Upon showing my first drafts to people and also my teacher Becky, it was evident that narrative structure was the key element that needed to be worked upon. With my first draft not including any of the dialogue, it was not clear what the film was trying to say or even what was actually happening in the film. Therefore, my main advice was to strengthen the structure in so to give a clearer meaning to the story and to ensure my film had structure.
Therefore, upon adding this dialogue into my film, the meaning was more easily understood by both the peers and my teacher as the dialogue added comedy value to the film. I feel that adding this element of comedy ensure audience enjoyment and had a little more interest in my film, as I could judge from their reactions to certain scenes/dialogue. Furthermore, it adds to the meaning of my film as the overall objective was to in fact poke fun at the wide and negative stereotypes given to the people of Hull from the way they talk, dress and even their day to day activities like feeding the pigeons and eating fish and chips.
From my third to final draft there was only the difference of a few edits, such as jump-cuts and a few extra bits of dialogue that was advised in my feedback to ensure the audience were constantly kept interested and to ensure that they were never going too long without any dialogue at all as this caused them to lose interest and for the film to get a little tedious - especially with such a repetitive song!
These are some conversations I had with my peers about my final film.
Feedback 1: First Video by s0014528 on GoAnimate
In part 1, my peer Lauren is questioned on the purpose of the film - to which she replies with 'I think the purpose is a production based on the stereotypes of society, the age and behaviour of people in this day and age'. This was the true test of how clear the message from my film was as my classmates would fall into my target audience and therefore if they understand the message then my film must be clear enough.
Furthermore, Lauren's answer shows Stuart Hall's representation theory in action. She believes that people from Hull may disagree that my film is an accurate representation of what people from Hull are stereotypically like and therefore may decode my film in an oppositional manner. However, she believes that people that are not from Hull may decode my film with a preferred or negotiated reading, meaning that they agree with the representation of the stereotypes via my character.
Feedback 1: Continued (Part 2) by s0014528 on GoAnimate
Feedback video 2 by s0014528 on GoAnimate
What I can take from these conversations are that it is clear that some of my footage is a little too shaky and can have a negative effect on the overall professionalism of the piece. However, shaky cinematography and disorientation of the audience was one of my original objectives to try to make the audience see what my character is feeling as he drinks more and is trying to ride his bike.
In Feedback Video 2, Sophie describes the main character as less 'chavvy' then some people from Hull. This could be an example of Stanley Cohen's theory of 'Folk Devils and Moral Panics', as Sophie describes young working class people, who are likely to be deviant and commit crimes such as those my character in the film would be likely to do, as 'Chavvy'. Chav is a popular term used amongst tabloid newspapers to describe young deviants, and therefore those in Hull who seemingly fit the stereotype are branded with this reputation.
No comments:
Post a Comment