Script Annotation The Archers

Edit Desicion

We accumulated around 2 hours worth of footage which included interview and other various shot types. After i had imported them i needed to decide which were usable and which were not. I decided to organize them into folders so I could decide which shots were desirable

I organised them into files labeled: 

Cut Away Clips

Documentary- Cambridge(interview)

Documentary- Norwich (interview)

Reconstruction

Rough cuts and final

Scanned Photos

Scripts

Stereo (audio)

Train Shots

Outlined in black are the clips that i decided to use in the documentary for the interview with QUIR in Norwich.

This is the sub folder within 'Cut Aways' Titled 'Norwich'

The Norwich Cut away shots I decided to use are outlined in black. 

This is the folder titled "Documentary-Cambridge"

We filmed less in this location and therefore the shot decision was easier. Outlined in black are the shots I decided to used for the final edit

I also decided to used a lot of still photos that we had collected, this also includes scans.

I wanted to film to have a lot of archive material and we acquired this from the subjects of the documentary so we knew they would be appropriate and would fit what we wanted and would represent QUIR and BIG well

Documentary All Footage Log

BBFC Letter

Script Client Feedback And Revised Draft Post Client Feedback

• The script that I submitted as a client draft still needed some alterations these are as follows.
• Although each sense has a brief description of location it needs to be more detailed. To be able to set the tone and style of each scene just through the script.
• Some of the script was formatted incorrectly. for example 'interviewer' does not appear as a character heading
• The description of 'dark warehouse' wasn't enough
• Needs shot type for milord legal wall scene
• "pictures appearing across the screen" is too vague 

Post Feedback script

Unit 11 Client Draft

Client Draft from stephenlatchem

Script Client Draft from stephenlatchem

FOCUS GROUP FEEDBACK

I asked 4 people to give me feedback on my finished documentary before I sent a letter to the BBFC to attempt to get the film classified. I asked them a number of questions which included questions like

• How would you rate the language used in the documentary. mild / strong / very strong?
• To what extent do you think the representation of drinking and smoking in the documentary are justified by context?
• Do you think the film encourages criminal activity?
• Are there any scenes that would be distressing/ inappropriate for young children?
• What age certificate would you expect this film to be granted? (U, PG, 12, 12A, 15, 18, R18)

General Feedback

The language was considered to be strong because of the explicit swear words used but they were not frequent and did not address anyone specifically that may course offence within the audience who would be watching. They didn't feel It was too excessive and 3/4 regarded the language as strong
And 1 person mild-strong.
The group I talked to felt that the content of drinking and smoking was, in general justified by the context because it is a personal interview with people about their lifestyle and that coupled with some of the stories they were telling, it seemed appropriate to represent the interviewees smoking and drinking. Two of the group did not feel as if the documentary was glorifying drinking and smoking because it was not featured excessively. The other two I talked did feel that certain parts especially quoting big saying "i was so drunk" did seem to be mildly glorifying alcohol and didn't feel that would be suitable for children under at least 15

Clip including interviewee drinking

Interviewee smoking clip that was considered

In general the group i questioned felt the documentary, at some points was close to inspiring illegal activity, although they all agreed that the documentary as a whole portrayed the consequences of these peoples choses and the implications of them getting arrested, they all felt that by the end the documentary had become a neutral portrayal rather than a glorification of illegal graffiti

Clip considered by group as possible issue

The whole group didn't feel there was anything that was intentional scary or unsettling for a young child. The issue of the darkness of some shots was raised as a potential factor that could influence the BBFC's decision in classification
When asked to predict what age certificate they thought it may achieve One person thought-15
the other 3 decided on and 18 certificate.

After considering the focus groups feedback I will proceed with applying for classification at an estimated 18 certificate