The document provides feedback on ways to improve a documentary project. It notes that the quality of pictures needs to be clearer. The interview setting needs to include props related to the topic of phones to better convey the subject matter. Additionally, the audio of interviews was too quiet and the environment noisy, so different locations limiting background noise are needed. Editing and cuts between clips were too abrupt at times as well. Areas done well included interviewing a wide range of people and choosing appropriate background music to engage viewers.

1. Evaluation of the Preliminary
task

2. The first point we received
during evaluation of our
documentary was that we
needed to improve the quality
of our pictures as they were
blurry and people said they
could not see the images. It is
important that we have clear
images as if we don’t then the
audience/viewers will not be
able to clearly see what the
image is about or what we are
trying to communicate through
these pictures.
Improvements

3. The second piece of advice
we received was that the
area where we held the
interviews needed to be
altered so that it was more
related to the topic of
phones. To do this we
could include props and
multiple examples of
mobile phones so that it is
ensured that the audience
knows what the
documentary is about.
Improvements

4. The third piece of criticism gained from
the evaluation of our documentary was
that people said that the interview audio
is very quiet and was hard to hear the
interviewee throughout the
documentary. it is crucial that we change
this as if the viewers can't hear our
interviewees then there is no point
having them in the documentary as no
one can understand what they are saying.
The interviewees have one of the most
important jobs in the documentary as
they provide opinions and facts. People
also said the environment where the
interviews were carried out was also
noisy and this is one of the reasons why
the interviewees couldn’t be heard
therefore in order to correct this we need
to find an environment where it is certain
that there will be no noise or
interruptions throughout the interviews.
Improvements

5. The final piece of criticism
we received was that the
editing and cuts in the
interview were a bit too
jumpy meaning the
documentary would cut
from shot to shot too
quickly making the
documentary look badly
edited and sometimes
resulting in the interviewee
being cut off.
Improvements

6. When it came to the
positive feedback about
our documentary the first
thing mentioned was that
we had a good
range/multiple interviews
and this is a crucial part of
making a successful
documentary as having a
wide range of interviews
means a variety of
different people are
interviewed gaining
different opinions and
beliefs from each person
and this is important as it
ensures the documentary
doesn’t become biased or
focused on one
side/opinion.
What we did well

7. The second complement
from the evaluation was
that people agreed that
the music we chose to put
in the documentary was
good as it related to the
topic of the documentary
whilst making it more
upbeat and exciting
keeping the
audience/viewers
interested and this is
essential. We also had
music playing very quietly
in the background of the
interviews again to keep
the documentary upbeat
and interesting.
What we did well