Evaluation Question Three - Radio Interview

Evaluation Question Three - Radio Interview

Hello, my name is Jordan Crichlow, and my good friend Mike Browning, of Screen Sunday on BBC Radio 4, has kindly allowed me to talk to you about how important it is to listen to your audience when creating a film, and how their input can be used to shape the creative process. Mike has kindly asked me to update you on the time slots of his show; before me was Daniel Jones with part 2 of How to Create a Documentary, exploring what goes on behind the scenes. Later on in the programme, after my segment, he will be talking to producer Andrew Willard to discover why he has gone back to his roots to find the story for his new film Commonside, and director Mark Dean will be joining you after Andrew, to talk about his controversial casting decision that sent shock waves through the UKs independent film sector more on that later. For now, here is my solo segment on Mikes show. I emerged last year with my directing debut in Truant, a film dipped in social realism about a treacherous absentee. This year Ive taken a different route in creating my first short film. Mike himself has said that Solitude is unexpected and compelling, as it centres on a lonesome young man with his camera, and the ultimatum he is faced with when approaching a young female. He also said that my directional debut achieving something of a cult following on social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter, Jordan knows how important the audience is thanks Mike. But how far do I influence elements beyond the main film such as promotion and marketing? And how do I go about finding the right audience? Here I will share my experiences with audience feedback with you listeners now.

So lets start from the beginning. How did I first establish who my audience would be?

Well, we began by employing a mix of both quantitative and qualitative types of research in a basic paper-based questionnaire

Quantitative refers to research that deals with measurable information, using closed questions to generate numerical and statistical data, which are often shown to us in the form of tables, charts or diagrams. On the other hand, qualitative refers to research focused more on an individuals or groups thoughts and feelings, using open questions to allow the individual to go into more detail about their opinions, attitudes and preferences.

We employed a mixture of these two types of research to gain information on whom our audience would be. We began with simple questions about age and gender, to establish a basic demographic, which eventually led to asking their address to establish a geo-demographic. Then the questions became more specifically centered around short films, as that was the product we were creating, to learn more about the psychographics. So such questions as where you consume short films, and seeing what shorts they had already consumed. Lastly, we ended the questionnaire by trying to gain a basic knowledge of how they think short films could be developed, as this would help us tailor our film more specifically towards our audience.

For those at home, demographics are the measurable characteristics of the audience, for example, gender and age, which I mentioned earlier. Geo-demographics, on the other hand, is information based upon regional identity, and understanding the issues there, and how to reach them. And lastly, psychographics are the individuals attitudes and opinions, hence the more specific questions around short film.

So what did I learn from my audience research?Well, after every piece of audience research, we set about analysing our results. From this first piece of research, we learned that our audience were young adults, with a slightly greater distribution of males compared with females, all around Surrey. From the results of their current educational status, we reasoned that our audience had, at the least, a basic knowledge of film, and issues of today, meaning they were likely not strangers to the format. Therefore, we figured we had the challenge of creating a film with elements of thriller and drama, whilst still being as original as possible, whilst still being accessible. Our audience also taught us that issues in the film would engage them more if they were better relevant to today, and more easily relatable. We could do this by trying to convey a wider representation of classes, so our audience could easily understand, and relate to them.

From there, we then went and made a synopsis of the film. With this synopsis, we asked a select group of our target demographic to read it, and offer feedback. From this we established that there were definite things we needed to develop.

What sort of things were these? Well, they established the main characters dilemma is unclear, so we had to expand on what would make his dilemma clearer, and how we would undertake this process. We were advised to show moments of non-isolation for the main character, and work with visual ways of introducing the audience to his situation. We learnt that I had to expand on what my main characters dilemma was, and exemplify this through what happens in my frame, thus making the characters dilemma clearer to the audience. Undertaking this task allowed me to enhance the storyline for this specific character, allowing me to provide the actor himself with an enhanced background of the character he was playing.Would I say my audience feedback had an impact; absolutely, a very significant one.

What happened next you might ask?

After the synopsis came the script. Once wed written what we thought was a decent script, we got in our target demographic again and conducted 1-on-1 interviews.

This format reaps benefits; 1-on-1 interviews focus more around qualitative research, which is ideal because it allows the audience to expand upon their feedback and provide us with more detailed analysis. It also helped develop our communication skills, which is never a bad thing.

What we learned from our interviews helped shape the film into what it is today. Our audience conveyed to us how our script sounded too theatrical, which is not a necessary quality needed for film. We were advised to create a more meaningful climax, as the climax has an ultimate effect on the audiences interpretations of the film. I believe this process in particular was crucial, as it allowed me to expand upon what kind of final message the audience should receive; the ultimatum of both characters actions.

Theres something Mike actually asked me specifically to discuss before the show started, something that always seems to be typically controversial within the filming business, and thats dialogue. He asked me what typified how much dialogue I used within my short film.

I was glad he bought that up. Our audience conveyed to us the need to develop dialogue, by either adding more lines, or refining the ones we already had. However, they also showed a like for visual action. Therefore, we decided to follow Marilyn Milgroms advice and minimise dialogue, as this will inevitably help establish the world and the character, and allow the visual action to advance the story. Minimal dialogue will also ensure that a short is more cinematic, and less televisual in feel.

Theres something else Mike believed has a major impact on the storyline and that is setting he asked me did my audience advise me on what the location of your film should be?

Well originally I was going to base my film by the lake based on the outskirts of Grove Park. Due to several issues however, we decided to film it within the basis of Grove Park, by a stream. This was because the lake is based by the main road, meaning there was the high risk of outside interference from vehicles and pedestrians that could potentially disrupt myself, my characters or any aspect of my film altogether. The stream provided a much more naturalistic environment, and I know for a fact we all felt extremely comfortable around this setting.

Without a doubt, my audience feedback was extremely important.

So, what happened next? After wed established our audience and received feedback on two of arguably the most important aspects of pre-production, we moved on to our ancillary tasks, namely the magazine review and poster.

Lets take the magazine first; after conducting the first draft of my magazine review, I found there were many flaws in this draft, which were pointed out by our target demographic. For example, it was noted that certain conventions should be altered, namely conventional dotted lines which separate different sections of the review. A common flaw was the notable absence of a snapshot of my film within the review. Adding a snapshot would help develop certain conventions, such as integrating with the text, making it more eye-catching and appealing to the audience.

After the review, came the poster. As a basis, the image and text are the key elements located on my poster. My audience noticed that the image of the stream and wildlife was particularly tenuous and vague, as it did not fully connect with the story. The absence of characters within the frame was highlighted as another weakness, and I was advised to recreate the image with the girl in shot, providing us with something more visually intriguing. As my film is mainly focused on my male character filming the young woman through his camera, I was advised to mimic play/pause buttons that are likeable to a normal camera; I could potentially undertake this task using advanced ICT software, such as Photoshop.

So that concludes my segment. Ive been Jordan Crichlow, talking about how important listening to your target demographic is. Thank you to Mike for giving me this opportunity, I shall now hand back to him. Next up is Andrew Willard talking about his new film, Commonside.