Evaluation of Finished Product

Audience – Appeal to Audience

People within my class felt that I met the brief by using people between the ages of 16-24 years in
my documentary, excluding my vox pops as this was said that the people I used were too young and
didn’t fit between the age ranges that were given in the brief. I agree with the feedback about my
vox pops being too young, however due to my lack of confidence I felt that the questions that I
wanted to ask wouldn’t have been portrayed in the same way if asking an older person. Also adding
to this I did feel that even tough the people I spoke to were young it still played a big part of
documentary as the topic itself does accumulate from a young age. They also said that I met the
brief by using both genders within my documentary as I used the knife perpetrator, vox pops and a
separate interview which were male, I also interviewed females; this was so that my topic wasn’t
male dominated as this can tend to happen within documentaries on this topic. A major piece of
feedback that I got from my class was that the topic was relevant and appealed to the audience; my
topic was relevant as knife crime is a serious issue that happens a lot within the UK and needs to be
focused on a lot more, my class also said that throughout it maintained a serious approach which
related to the overall topic. It appealed to the audience by using some of their similar interests, for
example; grime music and hanging around on streets.

Client – Appeal to Audience

My teachers felt that I involved all ethnicities and didn’t let the topic focus on a certain ethnicity as
this can sometimes happen when this topic is being spoken about. I did this by using different
contributors throughout my documentary who were different ethnicities from various areas within
London. They also announced that throughout as well as all my contributors being around the UK,
when interviewing someone from the media they only spoke on the UK’s behalf, therefore this
stayed within the boundaries of the brief. Another category that was talked about in feedback was
the use of both genders representing in the documentary as sometimes the topic can be male
dominated and this didn’t occur, to add to this using females made it more approachable and
accessible and by focusing more on females made the documentary quite different. Lastly, they said
that the topic is relevant to young people and this allowed me to stay within the age ranges that the
brief specified.

Own Feedback – Appeal to Audience

From the feedback given I agree with what was said. I feel that the only downfall I had with my
documentary appealing to the audience was the vox pops as my class said they were too young,
which again I agree with. However if I had the confidence to be more experimental when choosing
my contributors I could have made my documentary much more appealing to its audience, this
would have included vox pops as I should of gone to a local high street and asked people within the
specific age range the questions that I had.
Making my documentary appeal to the briefs specification wasn’t difficult as my overall topic was
already related to the age range given, this meant that I could choose the majority of angles as the
contributors would have still qualified to be in the same age group. However on the other hand as
there are many documentaries similar with the same topic and angle I did find it difficult to make it
different from the other documentaries and to make it more interesting and appealing in that sense.
Although, overall the feedback I got for this was quite good and there hasn’t been much criticism for
this element.
Audience – USP/Place in Market

Unfortunately, my audience said that my documentary wasn’t very unique as there are many other
documentaries out there that are very similar to mine with the same topic and the same angle. They
also said that the information within my documentary was very basic so this didn’t lift the unique
selling point either. Because the topic I chose was very common I could have made my documentary
more unique with the content that I put in it for example, I could have made it more factual or visual
with interesting footage. Alternatively I could have used the presenter (myself) to make the
documentary unique. My audience didn’t comment on whether my documentary fits in with the
place in the market. However there was enough feedback given about the unique selling point.

Client – USP/Place in Market

My client’s feedback for this element was that again, I didn’t have a big unique selling point in my
documentary, although they did say it fits in the market as the topic is always going to be talked
about on why knife crime is happening and who is to blame for it. It was said that even though my
documentary wasn’t original it did cover many areas as it gave an overview on knife crime; I did this
by interviewing various people. My teachers also commented on an improvement for this area
which was; if the documentary had more of a narrative thread to it, for example, a recent incident
that’s happened so that the documentary could link to it. It also could have been more effective if I
had involved myself and seen more of me on the screen than having voice overs.

Own Feedback – USP/Place in Market

Personally, focusing on the unique selling point I feel that even though my documentary didn’t touch
this point very well, it didn’t really need to as the documentary as a whole didn’t need to be unique,
it was mainly focusing on why young people carry knives from different perspectives. The underlined
subject of my documentary was to convey how serious knife crime is and that we need to recognise
this and young people and/or people in general need to take it on board how serious it is. Although
after reading the feedback I got from this element I don’t disagree with it at all as there’s always
room for improvements. I know that I could have made my documentary unique by being creative
with shot types such as pieces to camera or by making it more factual and interesting in this sense.
However, on the other hand a lot of knife crime documentaries are mostly always factual, this could
be how mine is unique as the facts were very limited if there were any at all. To summarise, this area
within my documentary wasn’t a strong point, however it is possible to argue against the feedback
given to show a different side. More importantly, if I had used my imagination I could have been
really creative and made my documentary very unique by using different conventions. Lastly, I do
believe and agree with my clients and audiences feedback that my documentary has a place in the
market as there are similar texts like mine shown on TV.

Audience – Conventions

My audience broadcasted in their feedback that I used a variety of conventions throughout my

documentary. From various shot types to a creative sign on and off. They also said that the montage
at the end of the documentary was very effective and was a nice summary and conclusion to the
topic. Other feedback that my audience gave was that the archive footage that I used at the
beginning for my introduction was well put together and I had good use of graphics. Not many other
things were commented on for conventions from my audience; however the feedback I received was
positive and well observed.

Client – Conventions

The feedback that I received from my clients was very detailed as they didn’t just give feedback on
the obvious conventions but noticed various things that I edited and put in my documentary other
than footage. For example, the interview with the knife perpetrator, when editing I blurred out the
entire clip so that it made my documentary more visually exciting to watch. I also added a police
siren sound effect which one of my clients thought was normal background noise, this shows that I
used the sound effect well and in the right place. My clients proclaimed that my overall documentary
was really conventional, this included my chosen shots as in my vox pops I framed them at canted
angles so that it made it a little bit more interesting than having static shots. Also the locations that I
filmed at were creative as using brick walls and interviewing people sitting on the electricity boxes
on the corners of streets (the link at the bottom of this paragraph shows an image of what the
electricity box looks like). These were good locations as they are possible hang out sports for young
people. My clients also said that I had a good range of shot types, one being the shot reverse shot on
one of the interviews. They also commented on the montage that I had at the beginning to
introduce my topic and angle which they said was really nice. Lastly, there was a major piece of
negative feedback that I understand as being an issue was the fact that I didn’t use real people in my
documentary. Overall the feedback that I got from this area was very positive and very detailed.
http://www.eppingforestdc.gov.uk/Library/Images/Press_Release_Pics/UtilitiesBoxGoldinghamAven
u.jpg

Own Feedback – Conventions

I agree with all the feedback given in this area, I felt that I used a lot of conventions in my
documentary to make it interesting and effective for my target audience. I used the majority of
conventions such as; music, sound effects, graphics, voice overs, interviews, archive footage,
montages, various shot types, camera angles & movements. Therefore conventions played a big part
throughout my documentary. Some conventions that I felt I could have used more of were cutaways
and pieces to camera from the presenter as this would have made it more interesting to watch. My
strongest point within conventions was my montage at the beginning I felt that it was quite different
and a unique way to begin a documentary. I also felt that I carefully thought about the questions
that I asked each contributor, For example; when interviewing the journalist if I hadn’t thought
about how to word my questions appropriately I could have came across rude and patronising,
however this wasn’t the case as I was prepared. Lastly, I would of liked to have ended my
documentary with the presenter on screen doing the sign off as I feel that I could have summarised
it much better actually talking to the camera, although this wouldn’t have looked right as the
presenter wasn’t consistent throughout the whole documentary.

Audience – Use of Technology

My audience said that I used a wide range of shots, my voice overs were used effectively, and the
editing was tightly put together, this was good as there weren’t gaps in-between or parts where it
jumped from one clip to another. Although they also said that the sound quality was too low.

Client – Use of Technology

Own Feedback – Use of Technology

From the feedback given it was quite versatile from both the clients and the audience as one said
that the sound quality was too low and the other said that all the sound mixing was spot on and you
could clearly hear everything that was said throughout the documentary. When re-watching my final
documentary I focused on listening to the sound quality throughout the whole documentary so that
I could relate to the feedback given, however I didn’t see a problem with any of the sound. It was all
good quality and the volume control was satisfactory as everything was still clear and
understandable, therefore I disagree with my audience saying that the sound quality was too low as
it was consistent all the way through.

Audience – Improvements

Client – Improvements

Own Feedback – Improvements