Below are the improvements left on my blog by my media teacher about my first rough cut, in order to help me improve my final project. Over the next week or two, me and David are going to work on all of the below comments and making sure it is improved for the next rough cut. For example, we are going to:
- change the order of the logos at the start of the opening titles
- snap in the music rather than fade it in
- put the credits in the following order: 'Momentum Films presents', 'a Rising Star production', 'a film by David Smith', 'directed by Amy Washbourne', writer, producer, editor, camera operator, actors.
- shortern the time of the credits
- fade out the music as the dialogue starts
- try to use a more varied range of shots
- try to make the dialogue easier to hear
- improve the continuity, in terms of directions faced by the actors (180 degree rule)
- improve the continuity by improving the lighting of shots
- improve the action match of placing the paper in the plastic bag
- improve the blackout at the end
- use more cross-fades in the time lapse
- increase the volume of the voice over on the time lapse
- change the end of the time lapse to remove the gap
- decide whether to have the time lapse at the start or the end of the sequence, and add actors names into the titles
0:00 - I like the studio logo, but this would usually come after (not before) the distributor logo
0:12 - I would snap into the music rather than fade in... sounds a little weird the way you've done it.
0:34 - Credits are not really in the right order. You would expect to see something like "Momentum Films presents", then "a Rising Star production", then "a film by David Smith" (or similar). "Directed by" would be the last credit you see (preceded by writer, producer, exec/ producer credits and others such as editor, camera operator etc. as well as actors)
0:38 - I think you hold on the credits for too long; aim to make them 2-3 seconds max
0:49 -The music cuts out very abruptly - is this deliberate? Sounds a little odd
0:57 - You have chosen to use some very long takes; this has implications for marks I can give you for range of shots and editing. Within the first minute of the piece you have only used four shots, two of which are roughly the same in terms of time (medium-long shot). Some of the dialogue is hard to make out - again, is this deliberate?
1:02 - The continuity here is a little ropey in terms of the direction that you're facing, as well as a slightly dodgy lack of adherence to the 180 degree rule
1:09 - The mise-en-scene (csi guys in the background, costumes, locations etc.) is good
1:16 - It might be just me, but the way you've shot the conversation between yourself and James looks a little odd in terms of where you are both facing...?
1:24 - I like the combination of shots you've used when dealing with the body - these are quite inventive
1:39 - Again, the continuity is a little odd here; in this case, I think it's something to do with the light
1:52 - You just about get away with the "paper in the bag" sequence...
1:56 - The blackout is a little odd...?
2:09 - I quite like the "time-lapse" shot, although you need to make more of it; a lot more cross-fades
2:23 - You will need to normalise the v/o with the rest of the audio; it's a little quiet, comparatively
2:18 - You have an odd gap at the end of the v/o
3:01 - The use of crime-scene photos for the credits is quite good, but you need to make more of this; perhaps treat them slightly, and you will need more than actor credits. I would be tempted to use this device at the start rather than at the end, so you can include the film title as well.
Overall, your piece is quite rough around the edges, as you might expect with a rough cut, in terms of editing and audio. I would like to see slightly more of a range of shots used in the early part, and you should be more careful in terms of editing for continuity. The credits need a lot more work (not just the actor names but the production credits as well).