1) The screening event surveyed attendees on their demographics, opinions on the two short films shown, and aspects of each film. Most attendees enjoyed the films and found the stories clear and characters believable. 2) The first film utilized strong close-up shots and elicited emotional engagement from viewers. The second film effectively created atmosphere through location and music choices. 3) Some noted areas for potential improvement included dialogue levels and sound mixing in the second film. Overall viewers found the films professionally made and impressive given they were student works.

1. BFI Film Academy Screening
Gender
Female: 18
Male: 9
Age
Under 12: 3
13-17:
18-25: 4
26+ : 19
Did you enjoy the films?
Yes: 26
No:
Why?
Thought provoking.
Good visual strength from both films.
Both unusual subjects that came to life wonderfully.
Both filmed very well and both were very different.
Excellent level of practical skills. Engaging storyline.
Both really engaging, intriguing and I cared about the characters.
The virus story opened more which helped understand the story of it. Stolen
shoes attracts the audience.
Enthusiasm.
First made me really emotionally caught up.
Thought provoking.
I was engaged right from the beginning and believed in the characters and the
narrative. Both also had a really interesting concept.
A good mix of genres and a good length.
Very good visually and sound.
I love seeing young people explore their potential characters themselves though
creative work together.
N/A
Fantastic production for very short films.
Because they were interesting.
Because they had good use of colour.
Both films were well made and intriguing.
1) Good acting, closeups, humour of camera lighting. 2) Brilliant vision.
Powerful shots & unexpected humour. Beautifully simple.
Escapism.
Always good to watch short films.
Both very well edited and keeping the message strong in the shrot time.
Yes.
N/A
Was the story for each clear & captivating? Why?

2. Yes. I felt emotionally involved in each film.
In short time use of all aspects give good signage – locations & edges in 1st.
Music in the 2nd.
The characters were really believable.
Yes very good.
Both had a visual and aural economy which left questions to be answered.
Yes, you card about the characters.
Yes, showed what actors were feeling.
Yes.
Yes – each one delivered a clear story line and showing.
1)Yes – identify with inner trauma. 2 ) Less.
Yes, very clear. I found myself quickly empathising which is a big achievement
for the film makers in such a short format.
Yes.
Yes, understood storyline.
Yes but not over-stated, it left some questions.
Yes.
It was because of the story.
Yes because it looked like he was going to commit suicide.
Both were clear, I found the first very captivating.
1 ) yes face shots mesmerising. 2) yes, suspense of closeups
Sound and cinematography for 1) and music and cinematography for 2).
Both films were clear with atmosphere.
Yes – clear scripting and technically good production values.
Yes, good direction and dedicated actors.
Yes.
Yes, both films were really touching.
Was the pace of each film effective?
Yes
Yes, but pace of 2nd film a little too dormant re live shots and walking – speed of
change in relationship.
A) Too long in places at the beginning after the 1st few minutes B) Just right.
Very good.
Yes.
Yes, excellent.
Both films were flowing and also it travelled nicely.
Yes.
The first film was excellent and moving.
1) Yes. 2) Not consistent throughout – was somewhat disturbed.
Yes, very well paced.
Yes, fitted well to the story.
Yes, right amount of length of time.
Yes.
N/A.
No.
Yes it was quite slow so it makes it feel sad.
Yes.
Yes.
1) Close up of Max and anguish on his face. 2) Location and the non drama +
music used for suspense.
The first film was more effective for me.
Yes, neither felt overlong and their story flowed.

3. First film had a really nice long shots. Second one could have had more space
aroung the shots.
Was there a particularly good aspect of each film?
Yes
Yes, personal interpretation of 1st film – I liked the concept of max talking about
a special angel for his and her presence.
A) The humour was much appreciated. B) Sofia’s facial expressions.
Thought out, each was very good.
Both had compelling stories which were effectively visualised.
I really liked the close shots of the first film. The world conjured in the second
was really believable.
The shots and the dramatic scenes.
The first was really moving and captivated me!
Captivating and keeping the audience’s attention.
1) Great close ups. 2) Good atmospheres but needs work on the sound balance.
I never had any sense of disbelief – my disbelief was completely suspended for
both films.
The twist to the plot in both films
Sound and visual.
1) Shoes film: close-ups, specifically the feet. 2) Virus: art direction.
Film A – close-up facial shots.
Not really.
Yes because the girl persuaded him.
The first film’s close ups were excellent. The second film’s locations were well
chosen.
The beginning scenes, last scene, direction of acting, vey poignant.
The actors were good in the first film.
Cinematography on film 1 and sound on film 2.
1) strong understanding of desperation pulling self out of the despair. 2) Clear
understanding of the fear and isolation.
Good and relevant themes.
Was there a particularly negative aspect of each film?
The virus appearing to have a lot of road noise.
Clothing of 2nd film a little too pristine and well timed for two years, apart from
that, excellent.
No.
On Virus, the dialogue levels felt a bit uneven.
First: No. Second: only a couple of rough sound edits – but given the challenges
it’s not surprising.
No.
The sound on the virus was poor.
There were shots on the virus which went a little odd black/green. Not sure it was
meant to.
N/A
No – in the second film, however, I’m not sure about Jason (he touched the fire to
see how warm it was when I think he would have seen Sofia at that distance).
Long scene changes with black screens.
Confused by ending.
N/A

4. N/A.
No.
Yes because he didn’t like his life.
1) Some things are best left without words. 2) The main scene of the body was too
short-lived.
More clarity and the hand trowel should have been a knife.
1) Long pauses at beginning. 2) Black marks on actor on journey.
No, not really.
Film 2 had more of a pacing sense regarding the changing tone between central
characters.
2) Difficult o see what killed the second person other than the title. 1 ) Linking
title to subject? Lost mind / soul?
Was there a good use of music and sound in both?
Yes a good balance of sound.
Not aware of music in the 1st film – sorry. 2nd film incredible and needs
commendation.
Yes, especially the second film.
Was very good and certainly created the atmosphere.
See above, but the soundscapes on both were effective.
Yes really good.
Yes both.
Yes in the first. The music saved the second from being really bad.
Yes the sound was more effective in the first film.
More aware of sounds in the 2nd film.
Yes.
Yes, really fitted well.
Very good.
Particularly the virus.
Great music in film B. Atmospheric.
This really set the mood for each film. Very effective.
Yes, in the first it was very slow.
Yes when he got the virus.
I don’t remember music in either. Sound was good.
Yes.
Yes definitely.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
What did you think of the overall look of the films?
Excellent!
Both really well done for the look.
Good scenery in both films.
Very good and were both very high quality.
Both had a discreet and engaging aesthetic.
I thought they were both great.
Both were clear, and just wonderful. I loved storyline for both and made sense.
N/A
Very good – issues with colour on the 2nd film.
Both looked great on the big screen. The balance of close-up and longer shots
was very accomplished.

5. Good locations and casting.
Very good, very thought provoking.
N/A
B – Moody.
Very professional.
Very interesting.
Yes they were both really good.
Very good.
Brilliant.
Great!
Brilliant.
There is a clear progressn from student films to these. There’s a polish them
which is good.
For young students to produce direct and edit shows excellent talent . Both
looked realistic.
What improvements to the films would you suggest?
Edit background noise in ‘The Virus’
2nd film consider lighting. Agreed with the cold to warmth in first film and
noticed.
Neither/ Nothing to add.
Dialogue levels on Virus. Some colour grading on First Film.
No, I can’t wait to see them again.
Longer, I wanted more!
N/A
N/A
As first time directors, they couldn’t be improved on.
In the virus, they looked a bit too clean to have been living rough. In how I lost
my shoes I didn’t realise the shoes were missing.
Relating title of the film – meaning.
Would the trowel have killed him? Maybe something more weighty needed?
Use a more deadly/convincing weapon.
Have more time on set.
Have a bit more rain and maybe storms.
See ‘Negative Aspects’ question.
N/A
None – unexperienced.
Some sounding/ background noise reduction.
Give more time and space for scenes.
If you are under 19 would you consider taking part in the BFI Film Academy?
Yes: 1
No: 1
Maybe : 1
Any other comments?
Enjoyable. Congrats to all involved. Would have liked a script. Liked the smoke
and enjoyed the first film with a story line that was not in vogue i.e. zombie. It’s
Wonderful Life – or am I just too old and have been around the block too many
times!
A good use of my morning. I really enjoyed both films.

6. Thank you for the viewing.
Such impressive films that showed cinematic maturity and a high level of
creativity.
Please put both and making of onto YouTube.
The virus was so natural and so like real in a way that you felt like you were
there!
Very good for all aspiring filmmakers. Keep up the good work!!
Loved the experience – I would be happy to experience again. Best wishes to
everyone and well done.
Organisational structure of today. 1) when analysing the stucture, state what one
is looking for. 2) ask teams to do 2minute introduction of who is who. 3) Prime
teams with what they have learned. Questions + answers round timed differently
next time. 4) What would they do differently next time?
Outstanding 2 films in the scale of ambition and delivery of concept. Very well
done!
Great achievement for everyone.
Great use of language.
Both films were impressive given the age of the makers. The actors were
fantastic! (James Lam!).
Great course for young people.