Looking back at your preliminary task, what do you feel you have learnt from it, in progression t...

Get Started. It's Free
or sign up with your email address
Looking back at your preliminary task, what do you feel you have learnt from it, in progression to the real product? by Mind Map: Looking back at your preliminary task, what do you feel you have learnt from it, in progression to the real product?

1. Mise-en-scene: The costume, props and location used within my preliminary task, wasn't really thought out at all - especially in comparison to my final piece. There was no semiology or at all meanings behind it. The location of 'backstage' wasn't really at all relevant to the action taking place. The acting in the piece was pretty rubbish as well. Due to there not really being much motive or back story to the original idea.

2. Cinematography: The preliminary task's strongest point was the cinematography, due to it actually being instructed in the brief. The cinematography used, such as the 180 degree rule, shot-reverse -shot and match on action; I used as starting points on cinematography ideas with in my piece. I used 'match on action' when you first see 'Mad H' in the arch way of her lair and then later on 'Alice' is there too, however having a completely different and contrasting emotion.

3. Editing: The preliminary task really helped me in understanding how the creation of film is more to do with the editing than how I just imagined it sort of all got filmed on one camera and the job was done straight away! This task helped me understand all of the different components and footage needed in all sorts of different orders! It allowed me to understand that really the magic of creating film happens within the editing! I got to know that the editing is where you really cleverly (and quite complicatedly at times), string and piece everything together. I really learnt about this when having to make the footage of the shot-reverse-shot conversation and audio all fit together as if the audience were really observing the conversation there and then!

4. Narrative Structure: The only information that was supplied for this task was the fact that the video had to involve 'filming and editing a character opening a door, crossing a room and sitting down in a chair opposite another character, and then exchanging a couple of lines of dialogue'. With this very brief, yet precise set of instructions, it was up to my group to come up with a narrative idea, fitting with the instructions. Our (rubbish), quick thought idea was that a character 1: 'Emily' was chilling backstage at school, waiting to meet her friend , character 2 'Paige', to discuss 'tonight's' plans. Little did 'Emily' know, but 'Paige' had actually just broken up with her boyfriend: 'Toby', meaning that her chat about 'tonight' didn't really end how she had hoped...

5. Sound: Sound wasn't really in the instructions of this task. However there was dialogue which we just recorded live there and then (diegetic). Where as in my final piece I felt that lots of dialogue in the opening scene of a film isn't that common and I found it when done live, with the cameras we were using, it can look incredibly unprofessional - as shown within our preliminary task (however it wasn't as bad as I imagined, once edited). What I instead decided to do with my real product, was to use 'voice over' which I found far more professional and definitely more effective and relatable to my theme. I additionally added background music to create ambience and build tension, which I feel our preliminary task could have done with.

6. Obviously as one can tell, there was no thought at all behind this narrative and clearly it has just been thought up in a short amount of time. Whereas in my real product it took me ages researching and trying out, and listening to feedback about the narrative path I wanted to go down. To the point of creating questionnaires and focus groups to find out essential information and opinions on my ideas. - NOTHING like what took place during our preliminary task!

7. I used all of these editing techniques and new found knowledge in my real product. I would say most of the time that I spent on my real product was through the editing (much like in the preliminary task). I didn't really use that many transitions between each set of footage which avoided my film looking more like a cheap, unprofessional PowerPoint! Although were I felt fit I did add in a slight dissolve or jump cut.

8. Mise-en-scene within my previous research development: in my research task on mise-en-scene my group mainly focused on costume, location and actors - for example the narrative idea which was 'insanity', we decided to do the journey of becoming insane in a twisted thriller type way. We decided to have a young girl looking really 'doll' and creepy like. So we reflected this through the costume, actors age - 12 year old girl, and in some of our location choices - e.g the swing.

9. Where as in my final video, I took my mise-en-scene to the next level through adding in attributes such as props relating back to my overall twisted theme, and I also added make-up. I used both of these functions to help show a clearer definition between the crazy, alternative, fantasy drug world and the boring, ordinary normal world.

10. My Narrative structure within my real final video changed significantly from when we explored it within our mini groups in class. In my class one, we didn't really focus too much on an interesting narrative, due to lack of time and planning. The only similarity that I did actually use within my final video, was the filters to help define that all is not as it seems. The narrative practice video had similar ideas as to mine now, in the way that they both are about the 'drugs world' and the build up and then consequences to drug use. However that was really as far as we got with the narrative ideas. Whereas my piece now has a lot more thought and semiotics behind the narrative.