June 2017

I think that my film is definitely fit for purpose, it was planned to be a short coming-of-age drama and that is exactly what it is. Its a 5 minute short drama that follows the relationship of a young couple and this is the basic description of a coming-of-age film. In the proposal I stated that the films purpose is to be a short entertaining piece of endearing art and I believe that it accomplishes this. The focus group I conducted, consisting of people in the targeted audience demographic said that they enjoyed the film, especially the visual elements. My film does follow some of the codes and conventions of its genre. It follows the most important ones which are the classic Hollywood style and story. The style used by this genre is almost always the classic cinematic Hollywood style like in films such as the Spectacular Now (figure 1) or It’s Kind Of A Funny Story (figure 2) where the colours look natural yet cinematic and the shots are usually quite neutral with nothing too ambitious for the most part. I took this style into consideration when composing my shots, which can be seen in figures 3 and 4. I framed most of the shots in my film either as a wide establishing shot or a medium close up. The genre is also known for adopting some techniques from french new wave; a coming-of-age film that does this is Submarine. these techniques include the use of montage for showing the two weeks of Oliver’s and Jordana’s relationship and awkward cuts (like the first kiss scene under the pier) to emphasise the character, personality and emotion of a situation. An example of an awkward cut in my film is the really quick cut to a close up from a wide in the first scene to show the annoyance on Michael’s face and show to the audience that he’s irritated. I also utilised the use of montage (all of scene 2) and jump cuts (on the bus) in my film. For these reasons I believe my film follows the appropriate codes and conventions of the genre.

I could have improved my film’s fitness for purpose with several additions and alterations. Firstly I received a lot of criticism about the dialogue from the focus group, they said that it wasn’t well written and it was ‘cringey’. I think that if this was improved then more people would have enjoyed it making it more fit for its purpose to entertain. One convention of coming-of-age films is that they usually include a really good soundtrack, whilst my soundtrack was effective in conveying and emphasising the nostalgic feeling and infatuation between Michael and Isa it could have been more conventional. A song with lyrics about love and relationships accompanied by an acoustic instrument are indicative of this genre. I wasn’t able to do this because of the budget limitations and the fact that its only 5 minutes long so I could have a long soundtrack with many different songs. This only really works for features. If I had a really good soundtrack it would make the film more appealing for people to watch and make it more enjoyable. One song that would have worked perfectly is a Katie Melua cover of the song Wonderful Life by Black but I couldn’t obtain the rights to use the song. The impact that this song would have had on the audience is it would have given a them a better sense of the characters emotion and would have made the film appear to have a higher production value.

When I presented the film to the focus group, everyone began by saying that they enjoyed the film and they understood and liked the basic storyline concept. There main issues was with the dialogue (especially scene 3 on the bench), some of it was ‘cringey’. One of the main sections that they had a problem with was when Michael was reminiscing about visiting the park as a child and then saying how lucky he was to be there with her, they found this very cliched. Some people also suggested that I should have changed the dialogue to suit my German actress more as they felt she struggled to deliver the lines. This point prompted another person to suggest casting an English or American character may have been a better idea as it would be more fitting with the conventions of classic coming-of-age films; I do agree with this point and I will take the accent of actors into stronger consideration on my next project. Taking into consideration the first point the focus group made about the dialogue. I could have improved the film by writing a less cliche couple of lines for scene 3, this would have made the entire scene less ‘cringey’. What would could have improved the film is if I had time to sit down with the actors and let them develop the script to make it sound more natural. I wasn’t able to do this with Karla as she was a last minute replacement meaning her lines are tailored for an English speaking actress.

One aspect that everyone liked was the cinematography with people saying it was ‘shot beautifully’ and it ‘looks great’. I’m very happy with my cinematography because it looks beautiful and conveys the correct meaning its supposed too and these are the two main thing the cinematography is meant to do. One of the main reasons a lot of people are saying its so pretty is because I shot half of the film in either golden hour or just with beautiful natural lighting. I did this at the happy points of the film so the cinematography can make the audience happy and this then helps them empathise with the characters in there happiest moments (like when they first meet). The group picked up a few issues with the film, first being the shot where the two characters see each other for the first time. The characters are positioned in a way that makes them look like they aren’t looking at each other which is something I agree with and only figured out was a problem in the edit so was too late to correct. This problem is all down to forgetting to stick to the 180 degree rule where the camera can only shoot from one side of the line of action. Essentially Michael look from left of the screen too right then Karla changes from looking towards the left to looking to her right, this makes it look like they’re looking in the same direction. A point they brought up that I don’t agree with was they thought the grade was inconsistent throughout the film, I graded the shots differently based on the lighting in the scene, some shots are outside and some are inside so they do look different.

I was responsible for the directing of the film and the cinematography. On reflection I should have trusted someone to deal with the cinematography because they would have been able to focus all their efforts on it, I couldn’t do this meaning I made mistakes. I messed up the white balance on the opening shot meaning that I couldn’t fix the image that much in post-production (see figure 5). I should have focused all my efforts on directing the actors. This problem became apparent when shooting for scene 3 and I was so focused on the cinematography that I missed the perfect lighting time and the I forgot to give the actors and other crew proper directions, I then had to scrap the footage from that shoot because it wasn’t useable. Because my attentions were drawn towards the camera department I didn’t realise that the actors said slightly different lines each take which made the editing process very difficult because I couldn’t use certain angles. I think that besides not be completely focused on the directing I still made a good move, the audience still understands the story and the character emotions. I’m also happy with the majority of the cinematography that did go well, this film contains one of my favourite shots (see figure 6).

A lot of the research and pre-production work did help with the successes of this film. The location recces and test shots especially, this meant that when I got to set the crew could set up and I knew exactly what I was going to to shooting. This was especially helpful with the shots of Karla at Stanage edge as I didn’t have as much time with her, I had planned the positions of the characters before so I didn’t have to figure that out on set (see figure 7 for the shot at Stanage). The major part of the planning that really helped was the call sheets and especially the timetable, because of these everyone knew when they were needed, what they were doing and where the shots fitted in the film (see figure 8 for the timetable). One time that I wished I had conducted more extensive pre-production planning was on the first shoot of scene 3 and I hadn’t actually done lighting tests on location, I found that it was completely different to in the TV studio and so I had to make up the lighting whilst filming, slowing production.

I think that the film itself turned out well, but not as well as I had expected. It fits its purpose but its not the most enjoyable short film that I’ve seen. It didn’t achieve the exact “Hollywood” look that I had hoped for it and the characters weren’t as likeable or relatable as i’d planned for them. I would have also recorded more room tone for covering up obvious cuts in sound and making the editing process easier. If I was to start this project again the first two points that come to mind that I would change would be to hire someone else to write the script for me as writing is not my strong point and hire a cinematographer I trust to handle the camera department freeing me up to direct the film. I would also take the advice of my focus group and would tailor the dialogue to fit my actress with a German accent or cast an actress with an English accent that fits the dialogue. Overall I am happy with the film I’ve made. I think that’s its entertaining to watch because it throws the audience in at the end of the relationship and then they want to find out what happened in the rest of the relationship so carry on watching. I also think its enjoyable because of the beautiful cinematography.

This is the the final cut of Portrait People –