I received a lot of thoughtful feedback from my peers to whom I am grateful. Feedback that was specific to the question of authorship is addressed on the previous page. Here I am going to reflect on how their feedback reshaped the format of this blog. A full transcript of my conversations with others about this project is available in Appendix 4.
Originally I had seen my film, A to B (with the reader/writers' commentary interwoven) as the final artefact. It soon became clear to me that the film did not work as a standalone piece. It gave the impression that the voices were interpreting what they were seeing. Renee Wilson said 'What’s interesting to study is the perceptions of the various audience members. Will they automatically assume that this kid is a ‘good boy’ because he has short, clean cut hair? Does the audience automatically make assumptions because of the aesthetics of the subject?' While I see that the film could be used in that way it highlighted to me the need explain the point of the film. I attempted to do so on my blog but it was still hard for people to grasp. Karen Ward said, " It doesn’t need any more contextualisation. I can imagine my own students really enjoying the challenge of decoding." which showed that people were still missing the point and that it absolutely did need more contextualisation!
This was obviously frustrating and I felt that if my peers had read the page outlining the aims and a step-by-step process then they would have understood. The problem was that he process was buried 3 or 4 pages down. I was starting to realise 2 things
1) That I needed to present my work as a research process rather than a film. The film itself was a starting point for discussion and at the draft hand-in stage, I hadn't gathered any feedback. Tim Abberley helpfully said "The film is your catalyst which generates the debate over ownership." Karen added "It seems that maybe your blog presented in this way might be the artefact presented for assessment? It’s a research experiment so you need to see it as a whole process to get the most out of it. When I looked at it on it’s own I misunderstood the purpose of the artefact. " They were entirely right.
2) I also realised that people will want to leap straight into the film before reading a lengthy document. My target audience is A2 students or undergrads therefore to adopt an appropriate format and register for that group, I needed to make the aims of my project clearly available on the front page and assume that they would click on the video before reading the theories that underpin the project.
This was confirmed when Karen (who was my "buddy" on this unit) responded again this time having read the additional material. Her comments were extremely helpful "I think careful labeling of the pieces is the only blocker here to understanding for people like me who don’t tend to read the instructions and just dive right in." She suggested embedding videos in the step-by-step process. Which I did, although this became less important as I redrafted the film and now only appears as an appendix item.
A massive problem I identified was that with the voices over the images it appeared as though they were responding to rather than dictating the narrative. I asked my peers for feedback on how I might make this clearer. Tim suggested using a frame within a frame. I experimented with a few different sequences in Final Cut to shift the focus. While I was doing this I started using title cards to separate out the sections and guide the viewer. I realised at this point that I needed to present the process (as Karen said) but that it could be done in the film itself. I included the question followed by short snippets of the videos from my reader/writers with the original film inset in the top left corner as Tim has suggested. This didn't quite work as it meant some of the dialogue was repeated. I re-edited it extracting the audio but that wasn't right either. Taking advice from Ken McGill’s Clearing the Mechanism film, I slept on it and the next day came up the idea of having all the voices going a once fading the volume up to show the viewer whose voice is whose. I feel this works well because it creates a sense of their narratives warring with each other.
Karen also thought, "It would also be really interesting to see your notes/storyboards to show your involvement in the authoring process." I am embarrassed to share them but nonetheless they are now uploaded as an appendix.
Some of the feedback I got alerted me to the limitations of my project. Donal Beecher pointed out that as soon as I choose a shot I am authoring. There is a debate to be had about whether action without intention is authorship. Tim's comment that my film would generate debate over authorship is excellent. I realised too late that in my feedback sessions with students, I hadn't actually had that debate with them. They didn't feel that any of the reader/writers were the "true" narrator but I never established whether that's because they assumed that I was. Yes, this project was meant to promote discussion but I feel, unfortunately that that discussion has not taken place. In an attempt to combat this I included some questions underneath the video that could be used to provoke a debate about authorship. This could be done with or without reading my own debate presented in the essay.
In conclusion the peer feedback was useful. It was vital in helping me order the blog and restructure the film and it made me realise that the artefact was the blog of the whole project not just the film. It was a shock when people didn’t get it and without that peer review process I would not have noticed how unclear it was. It has also helped me realise the limits of this project. I feel like there are so many more facets to this debate that I was unable to address. I have attempted to acknowledge this through the additional questions on the home page and at the end of my Reflection On The Success of This Project.
