The Bag - Evaluation.

The Bag - Evaluation

Class Evaluation

WWW- Used the rules well for example Shot/Reverse/Shot of Armond, and Kyle staring at each other. It was suspenseful. The music worked really well, as it was parallel. The narrative was good. The 180˚ rule wasn't broken. The song used was fit for purpose, and attention to detail was on point. Kyle's walk was more natural. It was very original and well planned, the editing program was used to the best ability, well planned, and a variety of shots was used. The editing of the bag was good. The production creates enigma codes.

EBI- The camera was shaky and a few shots blurred. The camera work needs improvement. There was some background noise, and items in the shot did not match the narrative. 

Teacher Evaluation:

WWW:
Sound and music were effective, especially with the sound of the clock in sync with the clock in the scene. This made the clock sound originally seem diegetic and in the scene however when the music progressed we realised it was non diegetic. It was also parallel and complimented the scene well.

An enigma code was effectively created as the identities of the characters were unknown. A clear enigma code was also created by the mysterious bag as the audience wonders what's inside.

The low angle shot of Armond in the close up of his face was effective as it made him seem more menacing and mean.

The dialogue and scripting was good as speech was clear and easy to understand.

The repeated shot of the close up on Armond's fingers was effective as it built tension and suspense.

Match on Action was also performed effectively in the scene of the door being opened and then shot from the other side showing the other character entering the door.

Editing was also effective as the fade out of music helped the scenes flow.

EBI:

There was some unintentional camera wobble and blur in scenes which made them less realistic and appealing to the audience.

The location of the scene could also have been better as the mise en scene did not suit the contents of the scene as books and posters were clearly scene, whereas a dealing between two mysterious characters would have suited a more isolated, mysterious location.

There was also some unintentional diegetic sound in the background of the scenes. This took some emphasis away from the music and speech between the characters as background noises distracted the audience.

Preliminary Results:

Creativity - 4/5
Use of technology - 4/5
Production process - 4/5
Codes and conventions - 4/5
Fit for purpose - 4/5
Attention to detail - 4/5

24/30 - level 4.

Self-evaluation:

WWW:

 What went well during making the preliminary exercise was that we planned out what we were going to do and where we were going to do it. We decided on the setting and the characters that will take part. This made us very well organised allowing us after shooting the video footage to have a handful of time to do the editing without rushing. In the video sequence we had produced we had some very creative shots. During the first scenes we had a few close up shots of the actor Kyle walking up stairs and, however we have not revealed his identity purposely as this would create an enigma for the audience leaving them curious to find out who the mystery protagonist is. We also had a pan shot of the bag following the direction of the bag. The audience from this would automatically know that this is what it’s all about a bag in which acts as the maguffin in the narrative. We had a low angle shot of Armand’s face as he was staring into the camera. This could potentially give the audience a feeling of this person is a dominant scary character. We also had a long shot of the two characters showing some kind of binary opposition between them. However, at this moment in time we do not know who the good guy or bad guy is, which leaves the audience yet confused and engaged in the sequence, with them desperately wanting to find out. The sound also was parallel to the scenes as they suited the scenes shot in the video. We used non-diegetic sound. However during the fit few scenes we saw a clock so the audience could be tricked into thinking that it is diegetic as there is a clock in the room. We also used a sound bridge as we had a scene of a close up of Armond’s face, whilst this was being shown we has the clock ticking then we’ have a scene of the clock. The lyrics to the music we had sued also suited what Kyle was doing which was going somewhere. The lyrics were ‘I’m coming’. Every time a scene popped up with Kyle walking we’d hear ‘I’m coming being said’.

EBI:

 What we could have done better in the video we had produced is that we realised that there were a few things we could have done better. For example the camera mans were a bit shaky. So next time we would have to get a camera man in which has steady hands, or we could use the tripod. We also had a few scenes in which were a bit out of focus. This would make the video footage look unprofessional and amateurish. This would need to be remembered for the next time we shoot videos so that we get all the scenes in focus. We also made a mistake where one of the camera men could is seen in the glass door filming the scene. This is important as it would not come out as a professionally made video in the end, the audience would notice. However, no one noticed during the video being played to the audience. We would also have to think about the setting as well as in the scenes we could see boxes and rubbish around which did not suit or fit the narrative. This would have created a distraction for the audience and would make them not focus on the protagonists and what’s going on in the video.