Final cut

Actions after feedback

Dialogue- After reviewing our rough cut we realised that the dialogue was  very unclear and did not layout the basic narrative , we felt that in the rough cut there was to much unnecessary dialogue and so we cut it down to just a few lines. However making sure that the narrative was clearly stated within it.  


Film steadier shots - Some of our shots where very shaky and unsteady when reviewed in our rough cut so in order for us to ensure that our opening scene would look professional and realistic we had to refilm certain shots.

One suggestion that we decided to consider was to cross cut between the detectives within the opening sequence. we felt that by doing this we would be able to the show the reactions of the detectives to the news and show how they process the information.
Our credits in the rough cut where not as detailed as they needed to be. so in our final cut we improved our credits by incorporating then within our props.

For props we were given feedback that there needed to be more so we added and ipod into the scene with two detectives in it and managed to link it in with the story line .We also printed fake case files including  images of same people on wall to make the office it look more believable.  

 

In particular something that was pointed out to us was the way in which the footage seemed to jump from one narrative stand to the next; and this made the relation between the two strands more difficult to understand. There is of course transitions between the two strands, but it may be more effective to integrate the two strands further. A means of doing this could be to juxtapose a shot representing the antagonist with a shot representing the protagonist: by placing these in an alternating sequence we would be able not only to indicate a relationship between the two stands but also the represent a battle by the opposition of two contrasting images.  

Audience feedback

We've received some mixed feedback for our rough cut, but there seems to be some key features which need to be looked at.

Camerawork

• less scene cutting 

• "A flashback may be good to split the speaking scene up." 

• "The camerawork is jerky and unsteady, especially in the second scene."

• "The panning shot could be re-done as over the shoulder - the movement of the pan was not smooth."

• "The dialogue scene is too long."

Audio

• "You an hear people in the background whch distracts from the dialogue." 

• "The audio is clear and easy to understand." (aside from above problem)

Mise en Scene

• "The genre could be confused for horror."

Narrative

• "The credits were very effective in creating suspense."

• "The dialogue scene is too long; and becomes a little wearing."

As you can see the two main areas which our audience highlighted in their feedback as needing improvement are camerawork and audio. In terms of camerawork we received a lot of feedback suggesting that the camera was somewhat unsteady, and jerky- which the audience found somewhat distracting. The only way to resolve this would be to re-film the scenes which are unsteady; this time making sure that we have better control of the camera. Additionally, it may be a good idea to use a different camera as the majority of the footage that was observed as being poor quality was filmed on a eight year old camcorder rather than a digital camera. 
 The audio while clear was pointed out to have voices in the background; which detracts from the overall quality and realism and distracts the audience from the dialogue. The voices which are audience observed were due to the fact that we had been filming within a school at lunchtime-next time it would be wiser to film during lesson to avoid this.

The response to the credits themselves was positive; being reviewed as "effectively creating suspense"- and by doing this, conforming to the conventions of the thriller genre. However, many viewers felt that this suspense was not sustained throughout the piece as a whole, and that the dialogue in the second scene lasted too long thus disturbing the pace of the entire sequence. This was emphasised by several viewers, and is something that we must address if we want to create a successful piece. We have had the suggestion that we could do this by way of a flashback: having considered this very deeply we feel that a flashback during the speaking scene would only be appropriate if the protagonist had been at the scene of the murder, which he was not. But we still think that there may be use for something similar to this to remove the burden placed on the dialogue of essentially explaining the entire plot so far. Certainly it would be worth it to employ some sort of narrative device such as a flashback to do so; but not quite in the way suggested to us.

Rough cut

The point of a rough cut is to create a base to improve upon; and     to gain a better understanding of the practicalities of filming before we begin our final cut. I'd like to think we've done that well.

 There are a few things in particular which are apparent when viewing this, and it's clear that improvements do need to be made  to our technique and planning. One thing that became clear is that we need to follow a more specific plan of shots; as it was we used our animatic as a base and improvised to suit our abilities within the space available. As a result, we didn't cover as great a range of shots as we had intended.