Interrogation - Preliminary Task

Analysis
Before I start analysing the preliminary task, called Interrogation, completed by myself and peer Frank James, you should know exactly what it was that we were asked to do. The exercise we were given was to film and edit 'a character opening a door, crossing a room and sitting down in a chair opposite another character, with whom she/he then exchanges a couple of lines of dialogue'. The task was supposed to 'demonstrate match on action, shot/reverse shot and the 180-degree rule'.

Before we started filming we made time to draw out a storyboard and write up a script so that we could be sure of meeting the criteria. It also gave us time to think up a small narrative to make the video that little bit more interesting.

Having watched our final video back a few times it is clear to see that there are a number of areas that we can improve on, however as a first attempt at filming and editing both myself and Frank are fairly pleased with the end result and have gained confidence which we can take into the production of our main task.

The first part of the framework is to do with holding a steady shot. Generally the shots are steady, which we expected as we used a tripod to stabilise the camera. There are a few shots in the video though that are a little bit wobbly. The first is the tilt shot where the camera pans up from my feet to my head. During the early moments of the camera panning up there is a slight jump. The second is the shot of myself walking to the table and sitting down, where the camera is clearly not properly steadied. Then further into the film, when there is a close up of the credit card, you can see that the camera is moving about very slightly. Although the unsteadiness in both shots was minimal, it did, in my view at least, slightly spoil what were two well thought out shots.

The second part of the framework is to do with framing. I believe that this was an area that we did particularly well with. The shots nearly always show the character on screen in an appropriate position. The only criticism I have here is that sometimes we didn't have the camera low enough, leaving half the screen with nothing in particular. Instances of this occur when the camera stops after panning up my body, as well as the first time that Clive (played by class mate Frankie Duck) speaks. Another point I have picked up on from this particular shot is that, despite my shoulder being on screen at the start of him talking, it is not at the end. At the time of filming that particular shot we were more focused on maintaining continuity between that shot and the previous one which is the reason behind this. It's something we will have to remember when we come to the main task.

Another aspect of the framework that I felt we did fairly well on was the distancing of shots. We had a variety of distances, from mid shots to close shots and even extreme close shots. I think we made an appropriate selection of distance for each shot which leads me into the next part of the framework which is how appropriate was the material we were shooting.

We clearly met the criteria that was set. It might not be just a straightforward sequence of someone walking in, sitting down and mumbling a few words to somebody else who in turn says something back, but what we tried to do was to make our task that little bit more interesting. It makes doing the whole exercise a whole lot more fun. We also demonstrated the shots we were asked to but didn't force them in and made them work around our narrative. We used the match on action shot when cutting from the camera being on my head to me walking to the table and used the shot/reverse shot when myself and Clive were talking. This particular sequence also demonstrated our use of the 180 degree rule.

The next part of the framework, mise-en-scène, is probably the one that has annoyed me the most because of one particular error that both me and Frank failed to notice at the time of filming. The shot of my feet when I walk in is a great idea but nearly completely ruined because of the recycling bin clearly visible on the right hand side. We even discussed where I should stand in order to miss the recycling bin without moving out of the frame; we just never thought of moving it! The other mishap we have noticed since filming is that when the camera shows Clive talking you can see our school bags and some other camera equipment on a table behind him. This doesn't ruin the scene as much but again is something we must bear in mind when shooting our main task. We would liked to have done the scene itself in a completely black room with a single light to give the narrative that extra bit of atmosphere, however due to location restrictions at the time of filming this wasn't possible. We used the tables to create a scene as near to a typical interrogation scene as we could.

Our editing and transitions is the next thing to look at according to the framework. I felt our editing was of a decent standard considering it was our first time using Final Cut Pro (the program we used to edit our video). Obviously we hoped to sort out any continuity problems that we may have realised after filming. I certainly think there are points where the continuity could be better but like I said it was our first go and so I think in general we have done a fairly decent job. The transitions we used were basic, again due to lack of previous knowledge and experience, but were effective enough to produce what we wanted. We put six seconds of slug in at the beginning and end of the video so that it doesn't catch the watcher unaware.

Another aspect that could come under editing and transitions is sound. Here trying to keep continuity between shots was again our primary focus. For this reason we took certain shots several times to make sure we achieved it. The only problem with our sound was that you can clearly here the laughter of my partner and cameraman Frank as I go to sit down. We tried to edit this out but unfortunately did not succeed. This is again something to take into consideration for next time.

The final aspect of the framework that we could have included but on this occasion chose not to, was titles. I am not particularly bothered that our video did not feature titles as I don't think it would have made much difference, however for the main task it is definitely something worth looking at. Certainly it could help to give the watcher something to look at when the slugs are being shown if they are absolutely ready to watch.

Overall I think our task is of a good standard for our first attempt. Personally I think our video is on the border of level 2, basic and 3, proficient. Like I said we met the criteria and demonstrated that we had thought about each aspect of the framework. I realise though that there are definitely areas to look into further and improve on for the main task.