Upload
rob-greens-lecturer
View
188
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Citation preview
Contextual Analysis
Deadline: Monday 2 June 2014 by 12pm
This piece of work is designed to address the following two learning outcomes: Ø Complete an individual exegesis (criEcal explanaEon/interpretaEon) addressing the final pracEcal producEon and the way in which it integrates the research quesEon and theoreEcal work with their own pracEce.
Learning outcomes
Contextual Analysis is worth 20% of your final mark. This is broken down: Ø Level of analysis and reflecEon -‐ 40% Ø Level and depth of knowledge demonstrated -‐30%
Ø Structure & wriRen communicaEon skills -‐ 30%
Marking Breakdown
Submit an electronic copy to the TurniEn Link by Monday 2nd June by 12pm. Studentcentral > LB306 Final Individual Project > Module Assignments > Contextual Analysis Link
Submission InformaEon
Ø The contextual analysis is exactly as it states: your opportunity to demonstrate what you have learnt in the research and producEon processes, by analysing and evaluaEng your work within the theories you were quesEoning in your report.
What it is
Ø Can be a good way of analysing the other side of an argument you had in your Research Report.
Ø Think about how your research quesEon affected pre-‐producEon, producEon and post-‐producEon.
Ø What experiences in your producEon and your evaluaEon of the final work bring out issues in your research?
Ø Note the new ideas you have about the research.
Your argument
TO BE CRITICAL…
To be critical means that you are required to: Ø ask questions about the ideas and information
Ø to comment thoughtfully by engaging in a process of evaluating or;
Ø making judgements about the validity or relevance of ideas and theories in relation to developing, making and the final artefact.
CRITICAL COMMENTARY PROCESS
1. Understand and analyse the ideas and arguments on your topic.
2. Create questions
3. Develop these questions into a written response by analysing what you created and from your research (other people’s ideas). Use evidence (quoting, paraphrasing; close analysis of your work).
4. Consider evaluating the ideas: the significance and relevance of this idea.
5. Develop a number of thoughtful points and conclusions about the ideas/theories/arguments from developing and producing your work.
6. Write your contextual analysis.
STEP ONE – CREATE QUESTIONS FROM RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS
The first thing to do is to create questions to help you create a comment. The best way to do this is to:
Ø use the information from your research and question it in relation to your work and what you were exploring
But you may find questions by also reflecting back on the process and the final film and considering:
Ø issues or ideas you had in the production process and use them to question what you aimed to do
Use both approaches to conclude (based on evidence) those ideas/theories/arguments you have researched.
QUESTIONS THAT HELP EVALUATE IDEAS…
Create questions that help to establish a problem or the aim of an idea or theory to be able to discuss the extent the aim has been achieved. Ø How logical is the idea or argument supporting the hypothesis? How is the argument supported? Is it supported well? Ø How relevant is the idea you applied to your work? Provide brief overview of what you aimed to do. Ø Is the evidence valid? Is the evidence accurate and relevant? Ø What conclusions are drawn by you on the basis of the finding? Do you consider that these are justified by the results or have you made unjustifiable conclusions?
Ø The contextual analysis should not be a descripEon of the processes that you have gone through – avoid lengthy descripEons of any elements of the work.
Ø Don’t discuss issues that are not related to your research quesEon.
Ø The contextual analysis should also not be a forum for you to place blame on equipment/people/procedures for elements of the work that you may be unhappy with.
What it is not
Ø The analysis should be clearly structured. You should briefly introduce the project and select and state some key areas of the work that you will discuss in more depth. These should be both posiEve and negaEve aspects of the work.
Ø You should definitely refer back to your research report when you are discussing how the research that you undertook has informed your pracEce, but do not reiterate what you have wri/en in the report, instead refer to page/secEon numbers, i.e. ‘…as discussed in secEon 2, page 6 of my research report’.
Ø Each paragraph should be a new point with the first or second line clearly explaining the point and then going into more detail.
Structure
Ø It is a more personal account than your research report and so can be wriRen in the first person, i.e. ‘I will be discussing both the posiEve and negaEve aspects of my producEon work’.
Ø You should be cri5cal of your work and always back up and evidence any statements that you make. This can either be by direct quotaEon (using the Harvard referencing system) from a text or by referencing current industry pracEces or standards.
Style
Ø Avoid making statements such as ‘I think my work is good’ – you need to state why this is the case in the wider context of Broadcast Media – acknowledge the benchmarks on which you make judgements such as this.
Ø Don’t look for hard and fastened answers. It’s about your experience in relaEon to the issues with your research.
Style
Ø You can use images/screen grabs in your analysis to help you when you are referring to the different elements of your work – this is a much beRer method than using words to describe them. You may also want to include audio/video footage on a disc as an appendix for this reason (this could be to show sample rushes/alternate takes/experimental footage).
SupporEng material
Ø Be criEcal – look for weaknesses and posiEves in your work in relaEon to your research.
Ø Examine your work taking some notes, constantly thinking about how your work tests the quesEon you were exploring.
Ø When wriEng up cut anything about your work (producEon or the final work) that does not deal directly with your research quesEon.
Studying your work
QuesEon: Why are films that go against the conven3ons of dialogue in screenwri3ng s3ll successful? I made a short film that was mainly dialogue led and locaEons, characters, were limited.
Example 1
IntenEon: I wanted to inves-gate whether breaking screenwri-ng conven-ons of dialogue could s-ll make an engaging film. Issues: Ø Struggled in pre-‐producEon to combine the various things; dialogue was difficult to achieve; Ø NoEced that turning points in dialogue sEll relied on convenEons of story-‐telling (beats, surprises, expectaEons) Ø Saw other side of argument: dialogue works in combinaEon of the film of a form (locaEons, characters, ediEng, pauses, silence) Ø Good dialogue can be what you leave out as well as what you put in Ø Suggested that convenEons are genre specific and perhaps screenwriEng texts should not be so heavy handed in their advice.
Example 1
Example 2
QuesEon: How and why has the role of the father figure changed in situa3on comedies? I made a short sitcom about I dad who loses his job and has to face up with a new role in the family.
IntenEon: I wanted to inves-gate whether it is possible to write a sitcom without resor-ng to the stereotypes that exist around the father in modern comedy (i.e. either the dominant man of the house or the buffoon). Issues: Ø During wriEng process it proved difficult to not fall back in stereotypes in order to get laughs; Ø Characters had to be drawn much more carefully, in 20-‐minutes this was a challenge; Ø Actors had to be cast not to fall into these set roles and then directed carefully in order that their performances not do so as well. Ø InteresEngly with the unconvenEonal capable and thoughjul father figure – other characters had to take on comic roles in response (i.e. the mother became shrewish, the kids less capable). Ø Conclusion: This project serves to demonstrate why mainstream Sitcom so oken fall back on these stereotypes – they are a short hand and they work but audiences will eventually want more.
Example 2
Example 3
QuesEon: How does the sound design and soundtrack effect the emo3onal impact of a scene in radio drama? I made a short radio drama that I produced two versions of: one highly designed and with a lot of detail and the other more simple and in the style of a BBC radio drama.
IntenEon: To take the same material and see how sound design effects the direcEon and character of a scene. Issues: Ø Wrote a short drama that wasn’t hugely dependent on sound or music (i.e. not an acEon scene); Ø Performed it dry in the studio and focused on the actors performances in order to give the text as much life as possible; Ø Produced one version that was clear and with simple sound design. When listening to this. This version seems to bring out the characters more than the story, you listen to the people and think about them. Ø The designed version is much more emoEonally charged and exciEng, and it grabs your aRenEon quickly, but then you are not thinking so much about the characters… more about their situaEon. Ø Conclusion: I realise that although sound design and soundtrack is important, if you do to much you can obscure some important aspects of the scripts.
Example 3
Example 4
QuesEon: How are new technologies of produc-on influenced the form of documentary films. I made a 15 minute documentary using a range of modern techniques and taking advantage of cheap camera technology.
IntenEon: To prove that new technologies of producEon are allowing new forms of documentary stories to be told, and that these cheap technologies are opening up documentary a new generaEon of film makes. Issues: Ø The producEon was complex to arrange and edit, I gave cameras to a lot of subjects and in other cases gathered huge quanEEes of footage. Ø This seemed to shik the difficulty in the producEon into the edit room, rather than in shooEng. Ø I gathered some remarkable footage that I wouldn’t have got if I had a film crew (i.e. scene X or scene Y). Ø In the end though, what really maRered were the subjects and my research. Ø Conclusion: New tech opens up possibiliEes but it doesn’t make life easier or producEons inherently ‘beRer’
Example 4