Our idea was well received by the panel, who I think saw potential in exploring change, both positive and negative, in neighbourhoods that are so personally close to us. However, as Paul Ritchard explained in his opening feedback, the panel felt there was a major disconnect between the ideas, concepts and research driving our film and the actual content we planned for our film. The panel saw our film as about our personal connection with these neighbourhoods, with particular relation to our personal experience and observations of change (and of continuation/maintenance). They didn’t see this reflected in the interview subjects, who instead they said seemed disconnected from our personal experience; although thematically they may have followed the concepts we were pursuing in our pitch, they lacked that more in depth, emotional connection to the neighbourhood that we displayed in our pitch. Their advice for us was to work out a way of working this personal connection into the film, with Paul going as far as suggesting we ditch the two suggested interviews entirely.

I’d like to address this latter point first. Obviously we can’t eliminate these interviews due to the guidelines set by the assessment, but I personally believe this would be detrimental to our film anyway. The interviews we have chosen are of people that are part of the positive evolution of these neighbourhoods, pursuing creative, professional projects with a beneficial community effect. I believe we need their perspective, even as long-term residents of the area, to understand how and why change is happening.

In terms of applying the advice, I believe we should start by altering how we approach our interviews, namely what questions we ask and what topics we steer the conversation toward. Our draft interview questions/ideas have been more geared towards our subjects’ reasons for moving into the neighbourhood and the process of repurposing the space and becoming a part of the community. Although I think these questions and lines of pursuit are still relevant and important, we should also ask them if they see themselves as gentrifiers and discuss with them, with ourselves or one of us as characters, how we see and experience the neighbourhood. We should also talk at least briefly to someone who has lived in the neighbourhood for a very long time just for that perspective; we can even use these interviews to speak for us as creators and long-time residents of the neighbourhood.

In terms of further research, I’ve decided to turn my focus less to documentaries just about neighbourhood and instead focus more on narratives on neighbourhoods of change, where there’s a lot of focus on what may no longer be apparent in a neighbourhood, displayed instead through personal accounts of what was and images of what it has become. The two documentaries I have watched (at least partially) so far are The Pruitt-Igoe Myth and My Brooklyn (the former of which I will touch upon later in my reflection). Both films work well to paint a picture of a neighbourhood that once was mainly through interviews and archival footage, and My Brooklyn in particular explores what it means to be potentially classified as a gentrifier within a community. I believe these two films, and others of the same nature, can help inform how we interweave the interviews we have planned with the personal experiences and stories the panel encouraged us to pursue.