Transcript of some of the feedback I gave to my excellent peers:
Feedback to Tim Abberley on Realism Vs. Formalism in Documentary Film:
Well Tim, I had to watch it a couple of times. I paused it and did some wiki-research as well to flesh out what I thought I had understood but I feel I understood it. Helen's pretty accurate right...? It's like Flaherty is all about the first 50 minutes of Frozen Planet and Vertov is the last 10 (but with more death). There is a distinct political divide between the two (- your man tries to do "American" it's a shame you didn't try to do "Russian") that is closely connected to their whole filmmaking ethos - I feel I got that: the capitalist illusion and Marxist realism. I especially like the point where Vertov accuses Flaherty of using subjectivity to allow the viewer to be more objective. When I tell anecdotes I often make bits up to make the anecdote truer to the mood of the actual event.
The reality stuff towards the end is harder to grasp first time round - especially "using photographic imagery to determine what psychological factors help us determine what's real". I think that needs a comment afterwards from Vertov. Maybe from what he has said his opinion of that is clear but it wasn't clear to me and also I’m not even sure I understood what you were describing.
But mostly I feel I got it. The ideas flow nicely. It get's more difficult to follow but not less interesting at all. It just made me want to watch it again. The idea is a great one and the interweaving of the theory and comment works well. I think the 'bibliography' at the end is fantastic.
Does it need an intro? No, not necessarily. Perhaps a quick run down of the two filmmakers - a quick profile of what they did and what they believed would be helpful but there is Wikipedia so maybe you don't need to.
Technical points - if you're interested:
The sound of the waves is too loud in places. I would just take the whole thing down
Were you thinking of titling the clips? I understand that some images are just illustrative of what's being said but I suspect that we saw clips from their films in there two and it would be good to differentiate. Thinking about it now you're almost certainly going to do that so ignore me.
The shot of the dude interviewing the hairdresser sticks out. I know the point you are trying to make (when it cuts a shot of the camera shooting her) but at the moment where is cuts to the colour shot of a modern woman with a stand of beauty products behind her, it jars. It's too different to everything that we've seen up to that point. It's too daytime TV or local news or something.
Feedback to Karen Ward
I think you get the argument across very clearly - all elements of the film complement each other - the interview introduces the topic in a general way then you back it up so well with your "potted history of women in film" accompanied by the shocking revelation that the majority of film criticism ignores women directors. It's especially interesting for me having read my way across a load of authorship and you're absolutely right. The Sarris anthology stuff - one shot and oddities and clowns is PROPER shocking. What a dick. It highlights a feeling towards women that certainly still exists but because of political correctness will never be admitted (except for the culturally acceptable 'joke' areas of women and driving and women and directions). It chimes with what Helen said earlier in your thread about women having to either play the men at their own game or act the victim.
It was really powerful to have the Bigelow footage directly following the Sarris stuff because it made me feel really proud and a bit emotional - then to cut back to the eyes of your student ... I imagine it will be quite powerful for students to watch and really inspiring. I'd have loved this if someone had shown me it in the sixth form. I probably would have become a film director just to make a point.
Which is why I am also an excellent driver and map-reader.
Not really sure what else I can say - there isn't much about the artefact that needs to be improved. Perhaps I would have liked a little more exploration of other women filmmakers producing successful stuff nowadays. I just got back from watching Wuthering Heights, which was brilliant - there are so many fantastic non-mainstream female directors. An Oscar isn't everything. It might be fairly simple to do with just a few well-chosen clips from some well-directed ladyfilms. There's also that Bird's Eye film festival, which might be worth a mention. This might harness the inspiration that young women might feel in response to this film and channel it into something they can start accessing immediately or at the very least make them seek out female directors they hadn't heard of before.
Great film - well structured, well shot, expertly edited.
Feedback to Leanne Canham
Sat 26/11/11
Just watched the fantastic video and read the blog (nice template). I concur with most if what has been said so far - it does feel a little like you're trying to put too much essay into the film. The text and voiceover at the same time was too much. I was having to pause, read, then wind back to the beginning of each sentence you were saying and then close my eyes so I was listening and not distracted by reading. The opening montage was awesome - really stylish and you have selected your clips well to show the similarities across films of the same genre
You've definitely done most of the hard work which is sourcing the clips and writing the script. Perhaps consider using fewer quotes and more images under the VO. Which means you might have to do more writing... don’t know. I'm sure Pete can advise on that. And if you can be bothered - there are parts of the VO where you are speaking quite fast - you might think about re-recording it and speaking a bit more slowly.
Mon 28/11/11
In response to your post on my thread...
It’s hard to say what should be in the film and in the essay but my feeling is that unless the quotes on screen can be incorporated more into the script OR read out with visual illustration from a genre text, it should be in the essay. Does that make sense? Basically quotes on title cards are fine as long as they clearly link with what the voiceover has just said - you should also allow us time to read so maybe the VO needs to introduce the idea then leave time for the viewer to read the quote, then you should say something about the quote afterwards. Like in a lecture I guess.
To avoid awkward silences you could have an audio bed behind the VO. Just a suggestion. It's really hard knowing how to separate all this stuff out.
Feedback to Renee Wilson
I loved it. I agree with Helen it really doesn't feel too long at all. I had to get up and move around because it's in my nature to do so in any given 20 minute period of learning but dammit I took the laptop with me. And when the kettle boiling noise was drowning the sound out I walked the laptop into another room ‘til it was finished. If you do cut it down, like Ken suggested to Donal duplicate and then re-edit so you still have this version. What works best for the mark scheme doesn't necessarily work best for your students.
I think you have nailed the script, quote, clip combination. The slow zooms and dipped audio meant that I was focused the visual focused my attention rather than distracted it. The example at the end perfectly illustrates your point and will hopefully be inspiring.
Feedback to Donal Beecher
Donal,
I really loved the film. I kind of see what people are saying about the second film but in a way what works, in my opinion, is that the difference in the music is subtle. There's something about both scores that is suggestive so.... you don't really know what is going to happen in either film, for sure, until it does. I think that if you were watching this and you didn't know what the point of your project was a more tense, sinister music might just make it completely clear that he is obviously going to kill especially after the scene where he bounces his pecs up and down in front of her face. Talk about sexually aggressive!
As is it now- you think that she could be about to stalk him or they could get run over.
Really great effort. The lady actor is brilliant. Initially I imagined someone younger but there's something coquettish about her features and expressions.. loved it.
Feedback to Helen Bell
Hi Helen,
I'm a bit A and a bit D on this. I love the idea and the tone and it looks great but for me the best bits are where I learn about what the different theorists think in relation to what you have just said but (and this is the D bit) is there enough? So for example, they appear in the ingredients list, but then their ideas get just a simple mention. BUT I guess if your audience is people who know straight off what Grotowski's ideas are then the way you have written it is perfect (and so my multiple choice response is A).
I think probably the latter applies best.
I like Lea's idea of including more pics or maybe you could have their names hyperlinked to a separate page explaining their theories in more details. But as I said if your target audience knows this stuff and as you say it's meant to be performative then maybe that's unnecessary.
And it's not in the mark scheme but it was really entertaining x
Feedback to Tracey Trethewy
Hi Tracey,
Just watched it through again - agree with Ken about the cuts and that the beginning could go a bit quicker but that said a student reads at a different pace so if they have found that it moves at a good pace for them then forget what we say . And apart from the "Dirty edits" it's really wonderful.
The message that has come across on my thread is that the artefact doesn't have to do the whole job. But as an introduction to the theories this is brilliant and I am planning to use it with students next week. They are planning their film openings and it will help them think about what a beginning should look like - so often they try and do a whole story in 2 minutes. This will really give them a sense of what they should be aiming to establish in an opening act.
Thanks for the useful teaching tool.
Feedback to Gill Rogers
Hi Gill,
I find this project really interesting. Firstly - loving the Metallica dude and the girl with the HAIR. You've done some interesting research into the benefits of using technology or not. The script is well written and sounds good but what Helen said is true- there's a real mix up of whether you were exploring the impact of tech-free on you as an individual or the teaching and learning in your lessons. I guess it's because in the video diary stuff you explore its impact on you personally but the research is mostly about education.
The video diary stuff is very watchable but I wonder whether you would be better using more scripted reflection. I get the sense that you expected it to be awful but actually there were a lot of positives and It looks (from the vid) that your students thought so too. I think sometimes we forget that students are so used to reading and writing with paper and pens and crayons - they use a lot of technology but they probably get more of a balance that media teachers do. And for the record - the students in your pictures don't seem disengaged at all.
Funnily enough I am teaching in a purpose built room for the first time this year where we can basically use Macs to do any task we like and it freaks me out. When they are all quiet and working on computers I feel like I'm not a proper teacher anymore. I'm so used to the traditional paper and pen set up.
Anyway, well done and I can't wait to see the finished version.
Feedback to Ken McGill
Hi Ken
Just experienced your artefact - an extraordinary piece of work. Love the final quote - you wouldn't think someone could put so much disdain into the word 'laptop'. I'd love to hear that guy cussing someone with "Laptop Face".
It's quite odd giving feedback now that I know I am being marked on it - i just want to give a few initial impressions.
1) love the images and the psychedelic stuff. It fits so well with the topic and puts you in a sort of state of… something between consciousness and dream. Not sure I could say the same for the music...? Maybe that's just me. It's fine but a little repetitive. I think because the volume dips down when there is dialogue then comes back up it feels a bit 'oh, this again'. It was more distracting than absorbing, Maybe it needs to be a little more abstract?
2) Isn't it interesting that all the film/TV representations of 'in the zone-ness' are all of chaps? I wonder how it became such a masculine thing - did you come across any representations on women 'in the flow'? Obviously that's not a criticism of your work but it did stand out to me that all the fictional and real life 'creatives' were men ... there's an interesting follow-up article there....
3) I feel like I want to know what you think? In a way this video is a presentation of your findings and an overview of your reading but what conclusions did Ken McGill come to? I wanna know! Will we be able to see this in some other form somewhere else?
