Overall, I am really
pleased with how our final film as turned out. I think that visually, the piece
works really well; the choice to use DSLRs made the artwork and graffiti come
out beautifully. I think that this was so effective because of the environment
in which these pieces have been painted, I think that it added to the – of the
piece, showing some form of ‘life’ and colour in these otherwise bleak and
damaged buildings. I also think that we
overcame the problem of disguising our contributors identity well. I was
initially unsure of how this would work and feared that a lot of the shots
would be too similar, making the film seem repetitive. However, I think that
our cinematographer and director worked well in coming up with a range of ideas
that solve this. I think they made good use of the individual locations when
doing so, which helped. I think that the sound in our piece also really works
with the tone of the film; for me, it emphasises the emptiness of these places
but the occasional change in tempo, or small riff in a different key, help
highlight that within the ruins there are unexpected artifacts. It creates a great atmosphere that I think
really helps capture the audience’s interest. I think that the interviews in
the film are engaging and what our contributors say does engage the audience.
However, upon viewing a number of times, I think that the audience will loose interest.
I found that, for myself, upon multiple viewings the film seemed to drag and
lost interest very quickly. I think this
is due to the fact that what the voice over covers in the film only touches on
the basics of urban exploring. When recording the interviews and looking back
at the transcripts, both contributors gave incredibly interesting and sometimes
humorous anecdotes about their experiences. This then made it really difficult
to pick what to choose and perhaps there were some things that were omitted
that shouldn’t have been.
