What I like about the piece: 

I think the overall edit is really good. Thanks Joan, Jen, Kelly and Matilda. The edit is well composed, and relatively seamless. The added sound effects add a lot to the piece. I enjoyed the part where Liz is walking down the hallway and gets to the office and smiles. There is something really corny and bizarre about that part, which makes me like it. I also really like the zoom in effect, particularly the part where Duncan looks around nervously after Christian’s Carl break. That was Kelly’s (our director) creative decision, and although I initially doubted it, I’ve certainly come round. To add to that I really like the zoom in effect and quick snippets at different angles when Duncan is getting sweaty in the office. That was a last minute suggestion by Amber, our cinematographer. Some of our feedback revealed that this technical decision was not favoured, but for me, it gives the scene energy, humour and takes us into the world of our character (a transformed Duncan).

What I think needs improvement: 

I’m not a massive fan of the location. The lights are heavy and harsh, and the “office” looks make shift. I am trying to accept filming on campus, because we are trying to recreate the world of a sci-fi/futuristic office; lucky for us RMIT seems to be attempting the same look. I’ve said it once and I’ll say it again: anything filmed on campus looks terrible. It’s called the Filming on Campus curse. But I’m willing to fight it. And what an amazing feat it would be to film something on campus that looked good and that wasn’t noticeably RMIT. In any case, I think the location is passible, but I think we could look into shooting episode two in a better location, even if it’s still on campus, it needs to look more office room and less student room.

Feedback from the writers: 

Although the writers liked the casting, they felt the actor who played Duncan was not right for the role, and suggested that the actor who played Christian Dalv or perhaps one of the writers themselves would be better for that role. I can see that one of the writers would suit the role, both in physique and personality, so I’m open to auditioning him for episode 2. The writers were quite unhappy with the infamous “spin”, which they felt was wrong in many ways. It not energetic enough. It was too knowing. They were understandably unhappy with the “David Bowie” wig, (Sorry guys) and suggested we work with the actors more leading up to the shoot. They suggested we should audition and work with actors, do a table read through of the script, and do an on location run through with actors. They felt the performance of the actors had to be good to make up for the lack of budget. I agree to some extend with all the feedback I have outlined here. It’s valid and useful, and we certainly have and will consider and applying it.

Feedback from the guests at the presentation:

One of the guests was very concerned about our stylistic decision to use a hand held camera and use the zoom. I understand why there is a lot of concern about using the zoom with out careful intention. This is because zooming in and out is something the eye does not do naturally. When we see it on screen, we are reminded that we are watching a film, we remember we are not in the film. This is why it is not often used in narrative film and has become associated with documentary. However, our director’s decision to use zoom and handheld, (a decision discussed and backed by the rest of the group) was a very conscious one. While I was inspired by shows such as Peep Show (the techniques of which I wrote about in an earlier entry) she was inspired by Brooklyn Nine Nine, a narrative TV show which uses hand held cam and the zoom in/out effect. Watch this youtube to see an example of these filmic techniques at play in Brooklyn Nine Nine. We stand behind using these techniques because they create a comedic feel and because they provide a sense of energy. This technique means the camera is not passive and objective, but active and subjective, as it comically zooms up on a certain face at a certain time, to draw the attention of the audience in a certain way. It is a unique and lively style and works well with the comedy and the energy of our show.

Interestingly all our guests stood up for the actor who played Duncan, proposing that he was a good actor, he may only need a little more direction.

Feedback from Robin:

Robin provided some detailed feedback on the technical aspects of filming, which I really appreciated. He pointed out some technical flaws in the piece such as no POV shot, an actor eyeballing the camera, over exposure and so forth. He pushed the idea that every angle, every frame, and so forth, should be motivated, and this motivation should stem from the desire to reveal more of, disguise, or focus in on aspects of our characters. In any case, such decisions should always have a motivation. We had an interesting class discussion about why the final reveal didn’t work. It didn’t work because we saw the whole transformed Duncan too early. I was thinking we could have counteracted this by filming just a werewolf hand or just a flash of teeth etc, instead. As well as this, there is no zoom in on the character of Duncan, and unlike Liz, his fear does not look genuine. Useful and interesting feedback, cheers Robin.

*Also a special note of thanks and appreciation to the cast, who volunteered their time to be a part of this shoot. They all came prepared with most of their costume. They knew their characters, and were willing for me to put make-up on them. This thanks also extends to Bridie who organised them from her friendship circle.