did not have a huge option of locations in which to shoot the preliminary sequence. As a result, we took advantage of the numerous location possibilities for the main task and explored as many as we could; (Cinema car park, alleyway, school grounds, and our chosen set – Mia’s house).
Furthermore, there was a lot more to think about for the main task in terms of sound, costume and make-up. The preliminary sequence did not present the opportunity to use non-diegetic sound. However, this was essential for atmosphere and ambience for the main task.

STAGES OF PRODUCTION

Pre Production
Pre-production for the preliminary task had to be quite limited, and as a result of this, we really saw the benefits of standard pre=production processes when it came to the main task. (This included storyboards, shooting scripts and location reccies).However, there is a limit to how useful these processes would have been during the preliminary sequence. They were much more helpful during the main task when we were working within a specific genre and to a target audience. Pre-production for the main task was much more careful and detailed. It was absolutely essential for us to spend time researching and blogging anything we found useful in terms of conventions for opening sequences and different genres. The research we did helped us to make crucial decisions like, which genre to choose, where to shoot, and what shot types would best fit in our sequence.
The key to success in our main task, we soon came to realise, were simple processes such as story boarding and using a shooting script. If we had planned out using a storyboard, we would know exactly what we had visualised when planning the shot in question. A shooting script would have made it easier to shoot without having to keep changing locations and moving equipment. The shoots would have been overall less challenging, and the need for re-shoots would be eliminated.

Production
Overall, the preliminary task was almost a clear-cut path for us to take. The main task, on the other hand, involved a lot more flexibility when it came to production, with many more opportunities to make choices. Though we did not use it, we had the chance to use actors from outside the group. In addition, equipment was a lot more essential, we found, in shooting the main task. We had a selection of sound and lighting kits which had not been necessary when shooting the main task.
The fact that we had more time with the main task allowed us to shoot a variety of footage from different angles, distances and lighting effects each time. This provided us with more options when it came to post-production. Having already used the camera and audio equipment for the preliminary and other school tasks, we were confident when it came to experimenting. Time also allowed us something which the group could not have done without – Re-shoots! We learnt that though a shot may look perfect on the camera, there is a chance that it will look amateur at the edit suite.
Possibly one of the most significant differences between the productions of the two tasks was distribution of duties. For the preliminary, the time constraint meant that it was nearly impossible to switch during the shoot without wasting time. For the preliminary shoot, I was appointed camera woman. However, the main task was an opportunity to divide duties fairly. Every group member was given the chance to film, work on sound, organize lighting and direct.

Post Production
Like all other stages in production, post-production had to involve fast yet sensible decisions. Due to lack of specific genre, there was no need for special effects or a non-diegetic sound track. So, one could say, there was less need for a long editing process.
However, as a result of this, we yearned for perfection when editing the main task. The main task also required credits throughout the sequence, so using Mac software, we tried to produce the best possible titles, which also took up editing time. This was not necessary for the preliminary sequence. Time was also spent attempting to ‘brand’ our film. Specific music, effects and fonts were needed to clarify to an audience that our product was a horror sequence. This could only be done during post production.


However, we aimed for perfect matches on action, neat continuity and a seamless sequence for both tasks.
One thing probably more relevant to our group than to any other was that post production often revealed the necessity for re-shoots. It was during an editing session that we realized we had broken the 180degree rule. If this rule is broken, a shot-reverse-shot can look very clumsy as the characters appear to be facing the wrong directions.
Also, the preliminary did not require any images to be altered. We only used the basic editing techniques such as capturing, using a razor tool to cut clips, and re-ordering. The main task was the first time we experimented with effects and colour contrasts.

REFLECTION/EVALUATION
Unlike the preliminary task where we were only required to submit individual evaluations, the main task benefited from group discussions and contributions from everyone. This evaluation also used more theory, and we attempted to incorporate the work of theorists into our narrative.
In addition to this, the main task was screened to different audiences to gain as much feedback and ideas as possible. Our audiences were:
Our colleagues in the media department
Family
Non-media students
It was important to get feedback from a non-media eye to be able to conclude how an audience would receive our film. The feedback session was highly useful and told us that our film was well received and interpreted in the way which we had hoped. (RE: blog post labelled ‘Audience Feedback.’) We found that the themes interpreted by our audience are those which we expected; hatred, murder and jealousy. Furthermore, 100% of the audience concluded that the film was horror/thriller and that it was an opening sequence. Thus, it is evident that we were successful both in using and challenging genre and opening sequence conventions.
Of course, the main thing to mention here is the mistakes we made during the preliminary task, and how they helped us when it came to the main task.
We realized having edited the preliminary, that there was too long a gap between each line of dialogue. So, to make the main task more fluid, we edited very tightly
Small continuity errors were impossible to fix. It was important to make sure everything remained in place in terms if mise en scene.
A shooting script was necessary to get all the necessary footage in good time.
It is a good idea to test or walk through a location, so as to spot any impracticality with shooting there.