target audience research on draft 1 of my synopsis for a2 media coursework on social realism film

1. TARGET AUDIENCE ON
DRAFT 1 OF SYNOPSIS

2. QUANTITATIVE & QUALITATIVE QUESTIONS:
Quantitative Questions:
Explain the world, character and problem
What use is being made of familiar settings and familiar rituals
Qualitative Questions:
Who’s POV is the story told from? Is it clear? How?
Is the main problem the heart of the film? Explain
Explain what motivates your protagonist
Does the story encompass a single moment/event? Describe it
Are the stakes high enough? Explain
Is there at least one clear meaning that the audience can take away? What it is?
Is the film doable on a zero budget?

3. EVIDENCE:

4. QUESTION 1
Hypothesis
My hypothesis was that my readers would understand the world, character and problem. Three out of the four readers
understood fully what each of these were, with the exception of one reader not understanding fully who the character was.
Direct Reference:
Discrete Analysis:
Two of the interviewees identified the ‘world’ as Box Hill and the other two identified it as a wood area. Two of the
interviewees identified the ’problem’ as being a result of the boy having a panic attack or anxiety, the other two stated that it
was a result of not knowing who is behind you and feeling like you are being followed.
Comparative Analysis:
One of the interviewees suggested that the ‘character’ was a photographer, whilst the other three went to a deeper level to
say that he has a mental disability.
Conclusions:
In asking this question I wanted to make sure the readers would have a full understanding of the three main elements. From
receiving this feedback it is clear that the majority of the interviewees have a common thought about who the character is.
Action Statement:
I have decided to explore the problem more and how I can make the readers more aware of this. This will enable not only me
but my audience to understand the actions that my character takes.

5. QUESTION 2
Hypothesis
I hoped that my readers would understand who’s POV the story is being told from. Three out of the four interviewees
understand this clearly with the exception of one.
Direct Reference:
Discrete Analysis:
Three of the interviewees identified the POV being from the boy which is what I wanted them to be able to identify.
Comparative Analysis:
One interviewee suggested that the POV was told from an outsider which was different to the other three responses.
Conclusions:
In asking this question I wanted to validate my chosen POV. The feedback I received is important because it tells me
how to make the POV clearer.
Action Statement:
By paying close attention to my feedback I have decided that I should explore the possibility of having the POV from
the imaginary person/ mental side of the boy and how he thinks someone is following him.

6. QUESTION 3:
Hypothesis:
My hypothesis was that my readers would be able to tell what the main problem is in my film.
Direct Reference:
Discrete Analysis:
The overall response was that the main problem is the heart of the film as there is a clear beginning, middle and
end, furthermore it is also because it carries the story forward.
Comparative Analysis:
Two interviewees went on further to say what the main problem actually is, which they see as being the boy’s mental
state.
Conclusions:
In asking this question I wanted to validate the main problem of my film. The feedback I received is important as it
tells me that the audience can see clearly what the main problem is.
Action Statement:
I have decided to explore how I would add more detail into my synopsis about the main problem.

7. QUESTION 4
Hypothesis:
I hoped that my readers would be able to see clearly what motivates my protagonist.
Direct Reference:
Discrete Analysis:
Three out of the four interviewees identified the motivation correctly.
Comparative Analysis:
Only one interviewee thought that the motivation for my protagonist is him thinking that he is being followed.
Conclusions:
In asking this question I received important feedback that helps me develop my synopsis when outlining the
problem.
Action Statement:
By paying close attention to my feedback I will now add more detail into the outline of the problem within my
synopsis.

8. QUESTION 5
Hypothesis:
My hypothesis was that my readers would understand what use was being made of familiar settings and rituals.
Direct Reference:
Discrete Analysis:
Some of the interviewees identified the setting as nature/woods/Box Hill.
Comparative Analysis:
Only one interviewee didn’t know what to put for the familiar rituals.
Conclusions:
From the feedback I received it is now clear on what changes I need to make within the familiar rituals
Action Statement:
I have decided to explore different rituals that I could possibly incorporate into my synopsis so that the audience can
relate more to it.

9. QUESTION 6
Hypothesis:
I hoped that my readers would be able to see clearly how the story encompass’ a single moment/event.
Direct Reference:
Discrete Analysis:
Three out of the four interviewees agreed with the question because of the main event being his attack.
Comparative Analysis:
One interviewee didn’t go into the deeper level which was what I was hoping for. Instead they only thought the story
encompassed a single moment because of the tension being built around it.
Conclusions:
In asking this question I received important feedback into how I can make the single most important event stand out
more.
Action Statement:
By paying close attention to my feedback I now know what changes I need to make to signify the main event.

10. QUESTION 7
Hypothesis:
My hypothesis was that my readers would identify whether the stakes are high enough or not.
Direct Reference:
Discrete Analysis:
The majority of the interviewees said that the stakes were high enough because of the boy not being safe and the
uncertainty of his outcome.
Comparative Analysis:
On the other hand, one interviewee thought that the stakes aren’t high enough because nothing to dramatic is
happening to the boy and there is no real threat to him.
Conclusions:
From the feedback I received it is now clear to me that the stakes may not be that high enough however, I still don’t
want there to me too much drama as I want my film to highlight the mentality of the boy.
Action Statement:
I have decided to explore other options as to what could happen to the boy.

11. QUESTION 8
Hypothesis:
I hoped that my readers would be able to see clearly what the meaning is behind my film.
Direct Reference:
Discrete Analysis:
Three out of the four interviewees suggested the correct meaning that I want them to take away.
Comparative Analysis:
Three of the interviewees identified the correct meaning which is to do with anxiety however, the other only
suggesting that it was something to do with the woods and not being alone.
Conclusions:
In asking this question I received important feedback into whether or not the readers know what the messages is.
Action Statement:
By paying close attention to my feedback I now know what changes I need to make so that the message comes
across clearer.

12. QUESTION 9
Hypothesis:
My hypothesis was that my readers would see that my film is doable on a zero budget.
Direct Reference:
Discrete Analysis:
All four interviewees agreed that my film is doable on a zero budget.
Comparative Analysis:
One interviewee went onto say that it is doable because there are no expensive elements required to make it.
Conclusions:
From the feedback I received I now know that my readers believe that my film can be made.
Action Statement:
I have decided to explore the possibility of adding in more detail to my synopsis whilst seeing if I can keep a zero
budget.