Though an adequately covered peice overall, this was perhaps the hardest exercise to edit. While not entirely sure why I found this particularly hard to assemble, I did note some of my thoughts about our process and the noticeable difficulties I encountered while editing. I feel that this exercise lacked proper group consultation prior to the commencement of production. With the absence of adequate preparation, and the presence of some odd editing choices made by myself, particular moments in the piece lacked proper conviction. However, considering the circumstances, the quality of work wasn’t inhibited as much as I would have thought.

The first of my noticeable difficulties saw me struggle to understand the on screen movement of Esme within her location. For example, slightly jarring entrances and exits were made noticeable due to the direction in which they occurred. This was due to the decision of performance and camera set-ups being influenced by the layout of the space, rather than accommodating for on screen translation. This was most prominent in Esme’s navigation from the dining room, through to the kitchen, then to the hallway.

My initial inclination towards the edit saw me apply a horizontal flip to some of the footage. However this was not a viable solution, as it would have required me to flip a majority of the remaining footage to maintain continuity. The decision to leave footage of the opening sequence as it was intended, was a much more suitable option for the piece. Understanding that this footage may or may not have been captured with conventional methods in mind, it was neither captured correctly or incorrectly, but its readability determined by audience interpretation.

Upon reflecting on my group’s display, I have noticed some quite distinct editing choices across all individual edits. Much of the difficulty I encountered was due to the relationship between Esme and Irma’s footage. If viewed logically, together, both lots of footage lacked a proper depiction of the location. However, initial viewing of my edited work may not have made these deficiencies as clear. To convey the best analysis of my edit, a comparison of Irene’s edit with mine is necessary to highlight facets of my work that I think would have benefited if particular choices were made. 

Throughout the majority of Esme and Irma’s bedroom conversation, Irene’s edit displayed a much truer sense of space, using a wider shot that displayed Irma looking further towards the right of frame. Compared to my edit which had a mid shot of Irma’s gaze more towards the center of the frame. My logical analysis would have both edits translate a different positioning of the door in the room. There was a definite disparity between my chosen shots which resulted in a slightly “off feel” of the moment, which has left me unsure of whether the eye-lines of both characters technically meet. In comparison, Irene’s edit is a much more comfortable and less distracting edit to watch. A combination of my own editing choices and a definite irregularities across multiple shots made consolidation of both filmed locations difficult. Whether due to my own skewed interpretation of the footage or the errors made in the presentation of conventional methods, I found myself very disoriented throughout the editing process. With better preparation I feel much of this could have been avoided.