Foundation Production Evaluation - Joseph Fisher
Question 1: In what ways does your media project use, develop or challenge forms and conventions of real media products?
When creating our media product, we researched a lot of different films within our genre of choice (British film) to discover for ourselves the conventions within several of the technical codes used in similar films to ours. These technical codes include: Narrative, mise-en-scene, sound, camera angles/movement, editing, and titling. In terms of our film, it generally both conforms to and subverts some of the expectations and conventions of the genre of British film, with a lot of our inspiration coming from the more humorous and, I suppose, lighter films within the genre, such as 'Snatch' (which was our main inspiration).
Titling: Because of the editing program we were using (iMovie) we didn't get a whole lot of choice when it came to the types of titling available to us. It was very difficult to get the effect we wanted when having such a small choice of fonts and animations for our titles. However, we did our best to incorporate the 'feel' some of the titles we saw in other british films into our own production, taking a lot of inspiration from 'Snatch' (pictured, far left) as well as other films of the same genre.
|
When researching British Films for inspiration for our project, we came across the opening title sequence to ‘Snatch’ which consists of a montage of the various characters in the ensemble, interspersed with freeze frames introducing each character’s name in with a striking title. We tried to recreate this in our movie, and we were quite happy with the results. We used colour filters to get a similar freeze frame effect as the one used in ‘Snatch’ and utilized a title animation that flew onto and off the screen to keep up the level of pace and energy already set by the montage and the song behind it. We also discovered, when researching, the various conventions of British film titles, which we mostly stayed away from during our production, for various reasons. From our research, we found that most of the titling in British films has ties to the themes within the film, which are generally darker and more sensitive than perhaps our own film is. For example, in ‘This is England’ the font used for the titling is dirty and imperfect, reflecting the imperfect world the characters are living in. Similarly, most British Films have block capitals rather than lower case letters, which similarly reflects the ‘in your face’ nature of the themes at hand in the movies. In our film, we used a combination of upper and lower case letters, which subverts these conventions. We chose to use this combination to kind of soften the characters through their names, as these are the first true introductions to the characters the viewer is given. We did not what these characters to be portrayed as villains (or to be honest even anti-heroes), and so we did not want their first introductions to be harsh looking and potentially alienating to audiences who might disagree with the criminal acts taking place in the rest of the montage. The combination of the soft, curly font along with the upper and lower case letters has hopefully created a lighter and friendlier introduction to these characters. This should also reflect somewhat the lighter tone we tried to inject into our film, which is a very different sort of tone to the usual British film crop, and so the difference in the titling reflects this. The rest of the titles were somewhat tacked on, as we didn’t really think about where we put them because we were running out of time. We also had the issue of not having the ability of putting the titles exactly where we wanted them, so in the end we threw them in where they were able to fit and left them there. These titles similarly did not conform to the usual British film stereotypes, but since the film’s atmosphere and premise is part of a more niche sub-genre of British films and does not really conform to a lot of the usual stereotypes, this is not particularly surprising.
Narrative: Having researched British film thoroughly, you can see how there are many different off-shoot sub-genres that stem from the generic title of 'British film'. For example, of the films I have looked at, there seems to be a divide between those British films that use dark and gritty storytelling for a deep and serious character and period study (a la 'This is England') and those that, while still being gritty and dealing with somewhat darker themes than most films, are in fact lighter and able to inject a bit of comedy into their narratives and characters (like 'Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels ' - see left).
|
|
When creating our film, we tried to fit squarely into the latter category by attempting to make a comedic and light story, while using the mise-en-scene to create a more traditional British film atmosphere through location choice, props, wardrobe, etc. which I will go into detail about later. When we came up with the narrative for our film we wanted to
make sure the focus was on the positive aspects of the lives of our characters
as opposed to the more negative slant favoured by most British films. We did
this because, while we understood the genre conventions and wanted to be able
to show them in some way, we did not want our protagonists to be depressing
people. We wanted our film to have an energy and for the audience to like these
characters, so while we could have taken a darker angle with our narrative, we
instead tried to use the innate humour and fun we could get from a situation
like this to effectively attract our target audience and make the film more
accessible for a wider audience than British films usually attract. In the same
way as the film ‘Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels’ used humour and a less serious tone to make its own
criminal characters likable, we took the same approach in creating a narrative
that wasn’t particularly serious, but was enjoyable to watch and made the
characters involved more relatable and down to earth. The narrative in our film
centres around four friends from a London housing estate who, on the orders of
their boss ‘Dave’, go around stealing and causing general mischief. By the end
of the opening sequence, the gang have been left with no cut of the money they’ve
earned, but they have stolen from the most powerful man this side of the river.
If it were a feature length production, I would personally imagine this film
taking quite a dark and more mature turn towards its climax, and so I think it
is a good thing that we start off with something lighter at the start to
introduce characters that the audience would care for by the time we started
making their lives a misery. In terms of genre conventions, we have actually
moved away from them quite I feel, as we don’t really deal with any
particularly dark or sensitive themes in this opening, and we also don’t have
characters with any real inherent issues such as alcohol or drug abuse as is
usually the case, as films like ‘Trainspotting’ show. What we have instead
created is something with far more mass market appeal, a comedic British crime
caper that has potential for a darker storyline later on (which is personally
the direction I would take). Looking at what we have actually produced however,
I think we have got a great tone and atmosphere for our film, and this stems
from the narrative itself being aimed squarely at the target audience, rather
than trying to be something it’s not.
|
|
Sound: We actually chose our music before we filmed any of our shots. We knew exactly what tone we wanted our film to have and so choosing 'A Town Called Malice' (on the far left) was something we did almost immediately, and definitely helped us in terms of the timing and pace of our montage. We had long discussions about the other sounds in our film. We had thought of doing a voice over, as well as debating whether to include any dialogue, as we were originally told that this may not be wise.
|
From looking at films such as ‘Trainspotting’ (top right), we could see the kind of sound we would need to try and re-create to get a similar mood and tone. The song choice in that sequence is very fast and full of adrenaline, providing a sense of pace and excitement to the opening sequence of that film that we really wanted to emulate in our own. Therefore we looked toward 70s and 80s British rock music, similar to that in the ‘Trainspotting’ clip, to provide the same kind of fun, pacey music that would complement the speed of the clips in our montage. We looked at several songs, including ‘Chelsea dagger’ and other similar songs, but in the end stuck with ‘A Town Called Malice’, as it seemed to have everything we were looking for, as well as having the added benefit of not having a long introduction that we would have to cut down during the edit. Using a voice-over is something we talked long and hard about, as this is obviously quite an important and well known aspect of British film openings (see ‘Trainspotting’ above). Looking at examples like ‘Trainspotting’ we felt that it might be able to work over our montage, as it does in that film, but in the end we felt that adding a voice over to it would slow the pace of the montage, and distract the audience from quite busy footage, so much so that they may miss important parts of the film. We felt that the montage was fast and funny enough to stand on its own, without the aid of a voice-over, and so while yet again moving away from genre conventions, we felt this time it was definitely for the better. We also talked long and hard about whether to include dialogue in our opening, as we were told right from the beginning of the project that conversational dialogue would not be well suited to an opening of any kind. But in researching British films (and films in other genres) we found that actually, if used effectively, dialogue could be used in opening sequences as mini-sequences of their own, or to add exposition and context to a scene that may otherwise not make as much sense. Therefore when making our film we decided to put a small scene containing dialogue at the start of our film, just to provide a little bit of context to the whole premise of the film. In the end however, because our film was going to be too short according to what we had storyboarded, we added another small scene to the end of the film that, again, just rounded everything up and gave some more context to what would otherwise be perhaps a confusing montage of unknown characters. In hindsight, perhaps these scenes do break up the pace a little, and if we were to try again I would perhaps think of making that break of pace a little less jarring. But I think that the dialogue adds a sense of story to the opening, and doesn't leave it as a shallow and plot-less montage. Because of these additions, the film has a beginning, middle and end, and I think that audiences would be willing to sacrifice a change in pace to having a little bit more context in this way. We tried to use as much diegetic sound as we could where it was needed, such as when playing FIFA, or when the door slammed shut, because, despite the sound quality on the cameras not being great, we have found it incredibly difficult in the past to find suitable sound effects that sound real enough to be believable.
Editing: Despite our cinematography being a little simplistic in comparison with other title sequences we have watched (including those created by our peers) we did try to be slightly more ambitious during the editing process, in which we attempted to use several techniques that we felt would either look impressive, like our split screen, or would allow for smooth and inventive transitions between clips during our montage in order to keep up the pace of that whole section. Some of these were more difficult than others, but in attempting to recreate some of the more exciting and interesting transitions used in films such as 'Snatch' (to the left) I think we created a very smooth montage that managed to keep up its pace throughout its runtime.
|
|
When conceiving the storyboard for our film, we had ‘Snatch’ (see above) in our minds the whole time, as the effortless ‘flow’ of its montage at the end of the opening sequence was exactly the kind of thing we wanted to make for our film. So when we planned out our montage we made sure to put effort into researching various shots and transitions that we could use to create something at least similar to what the creators of ‘Snatch’ had made. However, due to the technology at our disposal, pretty much all of the fancy editing in snatch was out of our reach. Therefore, we had to aim a little lower. We found a way of creating swish pans using a combination of sped up camera pans and fade effects, which we used a lot to bridge gaps between scenes, as this effect was quite effective, and was far more exciting and interesting than a simple cut. Throughout the rest of the montage we used various other techniques to try and re-create what we had seen elsewhere. We utilised jump cuts and very fast cuts to create a sense of pace and make each scene seem more exciting than it would have been if it had been one long shot (this is especially relevant for some of our walking and movement shots). These kinds of cuts a similarly used in films like ‘Snatch’ to create the same sort of effect, and so we are quite happy with the way these edits came out as a whole. Finally, we came up with the idea of using the sun as an item transition similar to ones we had seen in other films where bags had been used to bridge two scenes together, despite them being in two completely different locations. We ended up using a combination of increasing the speed of some shots and a fade to white transition to create a relatively smooth transition between the two scenes. It wasn’t quite as good as it had been in our heads, but in the end we were quite happy with this transition, and of the editing of the montage as a whole, as I personally think the combination of these specially made transitions and energetic and jumpy cuts make for a pretty good pace and feel for the whole montage, and while it may not be as smooth as the one in ‘Snatch’, I think it is a pretty good attempt given the technology we had available. Away from the montage, an editing technique we were quite proud of is the split screen during the phone conversation, which took a lot of time and a combination of picture in picture and ken burns techniques to create. This shot wasn’t exactly necessary to the overall quality of the film, but I think in the end gave it an extra little bit of fun to the film that hinted at the kind of tone the film would portray from the very beginning. In terms of the genre, again we have decided to go down the very specific route of being more like films such as ‘Snatch’ than other types of British films. This means that any conventional editing techniques that slow the pace for films with more heavy hitting themes from the outset have been omitted for those that speed up the pace and create excitement. However, when looking at films such as ‘Trainspotting’ and ‘Snatch’ it does seem as though we haven’t been completely unconventional, as many British films seem to also use this kind of energetic editing to create a greater sense of speed and fun (an ironic sense in trainspotting’s case), just like in our own production.
Mise-en-scene: Because we weren't using the traditional narrative of a conventional British film, we attempted to use the various aspects of mise-en-scene in the film to help make it that much more a part of the genre in a more conventional way. Using wardrobe, props and locations we were able to create a more traditional British film feel to counterbalance the less conventional routes we had taken for the other technical codes in our production.
|
When choosing the locations of our shoots we had to be very selective about the look and feel of a place, so that it would reflect the kind of atmosphere we expected from a film set in urban London. For the main crux of the outside shots we used Cold Harbour Estate, which replaced our original location of Eltham high street because it looked a bit more ‘rough’ and we thought it better reflected the conventions of British film settings, with it being quite urban looking and a bit rough around the edges. With our indoor scenes, we used a combination of different locations. The bar scenes were shot inside the bar at Footscray Rugby Club, and while some parts of the bar do look more like a sports centre rather than a bar, it was a convincing enough location for the scenes we wanted to shoot. Similarly, the houses we used for our beginning and end scenes were probably a little bit too up-market for the kind of lifestyles we wanted to represent. However, when looking at it from a practical point of view, these were the best locations we could get, and so we can’t really complain, especially since the scenes look pretty good anyway. When searching for suitable locations we thought about films such as ‘This is England’ or ‘Kidulthood’ which both use similar kinds of urban settings to represent the poorer areas of British society. Now while we weren’t going to highlight these kinds of issues in the film itself, we thought it would be a good idea to have subtle hints within the mise-en-scene to the more traditional conventions of British film, so that our film would ultimately always have slight hints to the darker elements of life in these parts of Britain so that they could be potentially picked up on a bit later on in the film if it was to become a full feature. Another example of this would be in the props we utilised, especially during the opening scene in the house. We made sure to put beer cans and ashtrays in the background of these shots to subtly represent the kind of lives these kids have. We really wanted to just layer in some more complex themes within the fun and energetic tone of the rest of the film, and through these props I think we managed to do that to some degree, as they aren’t so in your face that you would really stop to think about them, but if you were to think about them, you might get some interesting connotations. In our wardrobe choices we again just wanted to convey some of the stereotypical elements of characteristion within the British films we had researched. The four main characters we decided were going to be wearing tracksuits throughout most of the film, as we wanted to convey the sense that they wouldn’t necessarily have the funds for expensive clothing. We then contrasted this with the more expensive and sophisticated clothing worn by the characters played by Tayo and Alice, leading to the implication that the four main characters are perhaps from a particularly poor area, or perhaps are just not as successful as these other young people because of their way of life. Through these mise-en-scene choices, I think we managed to use a few more of the conventions of British film, allowing us to less overtly present the themes and ideas that most British films would bring to the fore, but without the sacrificing of our fun and light atmosphere. Because of this I think we have given the film a layer of complexity that is not prominent enough to distract from the humour or fun of the film, but introduces other themes and points of interest that can be analysed further if you look close enough.
Camera angles/movements: While the cinematography in our film was not especially inventive or interesting in terms of the variety of shots used, we utilized the more simple shots to bring the focus to the characters themselves as well as highlighting the themes of teamwork and comradeship. In a similar way to films such as 'Trainspotting' (see right), we used mainly a combination of close ups and wide shots to pull focus squarely on the characters in the film, providing them with seperate identities as well as showcasing the characters as a unit and a team. We also made use of camera movements, such as handheld and zooms, to create a dynamic edge to all our montage footage, making it interesting and excting to watch, and allowing us to keep up the pace of the footage throughout the whole of the montage.
|
|
We tried to use a variation of camera shots when making our film, but in the end we didn’t use a whole lot, sticking mainly to simple close ups, mid shots and wide shots in order to keep footage simple enough for the audience to be able to focus on what was going on, as well as allowing us to be more inventive with the editing process. Being a little simplistic in our cinematography allowed us to be more imaginative with our editing, giving us the opportunity to use techniques such as swish pans and our other custom transitions. Despite this, I actually think that the simplistic nature of our shots has allowed us to effectively draw focus to the characterisation of the main four characters through close ups, highlighting the various character traits and personalities of each one, as well as using wide shots to effectively allowing us to show the four main characters as a team, almost as one, rather than a group of four characters. Within our close ups and mid shots on the characters, we allow the audience to see the particular traits of certain characters, which is clearly evident in our freeze frame mid shots which, along with the use of titling, give a great look at the character as a whole: their personality, appearance, etc. thus giving the audience a good hard look at what makes the characters tick, allowing the characters to become more relatable through showcasing as much of their personality as possible. Another example of this is in the various close up shots on ‘Top dog Terry’ at the start of the film, which gives a similar effect in creating as much of a bridge between the audience and the understanding of a character as it is possible to give in a single shot. By being so close to these characters, we get a better picture of who they are, which we felt was really important, as we really wanted these characters to be liked. Along with the use of close ups and similar shots to highlight specific characters, we also used much wider shots such as those at the start of our montage and at the end of the film in order to take what we had introduced about the characters within the rest of the film and attempted to apply it to the group as a whole. These wide shots were attempts to make the group seem as united as possible. We wanted the gang to seem as though they were like a family, and I think these shots allowed us to convey the sense of family within the group. When making our film we really wanted to create the same sort of effect as those in films such as ‘Trainspotting’ (see above), which similarly use the combinations of simple shots such as close-ups and wide shots to focus on introducing characters and character traits. It seems as though a lot of British films use this technique, as characterisation is such an important part of their success. We utlised this convention in order to get the same effect of ‘character first’ because, while our shots aren’t as inventive as in other films, I think sacrificing this has allowed us to create likable characters who are relatable and pretty much carry the film on their backs. In terms of camera movement, we tried to use the way the camera moved mainly to keep up the pace within the montage. We used a lot of stedicam and handheld movements during scenes when characters were moving to create a more dynamic sense of movement, as is the convention in most films, let alone British. Using this increased dynamism gave the montage a bit more excitement and energy, keeping the pace of the footage up with that of the music behind it. I think that shots that didn’t necessarily shake as much as characters moved might have made the motions more static, and therefore make them less engaging and perhaps a little boring. Therefore I am glad we chose to make the shots a little ‘rough around the edges’, similar to those in films like ‘Trainspotting’ which similarly uses stedicam and handheld motions to keep up the energy in its shots, which again allows it to keep up with the music, which is quite energetic like our own. Using these conventions has allowed us to create a much more energetic and fast paced sequence that doesn’t end up becoming boring and static.
Question 2: How does your media product represent particular social groups?
I believe that our production balances well elements of both conforming and subverting the audience's expectations over the representation of particular social groups, with character elements such as gender, age, and regional identity being in general quite balanced in terms of what an audience expects to see from these groups, and perhaps what they wouldn't expect.
For example, the representation of women in our production is always switching between stereotypical ideas and more radical interpretations of what women can do within a context. In many ways we do conform to stereotypes, and I think that to be honest we did this on purpose, not to specifically represent women stereotypically, but in order to clearly differentiate the skillsets of the female character within a very male heavy cast. We specifically set out to show that the character of ‘Naughty Nancy’ could perform actions that would be far harder for the others, purely because she is female. For example, for her sequence of the montage, whereas the male characters would use brains (‘Top dog’ Terry) or brawn (Billy ‘The Brick’), the female member clearly uses more emotional and social methods to achieve her goals, as is stereotypically a women’s speciality within an ensemble cast. In addition, ‘Naughty Nancy’ clearly uses the ideas of beauty and sexuality in women to get what she needs from Tayo’s character at the bar, this is also a very stereotypical character trait, with representations of women within media productions often highlighting these same traits as important to a female character’s identity. However, despite these parts of the character conforming to expectations, there are some aspects to the character that actually subvert what an audience might expect a female character’s role to be within this kind of context. For example, while she might be using the stereotypical skills of social dealings and sexuality as a means to an end, it is perhaps more interesting that this character is not the victim of the crime, as would possibly be expected of a female character in other pictures, but she is actually using the more stereotypical aspects of her character to almost completely subvert the expectations of what her role should be within the group. The character is clearly an independent and important member of the core team, but differs from the other members by using her more specifically female oriented skillset to her advantage, rather than letting it be a burden to the character. In effect, the character is aware of the stereotypical skills and traits of women, and uses this to her advantage. She specifically gets dressed up in order to use this to her advantage. She deliberately flirts with Tayo’s character in order to steal from him. Overall I think we get a sense that while the character is definitely stereotypical in what she does and how she acts, it seems to be ironic in that she uses these more stereotypical traits and actions in order to subvert expectations, to not be the victim, and to be an important member of the team with unique skills, unique because she understands conventions and uses them to her advantage. In terms of our production, we chose to have the character be this way in order to completely differentiate from the other characters. When planning the different sections of the montage, we found it difficult to find specific roles for each character within the group, and perhaps this is why the character of ‘Naughty Nancy’ ended up with more stereotypical personality traits and skills than the other characters. However, I think this portrayed the character as very self aware and intelligent, being aware of the world around her and how to use her unique position as the sole female in the group to her advantage to help with the group’s criminal activities.
The representation of age is also something we took into consideration when making our film, and similarly handled with a mix of stereotypical and less conventional notions regarding how the characters of differing ages should be portrayed. In our production we have two distinct groups: firstly there is the core group of four characters we follow throughout the opening, representing the younger age demographic; and then there is the group containing the two victims, played by Alice and Tayo, and ‘Dave’, the gang’s boss. There is a stark contrast between these groups, the former being a group of rebellious young people, the latter seemingly being a group of much more successful and, most importantly, older characters (while Alice and Tayo are in fact the same age as us, I feel that through mise-en-scene and general body language, we have conveyed that their characters are at least a little older than the core group of characters) which greatly contrast the younger characters through their actions and characterisation. In the younger set of characters we see a lot of the rebelliousness and comradeship that is often seen in groups of young people. I think as a viewer you see that the group really has an ‘us against the world’ attitude that is a trait I think is found in most groups of young people trying to make their way as well as they can. Within the characterisation of the group as a whole, we do see the stereotypical idea of young people through adult eyes as being ‘yobs’ and causing general mischief. However, I think that our production creates characters likeable enough to be forgiven these petty criminal acts, and therefore I think they are liked enough to also be considered by an audience as something a little bit more complex than just ‘yobs’. I think in getting our characters liked, we give the audience a chance to see events through their eyes a little more, and highlight the sense of rebelliousness and friendship (which we can all relate to, to some degree) over the idea of these young people being petty criminals, out to make the community a worse of place. The characterisation in the core group is contrasted in the older characters, both in the inferences taken from various parts of their character, as well as the air of authority and status that is shown by these characters. For example, in the characters of Alice and Tayo, we see another side to the idea of younger people (albeit slightly older than the core group). In these characters we get a set of well-dressed individuals who imply a real sense of success and therefore seem far more respectable than the main four characters. Within these implications there is the idea that this is perhaps what could be in store for the core four characters if they were to put their criminal days behind them, and I think this subversion of the ideas of what younger people can achieve contrasts greatly with the far more stereotypical portrayal seen within the main group. However, I think what these characters really add is a sense of hope to the audience that the characters they see and like in the core group could potentially be successful and respected, as these two characters are. As a film opening, our production layers these potential character development threads as potential for the full film that would follow, and I think that an audience would be very interested in seeing the group of young people developing from the rag-tag criminals they are into characters with hope for the future. Finally, in Dave (the only real adult character) we get to see the ideas of authority and status come to the fore. Dave offers up the idea that the main four characters are constantly under the thumb of people older than them, people who might judge them for being younger, perhaps judging them by the stereotypes that lots of older people do believe about younger people, as well as highlighting the kind of ignorance and naivety these same people might expect from younger people. However, in using this character as the villain of the piece, we show to audiences how this point of view is wrong, and therefore get them far more invested in the main characters instead. While some audience members might object to the criminality and rebelliousness of the acts taken by the main characters, in using the older and more judgemental character as the villain, I think we give these viewers a negative cohesion with the main four: they will like the characters and what they do more, because they don’t want to agree with the villain. In simpler terms, they will start to accept more the aspects of the characters they didn't like, because they want this villain to get his comeuppance. This, I think, will start to break down some of the stereotypical underestimations of younger people, and again get the audience to see them as more than just ‘yobs’.
Finally, another representation we took into account was that of social class and regional identity, which we conveyed through the mise-en-scene of each scene, as well as in the characterisation of each character, especially those with dialogue. We generally stuck to the conventions of the stereotyping within these representations, especially in the regional identity of our characters. As these characters are from South East England, more specifically around London, we decided to portray them exactly how we ourselves would usually act, given that we ourselves are from the same region. When thinking about characters, we decided to give the main role of ‘Top Dog Terry’ to Charlie, as he had he most stereotypical ‘London’ accent out of the four of us, and conveyed that sense of regional identity far better than any of the rest of us. In addition to the characterisation through dialogue, we also used mise-en-scene to show the characters as the more stereotypical London ‘chavs’ that generally come to mind when we think about the ‘rougher’ areas of London. We did this mainly through our costumes. We made sure that the main four characters were all wearing tracksuits, really conforming to the stereotypical representation of a ‘chav’, and therefore giving the audience no doubt about the kind of people they were dealing with in this film. The fact that these kids are criminals also gives a very stereotypical representation of a ‘chav’, with this social group often being thought of as violent or lonked with criminality on some way. Similarly, the props used in the opening (the beer cans, ashtray, etc) which also clearly conveyed the general character traits of those who are deemed ‘chavvy’, such as alcohol and drug use, again giving the audience a clear indication of the kind of people these characters were. This was all very stereotypical of the regional identity of people in and around London who could be considered as ‘chavs’ and I think also began to look into the ideas of representing social class as well, perhaps showing these people as those who are of a ‘lower class’ than some of the other characters in the film. For example, when comparing the characters of Alice or Tayo to the man four characters, we get a clear divide between the perceived social statuses of the former characters as opposed to the latter four. We can clearly tell through the use of wardrobe the difference between the two sets of characters. Tayo and Alice are wearing smart, potentially expensive clothing, which really juxtaposes the wardrobe of the four main characters, being cheap and quite well worn. This clear difference between the characters emphasises how those wearing smarter clothing are perhaps perceived as being of a higher social standing than those who are a little rougher looking. It is also telling of regional identity representations that the ‘chavvy’ characters would be given a lower social status than these other characters.
Question 3: What kind of media institution might distribute your product and why?
This is a difficult question to answer when thinking about our product, mainly because it is not a complete work and therefore cannot be 'distributed' in the sense the question implies. However, if we imagine that from the point of our product (a film's opening title sequence) we were to create a full 90 minute feature length production, we can look a little further into the options we could potentially consider.
For a film such as ours, with an inexperienced production team, low budget and a lot of competition for our audience (young adults), a film distributor would likely send our production straight to home video release, that is if they decided to distribute it at all, which would be incredibly unlikely, as I would imagine this film would be incredibly risky for a company. They would have to think very hard about how they could make their money, and as such it is likely a theatrical release would be far too expensive for such a risky property. That being said, I find it incredibly unlikely even a smaller distribution company would want to take on our film, and therefore as a production company we may have to think about other options...
|
Because our film is so low-budget and would be so risky for a distribution company, we would likely have to think about self-distribution, which as a process has several advantages and disadvantages. Self distribution would allow us to keep all of the profits from our movie, as well as allowing us to retain all the rights, giving us as the production company control over where the film is distributed to market. However, it may limit our options for distribution, as dedicated companies have established relationships that we would have yet to build. Similarly, this can be a very time consuming process and requires a lot of legal know-how in order to make sure you aren't getting a rough deal. It may be easier therefore to seek out a distribution company, but given the risk of our film for these companies, this may not be a viable option.
|
Despite this, in this age of social networking and the surge of online communications provide by it, there may yet be a new and easier way of distributing and making profit on independent films such as ours. The video above shows the process used by a new, free, movie distribution site called 'Distrify'. It allows independent film makers to sell their products online from any site, using a trailer based instant buy/download system tailored to today's short attention span culture. It allows a filmmaker to create an almost viral buzz around their productions and their potential fanbase. I personally think this is a great idea, and the level of customisation for the filmmaker is very impressive. I would honestly consider this kind of online distribution a viable option for our production company, especially if, as i suspect, the usual method of hiring distribution companies is out of our reach. We could potentially build ourselves an online infrastructure for this project and any future releases that basically advertises itself, allowing us to sell from any site and sell instantly to customers. For independent filmmakers like ourselves, this would seem like a fantastic and far less risky way of self-distributing, when using a company to distribute is not an option.
Question 4: Who would be the audience for your media product?
We made this production really as something we ourselves would want to watch, with Charlie specifically being a huge fan of British films and productions similar to our own. Therefore I would say that the audience we made our film for was young adults like ourselves: sort of between the age range of 15-25 and possibly above. When developing our ideas, we looked at similar films to our own such as 'Snatch' and 'Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels' which I think perhaps go for a similar demographic, albeit perhaps aiming for a slightly higher age range given the more adult themes and characters. Our film deals with much younger characters, which a younger demographic would possibly relate to more, but we also tried to make it universally comic and entertaining, so you wouldn't have to be a young person or teenager to be entertained by the humour in our production. So while I think maybe a younger audience will likely get the most out of our film, and was definitely the demographic we were aiming to please, I don't believe that older viewers would not be somewhat entertained by the content, and perhaps would still be able to empathise with charaters in a similar way. After all, we are all young once in our lives. I do think that our film does somewhat cater to the male audience more than the female audience, again through researching other films of this type. Looking at the kind of mood and tone we created in relation to similar films, such as 'Snatch', it would seem as though the audience is similar, and I do think that these types of films are stereotypically geared more towards the male audience in terms of humour and tone, and therefore I think our own production does reflect this somewhat, even though in general we have tried to keep it entertaining for everyone.
Question 5: How did you attract/address your audience?
I believe we were quite successful in addressing our audience with our production. I think we created a likable cast of characters who our audience could easily relate to, as well as an entertaining and humorous scenario that would attract the young adult audience reasonably effectively.
In the group of four main characters, I think we provide the target audience of young people with characters they can empathise with and relate to. I think it would be easier for younger people to relate to these characters than any other demographic, and therefore I think this production is ideally suited for that audience over any of the other potential demographics. Within the four main characters however, I think there was enough differentiation between each character to make them independent enough that our target audience would end up being able to relate to at least one of them, therefore I think helping to stretch the potential demographic across the whole of the young adult spectrum, rather than just boys, for example (although in general I think the male audience would likely get more from this particular picture). I think each character has enough space to grow that, within a full feature, audience members would be able to find an empathic link with the characters as they developed further. Having likeable characters was something that was heavily focussed on by our peers when discussing the pitch for our initial idea. We were told specifically that to engage with our audience, especially since the characters were essentially doing wrong, we must make them likeable enough for the audience to want to see them perform these illegal acts, and so we tried very hard to make the characters endearing to all audiences, but especially young people, through the use of humour and the character development within the opening, which I believe creates a group of engaging and interesting characters that allow the vast array of different audiences to find someone they can relate to and want to watch more of.
In addition to this, we utilized humour and a fast pace to keep the opening sequence energetic and entertaining for the younger audience, because in today’s short attention span culture, it could be very easy to lose the interest of younger viewers if the opening had consisted of long drawn out scenes. We utilized the montage structure to give brief (but I think quite in depth, given the run time) looks at the characters, balancing the level of exposition with the pace to give the audience exactly what they would want to know about the characters, and nothing superfluous. This approach, I believe allows us to keep their attention for far longer than if we had attempted to explain these things thorough long pieces of dialogue. There was at one point the suggestion of using a voice-over on top of the montage, but in the end we believed that this would detract from the pace of the sequence, and potentially alienate the younger audience by providing far too much information, information that simply isn’t needed to grab the audience’s attention.
In terms of humour, I think the comedic elements we have put into the sequence really help to bring out the personalities of these characters, making them far more endearing than if they were to be simple street criminals. In addition, it adds an extra layer of complexity to the nature of the film itself that could potentially sway audience members who perhaps might not be as interested. The tone of this production is supposed to be light and entertaining, and I think within the humour we allow this theme to shine through, and therefore I think create a much more mainstream and wide reaching picture than if we had opted for a more depressing tone. If we had highlighted the potential darker elements of a story such as this that could have potentially been brought to the fore (the ideas of criminality in rougher areas could have gone an entirely different route), I don’t doubt that the results would have been just as successful, however I don’t believe this kind of approach would have attracted the same target audience to our picture. I think, in general, adding a lighter atmosphere through humour and likable characters will always draw in a larger, more mainstream audience, and therefore I think in utilizing it we have created a product that would draw in a vast array of younger people of all creeds, and have therefore been reasonably successful in attracting our target audience through these means.
Question 6: What have you learnt about technologies from the process of constructing this product?
During the course of this project we have learnt a lot about the various technologies available to us. We don't have a have a lot of equipment, but with what we do have, I feel we have gained a vast amount more knowledge about the techniques and strategies we can combine with the technologies to create inventive and ambitious sequences within our productions.
For filming our project we used the Sony Handycam CX320E HD camera. The camera gave very good quality images, though given the videos are filmed in high definition, this is somewhat unsurprising. It provided a great level of detail, so much so that we had to scrap some footage because you could clearly see individual raindrops in the images. Some groups had problems importing their footage from these cameras due to a wide array of issues. Lucky for us however, we had none of these issues and the camera kept working throughout the whole project. There are some downsides to this camera, one being battery life, which in general is ok but not great for long shoots. we had to make sure the camera was fully charged before going out on a day's shoot because if we hadn't it would have almost certainly run out. In addition, sound quality is an issue with these cameras, not only when trying to pick up dialogue, but the amount of background noise the camera picks up is bordering on ridiculous. We had to make sure all scenes with dialogue were done in absolute silence, which was not always possible, so next time, we might consider investing on a microphone input, which would greatly enhance the sound quality of the clips, and hopefully eliminate some of the background noise during scenes.
|
The tripods we used did exactly what they had to. Most of them were broken to some degree, with one having a broken middle section that made extending the legs difficult, and another having lost its winder for extending the top section, meaning some shots were difficult to get at eye level. However, despite these quirks, the tripods did their job very well. We used the tripods for almost every scene as we wanted to create stability for our shots. the only time we didn't use them was for shots of characters walking around, as we felt handheld movement made these shots seem more energetic and natural in their motion. for some scenes we did attempt to use the tripod in conjunction with other equipment, such as a track and dolly. However, we don't actually have a track to go with the dolly, and therefore the footage during these scenes jolted as we rolled along the bumpy pavement. For these scenes we ended up just using either a zoom shot or a handheld movement, which ironically was not nearly as shaky as those taken with the dolly. through using both the tripod and the camera in various ways, we have learnt a significant amount about how to create effect through various shot types and how to create effective camera angles and movements by using these technologies.
|
When editing our film, we used the pre-installed 'iMovie' on the Apple Macs we have at school. The software is free, and therefore doesn't have a whole lot of fancy features, meaning for some sequences we had to get quite inventive with the camera movements and edits for some of the more ambitious techniques we used. For example, our split screen phone conversation was an incredibly long and arduous process. To create it, we had to time everyone's speech to perfection (which technically didn't work properly, though it may look like it did) and then use a combination of picture-in-picture and ken burns techniques to get the effect we ended up with. Similarly, our swish pans had to be created by hand, as the editing software did not have a function for making them as some paid software does. We ended up having to physically swish the camera ourselves before and after a scene, then split the clips, speed them up, and have them fade into each other to get the desired effect. iMovie in general is a pretty good software package, especially given it's free, but really there are some huge holes in its repertoire that can occasionally make it infuriating to use. The main annoyance I have is with the titling in iMovie, which was not especially helpful when we were making a title sequence. Some of the titles look cool, but there is often no way of moving them or changing the font, which is hugely problematic when you have to try and fit titles around images without being able to move them. In the end i think we did an ok job with the titles, but they really aren't as good as they could be, and to be honest I do think that this is mainly due to the software. All in all though I think we learnt a lot over the course of this project about iMovie, probably more than anything else. We've learnt about its limitations and how to get around them, and ultimately have come out as better editors because of it.
|
Question 7: Looking back at your preliminary task, what do you feel you have learnt in progression from this to the full product?
I feel like I have learnt a huge amount since making the preliminary task, mainly about the vast amount of planning and effort required to make a high quality two minute opening sequence as opposed to the minimal amount of work we had to put into the prelim task. We made our prelim task in three days: one for planning, one for filming, and one for editing, and it came out looking ok, but not spectacular. The sheer level of planning required to make our real film was so much more, that when I think back to the prelim task I see a much simpler time. It took more time for us to come up with an idea for our main project than it did to actually make the prelim video, and I think you can tell in the comparative quality of both of those projects how more planning affects the quality of a film. The fact we actually took a good few weeks to meticulously plan out every scene (what would the camera do? What props would be in shot?) made the final project look of a much better quality than the prelim, in which we basically got a general idea and then made it up as we went along. We learnt that that approach would simply not work with this film, mainly to the volume of shots we had to take and time in which we had to do it. We certainly felt a lot more pressure in terms of time when filming our final project than with the prelim, and I think that if we had stuck to the 'wing it' strategy we used during the prelim, we have had absolutely no chance of filming everything and making it look coherent and of a high quality.
In addition to the idea of planning, I think we learnt a lot more about the capabilities of the technologies at our disposal, and I think we were far more ambitious with the kind of shots and transitions we were attempting in our final project as opposed to our prelim. When making our prelim, I don't think we would have even considered the possibility of making split screens on iMovie or using swish pans to make a sequence feel more lively and energetic. It was only through a combination of research into other films, experimenting, and making our practice projects that we discovered these techniques were possible, thereby improving the cinematography of our production and making it hugely more inventive and interesting than the cinematography within the prelim task. The shot types and editing techniques used in our final film are so much more varied and of such a higher quality that I think it is clear to see how much we have learned in terms of shot types, and how to be inventive with them, since making our prelim task. Researching other films from all four genres we looked at definitely helped us to become far more aware of various techniques and shot types, and I think allowed us to really get creative when thinking about our own project, where we thought about examples of shots we'd seen during the research process and discussed how we could attempt some similar things in order to make our project look more professional and more creative in terms of cinematography. Before this project, I don't think we really would have considered some of the techniques we have discovered over the course of this assignment, and I think this is really shown in the differing level of inventiveness and quality between the prelim task and our final production.
But really the main thing I have learnt throughout this process is the individual talents and skills of both myself and those around me, and I have seriously improved my level of co-operation within the group and my confidence around new people. When we formed this group, I had never worked or ever really spoken to any of the other three members, but throughout the process of making this film, I believe I have become far more confident around new people, and become a lot better at working within a group. I still definitely prefer working individually, but I haven't found the process of getting to know my peers and work with them as awkward or as scary as I originally thought it might be. Similarly, I have really started to discover for myself the skills and talents I have within the production of a project such as this, and being able to experiment and nurture these skills has been a huge privilege and has solidified my thinking that being a part of this process is something I want to do again, and potentially have as a career in the future. I really think this project has therefore helped me not only grow as a media student, but as a person, and I look forward to further improving both my skills and myself as we carry on into the A2 course.