The author learned several important lessons when progressing from their preliminary task to the full product. For the preliminary, they focused on dialogue-driven comedy but realized the script was weak. They also used a limited number of shots. For the full product, a horror film, the author removed dialogue, relied more on visuals and score to build tension, improved shot variety, filmed at night indoors for lighting control, and learned editing techniques to make filming more efficient. Overall, the author gained valuable insights into script/dialogue quality, shot design, and production/editing workflow.

1. Looking back to your Preliminary Task, what do you
feel that you have learnt in the progression from it to
the full product?
The preliminary task that I produced with three other people was vastly
different to my final product.
Firstly, the genre of the prelim was a comedy, as I wanted to see how I could
direct a film that relies a lot in dialogue and timing rather than the
cinematography and the symbolism and themes present within the film.
In retrospect, I feel that the script was very weak for what I was trying to achieve
within the narrative and it comes across as incredibly awkward to the audience
as it isn’t funny at all. What I learnt form this experience is that if you want your
film to rely on dialogue, it doesn’t just have to be a very strong script that would
engage the audience. It also has to be conveyed in a convincing manner and
timed well within the shots and narrative to have a profound effect on the
audience.
When it came to my final product for my Horror film, I would take out the
dialogue entirely as it was bogging down the cinematography and tone of the
video to something much more sub-standard than what I wanted to achieve.
When I removed the dialogue, I decided to slightly change the way the film was
produced as I was looking to make the film more in line with a silent film rather
than a contemporary film. I felt this was a good decision to make as my film was
already catering towards the idea of it being directed like a 1930s Horror film,
which had little in the way of in depth and engaging dialogue. Dialogue from
films such as Frankenstein, and Dracula in 1931 was mainly used for exposition
and was only sometimes used to build up tension.
By removing all of the dialogue, I decided to build tension within my video by
relying heavily on the score of the film to disturb the viewer. This was decided
after taking specific inspiration from the 1977 Horror film Eraserhead and how
that film relied on its score to increase tension and fear.
In my prelim, I did not use any sound effects or score at all. This was because I
did not know how to implement mp3 files into Final cut Express at the time, as it
was my first time using the software. It was however purposefully done, as there
was no planned audio to be in the prelim.
I would eventually learn how to import mp3 files into a Final Cut Express file
during my Horror film production when I was adding in a score for the Horror
film to help enhance the atmosphere I was trying to create with my film.
I also feel that I was incredibly unambitious with the cinematography within my
prelim. In total, there were only 6 unique shots that were used in the entirety of
the prelim’s running time. Looking back it this I find it incredibly disappointing

2. how the majority of the prelim was taken up by a shot reverse shot and I was not
more creative with the shot types that I used within my prelim. While it is
natural that shot reverse shots are to be used within dialogue scenes within your
typical film or television show. It is important to keep your viewer engaged with
at least a variety of shots that will keep them engaged and not predict what they
are going to see next. If you keep using the same camera angles within your film;
you will eventually take your audiences out of your film’s experience, as it will
become visually repetitive.
I also found that it is tough sometimes to show some level continuity within a
film when you are filming outside. When I was filming m prelim, clouds were in
the sky and would change the lighting of the scene, as the clouds would go in
front of the sun. While the weather didn’t highly damage the quality of the film, it
was quite irritating in postproduction.
When it came to filming my full product, I decided to only film at night and inside
the location. This, I would be able to be more flexible with the times I was able to
film scenes that relied on specific lighting to used to enhance the scene. In total,
there were 23 unique shots used within the entirety of the film. While I would
have liked amore variety with the types of shots I did, I was able to use some new
shots that I had not used in my prelim. My favourite shot form my full product
was a zooming out close-up shot that turns into a long shot and then becomes a
medium shot due to the movements of the cast within the shot. I was able to
keep up the pace of the film by including shots of a varying angle and premise to
the audience, which I did not accomplish within the prelim.
During the prelim, I would shoot each shot individually. This was very bad way
of shooting my prelim and it took up a lot more time than it needed to. I did not
know you could split or duplicate clips in final cut Express that would have been
very beneficial to me considering I was doing a shot reverse shot section within
my prelim. During the production of my full media product, I developed my
editing skills so I was able to split and duplicate the clips and spilt them. This
made shots much easier to film as I knew I was able to edit them into place later
on in Final Cut Express and I did not have to shoot each shot individually. This
made filming times a lot shorter and manageable for me.