Cheers to another round of screening! Everyone has a unique style that’s really inspiring. I can see how our class has stepped up from our previous brief too. It’s exciting to see how we will perform by the end of the year and how much we have improved by then.

Margaret:
Having watched her last project as well, I see an artistic style she is developing, which has heavy references to vaudeville and vintage clothes. There is a smart, conscious effort to shape one’s brand as a creative artiste. Margaret’s work has prompted me to consider the importance of the creator’s commercial value. Her PB3 includess jazz music, grainy effect synonymous to old cinema and of course, a bubbly character with colourful wardrobe and a trinkets-filled house. Margaret has composed the pictorial elements in her frames very well. A careful division of space makes the scene very easy on the eyes. Viewers know where to focus their attention. Although subject’s house may seem cluttered, she still stands out in the space in a non-anarchic way. We are able to see how truly “at home” the subject is. Margaret is not afraid to move the camera, zoom in and explore different camera angles of the subject. The found footage is appropriated well too. If I have to nitpick, the subject’s voice in the beginning has been drowned out by sound effects. Perhaps, she could be more careful about the sound levels.

Elizabeth:
Beth has successfully given us an intimate view of Bridget’s personality. The found footage of little girls with their drawings have been appropriated very well. These grainy black-and-white scenes compliment the subject’s recount about picking up art as a child. Beth shows Bridget’s genuine passion for art by using close-ups of eyes, facial expressions and her actions at work. Viewers are able to see both her friendly approach with people and seriousness behind the desk. There is also a good choice of music: synthesised sounds reflect Bridget’s ability to use various graphic tech gears and a slow tempo mirrors her mellow nature. The visual segments are edited “cleanly”. While we hear Bridget’s voice, snippets of her designing provide more information to viewers without being visually disruptive. Beth has also used eyes as a motif (of subject’s and her drawn character’s), thus drawing a stronger connection between the creator and her art. I can feel Beth’s sincerity with her work! Although the visual editing seem smooth, I would like to suggest more attention be paid on the sound editing as well. It might have been an artistic choice but some cuts of Bridget’s speech feel uncomfortably sudden and jarring. I think Beth has a sharp sensitivity to capture interesting perspectives like the way Bridget twitches her lips while working! She inspires me to observe more keenly.

Michael:
Caroline is very engaging on camera and it seems Michael knows it too! Michael uses a relatively long original footage of Caroline simply walking and talking to the camera. And it works! This is probably because she is emotionally expressive, constantly signing and with the subtitles, viewers are stimulated to follow her storytelling. With this footage which displays her personality, Michael is able to incorporate other establishing shots and action shots which focus more on her environment activities of interests instead. In this way, Michaels has successfully showcased a dynamic character of depth! His work has taught me that it is important for a director to understand his subjects well, so as to get the most out of them. Michael understands how viewers perceive visuals well. It would be interesting to experiment the element of sound more and allow audience to empathise or feel the stark difference between her hearing ability and the general mass’.