HW 3a - Continuity task evaluation (BLK)

1. In this clip, two boys are not paying attention to where they are going, and incidentally bump into each other at the corner.
2.  In order to create continuity, we used a range of methods. Firstly, we followed the 180 degree rule when filming the different characters, by filming on Jack's left and Emilio's right, to get a sense of space and direction. We also used a master shot ((shot 4) to join the narrative together, and give the audience a better understanding of the space and the distance between the characters, as well as setting up the circumstances for the accident.We tried to mostly use similar framing for consecutive shots in order to make the scene less jumpy for the audience. I think that the third shot created a good point of view for the audience, further extending the sense of space we set up in the scene.
3. We did not achieve full continuity, partially due to the method of filming and time restrictions, but also due to lack of precision.  Firstly, in shot 2, the brick wall is showing for far too long on it's own, creating a boring shot and not satisfying the audience's needs and expectations for character involvement and action. Also, in the third shot, Emilio comes too close to the camera to make it an effective shot. It would have been more effective as a shorter shot, cutting when he is further away from the camera. After this shot, there is an immediate jump from the CU to an LS or even ELS, which does break the flow of the scene, which is emphasised by his change in position in the frame, jumping from close0up in the middle, to far away on the very left sied of the frame. Again with this character, the filming is not very well timed and it could have been timed and positioned much better from shot to shot, as he jumps around the space a lot, especially after the over-the-shoulder shot where we can see him turn the corner, followed by a shot of him back a few paces. Finally, the length of the final shot lessens the impacts of the character collision, as the length of the shot before the collision is too long, and loses the build up created in the previous shots. An immediate collision would have had a better effect on the audience, as it uses gthe build up create dby the previous 5 shots and follows through immediately with the result.
4. Instead, I think we could have thought more about the space and timing of the characters, as it appears as though they are jumping through the space a lot during the scene. Planning the whole scene in advance and blocking the whole video before filming it would have had a much better effect, as we would have known where each character should start for each shot in order to create a realistic flow. Also, we could have thought more about the framing, as he transition between some shots is very jumpy and breaks the flow. Instead, we should have framed consecutive shots with similar framing, as this would achieve a narrative flow closer to if we had been able to edit the video. Lastly, some of the camera angles and props could have been better, especially the over-the-shoulder shot of Emilio and the ELS of the two characters in frame at once. To improve this, I think we could have chosen a better location without objects obscuring the frame, as in this one there are structural beams =in the way of the scene. The over-the-shoulder shot would have been better by using a dolly, or, considering we did not have equipment readily available to us, we could have had it static, as it feels very jumpy and not smooth as it is.