Professional Practice: Rough Cut viewing

Professional Practice: Rough Cut viewing

Today I went to meet with the Guildhall once again, for this meeting I had prepared a rough cut of the project for them to see. This cut was a completed but unpolished version of the project, so although there were things I wanted to add or change there was plenty for them to feedback on. 

Going in to this interview I wasn't sure what to expect. Since neither Rachel or Steve were film makers I din't expect them to have much to comment in in regards to the stylistic aspects of my project. And although they had no technical knowledge, they had more to comment on visually than I was expecting. 

For example ti help this project stand out a little from other commissions I experimented with a split screen effect to give the audience the chance to look at multiple angles at the same time, and giving greater context to the voice over.

However, while they weren't against the idea, they didn't think that it was as effective as I intended. They said that some parts are a little distracting since you cant see the entire shot, and are left wanting more. They suggested I think about reducing its use.  

Another thing they had to comment on was the PTC shots. I included them as I thought they would add a little bit more energy and personality in to the piece (which they agreed worked) but they were concerned parts of it came of as cheesy and a little "antiques roadshow". They liked the energy it gave but suggested it should transition quicker/more directly in to the voice over.

They also pointed out a few things which I surprisingly missed in the edit, for example I was shooting in to the light in my outro which is not an effective angle, there was also a plank seen in one or two shots.

This part in particular was great to experience as in previous units I have struggled with criticism. However this time round I was not working with my peers I was working directly for a client and they had an agenda that they needed to stick to, and most importantly they hired me to work for them. This meant that to an extent I had to put some of my personal feelings aside and work on a solution or compromise with the guildhall. 

This was great for my personal development and helped me realize what it would be like to work with clients. 

They remained very professional watching the cut several times before commenting (which surprised me in a good way) and although Rachel was the primary client who I was to get feedback from, she would regularly refer me to Steve to make sure I remained factually accurate. 

The other main changes that we discussed were mainly to do with the voice over and the language I was using. We both admitted fault since they forgot to mention about the primary age of visitors the museum attracts and I forgot to ask. They forgot to mention that they get a lot of primary school trips to the museum and that they study the 100 objects in class. Steve also hosts talks for history enthusiasts. As such they suggested that some of my language should be a  little more universal so that it can easily be understood by everyone. 

They also brought up that one or two points i make had (unintentional) negative connotations about the pump and the museums care of it. 

This was a great learning experience as they brought up points that I would never have considered myself, and since they also have a clear idea of what the project needs to deliver we were able to share our knowledge in our respective fields to explore how we can tell the story we need to.

I will draw up a plan on how I intend to act on their feedback.