Unit 31 LO4 Nomad Evaluation

My finished film about Nomad, Henley is to a high technical standard, visually

and aurally. In this way, it is exactly as it was intended to be, with clean, crisp
audio, and aesthetically professional visuals. One thing that I feel only worked
partially is the clarity of the information conveyed in the film, which
unfortunately also affects how fit for purpose the film is, as communicating
information about Nomad is one of its core purposes. This is primarily a failure in
the questions that we asked our interview subjects, and how these interviews
were chopped up and incorporated into the film. I had to make the film finished
in some form for the deadline, but with more time to edit, would have spent
longer to figure out where in the footage the usable snippets of dialogue are. I
found it difficult to piece together the interviews in a logical and interesting way,
because of the sheer volume of interview footage to sift through, finding relevant
segments was difficult. With a longer time frame, I would have spent time just
watching the interviews back and making notation, so that I could edit them
together in a meaningful and comprehensive way. In the end, I discarded half of
the interviews that we shot, purely so that I could focus my energy on making
the most sense of the ones I did use.
In my surveys, there was some confusion as to the actual topic of the video. In
my attempt to give a broad overview of the many things Nomad does using out
of context clips to open the film, I managed to confuse my audience. Various
survey respondents of the teenagers I questioned thought that Aspergers was
one of the key topic of the film, when in actual-fact the reference to it early on is
the only reference throughout the entire film. (It is highly possible that these
people did not watch the film in its entirety, because media students like me are
universally lazy). Other respondents (who presumably watched the entire film)
knew that the topic was the youth in Henley, the issues they face, and how they
are combatted. Some said that the topic could have been stated more clearly, so
it is clear that this element of the project was imperfect.
One technique used was multicamera, to make the interviews more visually
interesting, by having two angles to cut between, and to allow me to cut large
chunks out of the interviews seamlessly without creative jarring jump cuts. This
worked very well, creating more concise interviews, and a nice visual style. This
worked just like I planned and expected, and was beneficial to the clarity of
information by cutting out hesitation and repetition in interviews, and ensuring
that it is fit for purpose by keeping it relatively interesting.

The majority of respondents said that the film was quite engaging but it that it
fell short of being extremely engaging. I feel that this was because I neglected
to use much of the B-roll that was shot. The reason for this was that the
interviews for which there was available B-roll were already interesting and
would be ruined by the addition of this footage over the top. Meanwhile, the
interview that could have benefitted most from some varied visuals (Tims story
about the letter) did not have any suitable B-roll footage to go along-side it.
Therefore my editing was not wholly sufficient. This failure to incorporate B-roll
is, I feel, the primary reason that viewers were not more engaged with the film.
While the film is relatively successful, this is a shortcoming that does affect its
fitness for purpose, and suitability to the target audience of teenagers. Evidence
of this being the case can be seen in the survey response, There wasnt much
cutaway footage, which detracted from the engagement.

In terms of clarity of information communicated to my audience, it was very clear

that the charity of the centre of the film is Nomad, with 100% of survey
respondents saying that they thought it was the focused on-charity. This tells me
that the film is fit for purpose in the most fundamental sense, that it can raise
peoples awareness of Nomad, expose them to that name and that brand, as well
as giving them an insight into it.
In my survey, I asked respondents to say what they thought were the more
effective elements of the film.
Response to the interviews was positive, answers stated that the people were
good choices, that the personal connections they had made it more effective.
One response also said that the interviews were laid out in a nice way, referring
the shooting set up used, and the lighting the subjects were under.

Another positive response to this question, was the cinematography, referring to

the framing, the choice of lenses used to film, and shallow depth of field
aesthetic that resulted from this. This tells me that the aesthetic qualities of the
product are to a good standard, and had the intended positive effect on my
audience, rather than being distracting or feeling unnecessary. It also tells me
that the film was completed to a high technical standard.
I also asked respondents to state what they thought were the least effective
elements of the film. At this point, again the editing was mentioned negatively. I
take this to mean that my arrangement of different segments together was
confusing, disjointed, or did not have a natural flow. This is also reflected by the
comments Some of the interviews go on to long or there wasnt much
cutaway footage. Another quality mentioned in my survey as having had a
negative impact on the overall product, was the music in reference to the
library ambient music that I used in the beginning and at the end of the film.
I also asked if any parts of the film felt like they stretched on for too long.
Positively, one response was that No, I didnt feel as though anything had
stretched for too long, it was effective, but other responses were more negative;
some of the interviews go on too long and couldve been edited a bit more
excitingly other commenters again said that cutaway footage would have
benefited this.
Finally, I asked how effective the ending of the film is. To this, I received a
positive response. 40% said that the film was extremely effective or quite
effective, while the 60% majority said it was only a little effective which is a
positive response, even if underwhelmingly so. The ending that I came up with
for the film, of a short montage of finishing statements, followed by a crossfade
to the title card and music from the beginning. I feel that this ending was
adequate, and fit for purpose, but ultimately underwhelming because of its lack
of emotional impact or depth. I feel that this was ultimately because of time
constraints, and a lack of me planning in advance how to close the film, instead
opting to see what feels best when I got to the end of the editing stage.