Nico Del Pellegrino

Image rights & reserved to ‘LaTronsfo’ flickr account

Overall I learned a great deal from the audience feedback – specifically the message that is commonly being read from our documentary and what we could have improved. A lot of the feedback that we received was generous but also honest. The most unexpected piece of feedback that we had received was:

Overall I learned a great deal from the audience feedback – specifically the message that is commonly being read from our documentary and what we could have improved. A lot of the feedback that we received was generous but also honest. The most unexpected piece of feedback that we had received was:

“I think in one of the interviews there was a case of noisy cars in the background i think it would have been good to try and keep the sound down but not completley get rid of it.”

As our only interview next to cars was Andrew Higginson it was clear that this is what is being referred to – and during the edit we took time to consider the sound of the cars. We thought during the edit that we were comfortable with that level of volume because it feels more un-planned and un-prepared. However after considering this piece of feedback and looking at the camera work when filming Ryan (the agnostic) we have noticed that on some parts of our documentary we were trying to represent certain themes too strongly. This meant that the next time that I film near a noisy area or shoot handheld intentionally I can have a conscious full of past experience to give me judgement.

Two other very important pieces of feedback that we received are answering the question “What was the message you received from our film?” the replies on our feedback were the following:

Two other very important pieces of feedback that we received are answering the question “What was the message you received from our film?” the replies on our feedback were the following:

“That the youth of today are changing in their ideals about the Christian faith and if balanced correctly the church can have a place amongst youth today.”

Two other very important pieces of feedback that we received are answering the question “What was the message you received from our film?” the replies on our feedback were the following:

“That the youth of today are changing in their ideals about the Christian faith and if balanced correctly the church can have a place amongst youth today.”

“The message which i recieved from this film is that the image of Youth and religion is not as i thought, when i thought about young people and there religion i thought of it as non existant but this documentary has told me otherwise.”

Both of these comments refer to the youth which we were surprised to see was being portrayed as the main theme of our documentary despite the minutes long of footage of Father Marco and Mass. This signifies how large of an impact that the vox pops of teenagers has had on our documentary, but also highlights those are the shots that the audience considers the main narrative – instead of the constantly returning interview with Father Marco:,

However it could also reflect the level of significance that such long clips of Father Marco and mass has on our documentary – because of this to finish this documentary I would consider not using such long clips of dragged-out interviews (illustrated by the timeline) as well as mass and instead introduce medium/fast-moving shots and medium/fast-paced editing. This could potentially open up our documentary to reach out into other channel audiences such as Channel 4 and BBC3 but possibly still hold the demographic that BBC4 attracts, and if successful could significantly increase viewing figures – just from asking what the message of our documentary feels like.

40 seconds 4:181:44

The piece of feedback that we were not so surprised to see was the comment regarding lighting in some of our shots:

The piece of feedback that we were not so surprised to see was the comment regarding lighting in some of our shots:

“I found that the camera work, sound and editing was proficient, however the lighting was a little dark and some lens flares were present at times.”

The piece of feedback that we were not so surprised to see was the comment regarding lighting in some of our shots:

“I found that the camera work, sound and editing was proficient, however the lighting was a little dark and some lens flares were present at times.”

We noticed after we had filmed our interview with Father Marco that there were problems with lens flares and the room being underlit. After the Father Marco interview we had both of these cause an issue due to being in a dark room with little lighting capability and filming during the evening both of which we had made comments about after posting screenshots of our shoot with Father Marco. Another notable shot that had issues with lens flares was the panning shot during mass, this was not as unfortunate as the interview with Father Marco partially because it was a brief shot – instead of an entire interview.

But the lens flares could be conveyed as a image of ‘holy light’ from inside the Church and could possibly be read as intentional iconography, and during the editing period if we had noticed this then we could have possibly created darkness filters during the editing phase to increase how professionally presented it was.

In conclusion I have gained a dense amount of experience from the audience feedback that has been given to me – and also gained an understanding of how important it is to obtain audience feedback early during the film-making so that the project can take the best possible course that the audience wishes, as they are essentially who the documentary is made for.