Film Institutions - Enigma Entertainment

Enigma Entertainment is the production company owned by Philip Smith and myself. It is comprised of two divisions - Enigma Theatre and Enigma Cinema, which are a rebranding of the now defunct ASP-TV and it's subsidaries Collossus Pictures and Spartan Entertainment, which were responsible for projects such as 'France 24' and 'The Piano'  in the cinematic department, as well as 'Love, Lies & Venice' and 'The Nero Complex' in the theatre department.

Enigma Cinema is a production company that specialises in virtually no-budget blockbuster epics, with our debut feature the hugely successful 'Preliminary Task' which accumulated over 200 views within a fortnight on Youtube. Subjects tackled in Enigma films tend to gravitate towards violence and fast-paced action, forever culminating in an explosive climax. Enigma Theatre, however, is best known for its disgusting and outrageous subject matters, and is not afraid to take taboos to another level.

In the upcoming Enigma Cinema feature film 'Sins of the Martyr' (Spring 2013), the audience will see a more sophisticated level of film making, and a higher class of action sequences. Despite its extremely low-budget, the film retains an extremely high production value through it's iconic locations and world-class acting.

Other Film Institutions

So far I have been through all of the 'big six' film institutions, but of course there are many more which much be addressed. These smaller institutions tend to be more specialised, and instead of competing with the big six, rely on their level of story telling and their film making techniques in order to get money and acclaim. They are known collectively as the 'mini-majors'. Mirimax Films especially tend to make a lot of films that win awards at festivals and are generally more about art than money, however they have recently been taken over by Lionsgate so do not count. Here are a few of the smaller institutions who are still independent:

- Dreamworks: Dreamworks tend to make films aimed at a younger audience, and have done very well in this field. Dreamworks films include: 'How to train your dragon', 'Shrek', 'Kung Fu Panda', 'Madagascar', 'Prince of Egypt' and many more!

- Lionsgate Entertainment: In recent years Lionsgate have started to have to join together with bigger companies in order to get the money needed to make films, but they still are making very strong, high grossing films. This is due to the fact that they specialise in making action films, or films with violence, generally aimed at a male audience. Their films include: 'The Hunger Games', 'Saw', '3:10 to Yuma', 'Rambo', 'Transporter', 'American Psycho' and more!

- Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer: MGM have become bankrupt in recent years, and so haven't really been releasing anything, although they have had involvement in 'The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey' and 'Skyfall', which they believe will restore their funds. They tend to make a wide range of films, and follow what is in trend at the time. MGM films include: 'Rocky', 'Stormbreaker', 'Rescue Dawn', 'The Pink Panther', 'Nanny McPhee', 'the James Bond Franchise' and much more!

- Relativity Media: Relativity media at the moment is very low-key, seeming as it was only founded in 2004, and is still growing. In a few years time, however, they may be big players in Hollywood, and they may make 'the big six', the 'big seven'! As of yet, they have a fair bit of growing, and they have not made many films that have received great critical acclaim. Their films include: 'Season of the Witch',  'Immortals', 'Limitless', 'Haywire', 'The Raven', 'House at the End of the Street', 'Machine Gun Preacher', 'Mirror mirror' and not much more!

The Weinstein Company: The formation of the Weinstein Company is an odd one, as they actually are a faction that separated off Disney. The founders used to work for Miramax which they had also founded, which was owned by Disney, and then they decided to turn back to their independent film making and form The Weinstein Company. It is also a very recent company; only formed in 2005, but as with Relativity Media, I think that it is aiming high. The work that it has done already is excellent - producing a few best picture nominees and winners already! The Weinstein Company seems to be one of the few institutions that seem to be aiming for the art in film, rather than just the money, as Miramax was originally meant for that, and after stumbling over Disney, the founders have got back on their feet again, and are ready to progress the film industry. It will be institutions like this that will move the film industry forward. Weinstein films include: 'The King's Speech', 'A Single Man', 'The Master', 'The Artist', 'The Fighter', 'The Iron Lady', 'Coriolanus', 'Lawless', 'Nowhere Boy', 'Submarine' and a fair few more!

Of course there are more film institutions out there, but they are not accepted as big as these ones. The ones mentioned here are the 'official mini-majors', but of course there are a lot more, and to list them all would take forever, and moreover be impossible!

Film Institutions - 20th Century Fox

Another of the most famous film institutions is 20th Century Fox, who probably have one of the most famous logos in the industry, that has been parodied many times. 20th Century Fox was founded in 1935, so it was one of the later film institutions, but it has certainly still had a big impact. It is owned by News Corporation, as they also own the Fox television channel, which gets them a lot of their money. The television channel alone produces many classic programs that are loved around the world, and the film side of it just makes it even better! Of course at some point they may consider updating it to '21st Century Fox', but for now they seem to be content with their original name. They tend to make very high budget films, and they try to go all out as far as money is concerned. To a lot of people though, they are not much more than a logo, as they haven't really got any theme parks or anything else to attach their audience to them, but none-the-less they are still very well known.

Famous 20th Century Fox films include: 'Avatar', 'Star Wars', 'Independence Day', 'Home Alone', 'X-Men', 'The Simpsons Movie', 'Ice Age', 'I, Robot', 'Marley and Me', 'Taken', 'Minority Report', 'Prometheus', 'Die Hard', 'Speed', 'Alien', 'Eragon', 'True Lies', 'Titanic', 'Moulin Rouge!', 'Road to Perdition', 'Night at the Museum', 'Austrailia' and much, much more!

Film Institutions - Universal Pictures

Universal Pictures is another of the very well known film institutions, mainly due to the fact that they have a big theme park in America. They were founded in 1912 and were one of the first film institutions. It seems that only the film institutions that were around at the genisis of film making have made it to being the most successful, which makes sense as they've had time to grow. Universal Pictures target a very wide range of audiences and make a very wide range of films. They are just another company that want to make films for the money instead of the art form, which is sad, seeming as film is the only art form where this applies. Possibly in the future films will be a bit more free! They make very high-budget movies, and have been highly successful across the years. They also own Illumination Films and Working Title films, which are key companies in their film making machine. Working Title acts as Universal's attempt to get money out of the British, by giving them about $40-$50m to make a high quality product. This has worked well over the years, producing classics such as 'Love Actually' and 'Notting Hill'. The films tend to include a mostly British cast, but with a few American actors in, in order to appeal more widely to an American audience. Steven Spielberg also uses Universal a lot.

Universal films include: 'Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy', 'E.T', 'Bourne Identity', 'Despicable Me', 'Back to the Future', 'A Beautiful Mind', 'American Graffiti', 'Love Actually', 'Bruce Almighty', 'Jaws', 'American Gangster', 'Mamma Mia!', 'Jurassic Park', 'King Kong', 'Meet the Fockers', 'The Mummy' and much much more!

Film Institutions - Walt Disney Pictures

Walt Disney Pictures is probably the most famous film institution, mainly due to the fact that everyone in Western civilisation grows up with the name embedded into their head. It also has the most famous founder - Walt Disney, who, upon his death asked to be frozen so that when technology advanced enough he could come back to life. He's not had much success yet. Disney traditionally specialises in family movies and animation, but in recent years it has been expanding more into live action. They also own an incredible amount of film institutions: Touchstone Pictures, Pixar, Marvel, and most recently Lucasfilm. Lucasfilm is the most controvertial of these companies as they have decided to extend the Star Wars films to an extra trilogy. This has caused both rage and glee across the fandom, and we will have to wait to see if they can really follow up the success of the previous films. Pixar are, in my opinion, one of the best film institutions in the world, as they consistently make excellent films. They do not make films for money, but rather more for the art form, and they don't make films as often, making every film special. Their films are enjoyable for both children and their parents, making them a real money grabber. Marvel too, are a brilliant way to get money, as they have a huge fan base of all their comic book fans. They, like Pixar, don't bring out loads of films, and instead take their time with each one, but in this case the quality isn't quite so high, but more 'fun'. Through these companies Disney manages to get a huge amount of money, and it is a big factor in their recent success.

Disney films include: 'The Lion King', 'Toy Story 3', 'The Avengers', 'Pirates of the Carribean', 'Beauty and the Beast', 'High School Musical', 'Tangled', 'Thor', 'Finding Nemo', 'Hannah Montana', 'Bambi', 'The Princess and the Frog', 'Alladin', 'A Bug's Life' and much much more!

Film Institutions - Sony Pictures

Sony Pictures is another of the film studios in 'the big six', and although it isn't heard of as much as the others, it does own Columbia Pictures, which is a much more well known company. Another slightly less well known, but still widely appreciated company that they own is Tristar Pictures. Sony is more associated with gaming and hardware, so their film side isn't really as well known. Despite this, they still continually release good films, and they are one of the most highest grossing companies in the world. A lot of their money comes from the fact that people have heard of Sony products, so trust them as a company, and then they also tend to advertise their films through their other products.

Sony Pictures films include: 'Spiderman', 'Men in Black', 'Gladiator', 'The Da Vinci Code', 'Quantum of Solace', 'Hancock', 'The Pursuit of Happyness', 'The Adventures of Tintin, 'The Social Network', 'Bucky Larson: Born to be a Star' and much, much more!

Film Institutions - Paramount

Paramount Studios was founded in 1916 and is one of the oldest film institutions. It is the last film studio that is still headquartered in the traditional film district of Los Angeles, although other film studios do still have studios in LA. It is a division of the American media company 'Viacom'. They have a good partnership with Steven Spielberg - the leading film director in Hollywood, and this is a major reason for their success. They are consistently ranked as one of the highest-grossing film studios in the world. As with Warner Bros, they make a very wide range of films, and will make anything that will sell.

Paramount films include: 'Titanic', 'Transformers' 'Indiana Jones', 'Iron Man', 'Forrest Gump', 'War of the Worlds', 'Mission Impossible', 'Shutter Island', 'Paranormal Activity' and many many more.

Film Institutions - Warner Bros

In the following series of posts I will explain the six major film institutions (the big six), and examine their specialities in the film business. Film institutions are very important as they provide the money for films to be made, and without them, no one would ever get enough money to make a decent budget film. These companies also own studios, which are useful as they are reusable and efficient, and are dedicated to film making. The major problem with film institutions funding a film is that they like to have complete control over the project, and this reduces the amount of creative input. They are all about making money, and this stops film advancing as an art form. Films such as 'The King's Speech' rejected all offers from major production companies in order to keep creative control and keep it independent. However a lot of good films are made by studios and the film business wouldn't be what it is today without these major institutions.

Warner Bros studios was founded in 1903, at the birth of film. It was formed by the four Warner brothers, as the name suggests, and was one of the leading companies in pioneering 'talkie' movies. They also famously started the original 'Looney Tunes', as well as many more successful cartoons. Warner Bros don't really have a speciality in regard to what they do; they have a very wide range of films. They tend to make high budget movies, that get a lot of money, which are released around the world. Their films appeal to a very wide range of audience, as they are all about getting money. They also own New Line Cinema, which is well known for 'The Lord of the Rings' movies.

Previous Warner Bros films include: 'Harry Potter', 'The Departed', 'The Dark Knight', 'Slumdog Millionaire', 'P.S. I Love You', 'Charlie and the Chocolate Factory', 'Troy', 'Blade Runner', 'The Wrong Man', and much more. They are the studio who greats like Clint Eastwood and Alfred Hitchcock used.

Fight Sequence Analysis - Bourne Identity

The Bourne films are notorious for their fast-paced, thrilling fight sequences, and the films were pioneers in advancing the quality of them. Therefore I think that it would be appropriate to analyse a fight sequence from a Bourne film, so that we can get a higher understanding of how to choreograph a good fight sequence. In the preliminary task we had a few fight sequences, but they were very quickly choreographed and we didn't have enough time to work them out properly due to there being loads of fights. This time, however, we can take a lot more time in choreography so that we're ready and we can operate much quicker on the day. We have measured out the lift in Trafalgar Square using a scarf, so that we can choreograph according to the shape which we'll be fighting in.
The first feature that I noticed about this fight sequence is that it is ver gritty and brutal. You can clearly see that the actors are properly getting into it and really throwing themselves at the opposition. This adds an extra degree of realism; without this the whole sequence would lose all it's impact and seem weak and ineffective. We want our characters to be battering eachother as if their life depended on it and they should be physically breaking eachother down in the most brutal ways possible. All the punches and kicks in this fights sequence hit their target or are blocked and there are no hits that obviously miss. This is the biggest mistake in fight sequences - when a blow is supposed to look like it hits but it obviously doesn't even come close. There is clearly none of this in the above clip.
Another interesting part of this fight is the way that Jason Bourne makes use of his surroundings in the fight and will use anything as a weapon. This shows the characters's resourcefulness and shows that they are very professional about what they do, and are very experienced. In this case he manages to use a pen to disarm the character of a knife by stabbing it into the antagonists' hand. It also adds an extra level of brutality to the sequence and it really makes the audience cringe as if they were getting stabbed by a pen. This little part with the pen is dragged out a lot in a good way, to emphasize how he is using the pen, as if he were to use it effectively straightaway, then the audience would be confused as to what just happened. When he picks up the pen there is quite a long time between his hand searching for the pen and when he finally picks it up and takes the lid off. In this very long amount of time, the opposition only manages to run across the room! However, this is only discovered through lengthy analysis, so would not be obvious the first time of viewing. This has to be done to emphasize that he is picking up a pen and that it is going to be of importance later in the fight, without this the audience would be left confused and the pen would lose all it's power as an interesting weapon that shows the cunning of the protagonist.
Normally when I think of fight sequences I assume that it cuts at a rate of about twice a second, so that the audience is caught up in a blur of action. The fast cutting makes it more exciting and seem more fast paced, and this is a technique which I have always employed. However, in this case, there are some very long cuts, and the camera doesn't cut around nearly as much as I thought it would. This is probably because the fight sequence is very well rehearsed, and the actors have been fully trained in fight choreography. We do not have this privelege, which makes it harder for us to keep a long shot going with all the punches looking decent. Quick cuts have, for us, become a necessity, as we have to at least cut every hit in order for every hit to look as if it hit the target. Just one missed punch could ruin the whole sequence. I think I can take away from this that we should definitely rehearse our fight sequences a lot more, and be able to do them fluently and realistically in order for us to get some longer cuts in. Longer cuts here do look a lot more impressive, as it shows just how well choreographed the fight is, and is something that we should aspire to do.
Overall there are a lot of things we can pick up from analysing this fight sequence - trying longer cuts, choreographing fights more intricately, using the environment, playing around with time, fighting brutally with all our strength, and make every blow hit home.

Production Diary - St Dunstan-in-the-East

Here is the video of our location scout at St Dunstan-in-the-East:

Production Diary - Trafalgar Square

Here is a video of what we did whilst location scouting in Trafalgar's Square:

The Other London Locations

We did visit the other London locations on our list, and by the end of a very long, hard-working day we did all of them. They were all stunning locations and looked very cinematic, but we just didn't think that they fitted in with what we were trying to do. St Dunstan-in-the-East looked particularly spectacular, as it was an Anglo-Saxon church that was bombed in the blitz and has now been converted into a garden, with benches and a small fountain. It was a really good location, but it just wasn't what we wanted for our action film. It would of worked very well in a romance or a horror film, but for what we were trying to do in the opening two minutes it just wasn't right.
Canary Wharf was also a very stunning location, as it would have looked very sleek and modern in our film. The station was very modern and looked incredible, but I think that for our film Trafalgar Square is the better bet. Another location to bear in mind for future film projects!
We may yet film on the Hungerford Bridge for a few shots, but this will be decided if we need another location. It would just be for a simple phone conversation, nothing too extravagant, but it looked really good - a mixture of modern architecture and old fashioned industrial railway.

Location Scouting - Horse Guards Parade

Whilst in London, we also visited Horse Guards Parade, to see how it would work as a possible location for the opening two minutes of our film. We visited this after Trafalgar Square.

Horse Guards Parade plays a small part in our film, in fact only a few shots, as it is the other side of a phone conversation between Davidson and his boss Caprivi. This is the Caprivi side. We picked it because it's not too far away from Trafalgar Square and is quite iconic, not to the extent that a worldwide audience would recognise it, but it still looks very high budget. The path way through the arch (lower picture) has a very nice look to it, that would look very good to walk through. The character is being shadowed by an assassin, so it would be a very intimidating place for the assassin to appear behind him. There is a couple of issues with filming here, however, the
main one being that there is a guard that patrols the 'tunnel', and we'll have to try and avoid him if we don't want to get our heads chopped off with a sabre. Fortunately, he does not constantly patrol up and down, but stays at one end for around ten minutes and then switches sides, so we can film it one side at a time, avoiding his gaze. The other main issue with filming here is that there are quite a lot of people passing through the alley. They are mainly tourists, but they could prove to be difficult, and our actor may not like filming in

these circumstances. There are no other major problems associated with filming there, except the obvious restrictions of no reflector boards, boom mics or fake guns. It is convenient to get to, as we will probably film there straight after filming at Trafalgar Square, and it's about 5-10 mins walk away. There will only be a few shots filmed there, but we'll have to be careful what time of day we film there, as we don't want to have completely different lighting crossing between the scenes. To be honest, this location hardly features in the film, but is none-the-less needed, and we thought we might as well pick a location that looks good, even for a couple of shots, as it really brings up our production value.

Location Scouting - Trafalgar Square

Last Saturday we went location scouting around London to see how things looked, how convenient they were, and to assess the possibilities of filming there. The main feature of our trip was Trafalgar Square. Here is my assessment, accompanied by pictures:

Trafalgar Square proved to be a very good location. It has a lot of space in which has endless creative possibilities, and it would work extremely well for our opening two minutes. On the day we went it was slightly damp, which didn't really show it in all its glory, but on film if it is a bad day then we'll simply colour grade it to make it look much better. I think it should be fairly easy to film unnoticed, as there are a lot of people filming there and taking pictures, and I don't think that we'll make much of a difference. We'll just seem like tourists! However this does mean that we wont be able to make use of reflector boards for higher quality lighting, or boom mics for better sound. The camera should be easy to get away with, thanks to our tourist brothers. Just about the entire square is accessible, which makes our creative job easier. There are, of course various rules in place that means we can't swim on the fountains or anything like that, but that's fair enough. We're even allowed to climb on the column! We went on a Saturday, which is a day that tourists may choose to visit, and there weren't too many people around. There were enough to cover up our filming, but not too many so that it was too crowded. Hopefully it'll be like this on the day, so that we can get on



and film without any harassment. Of course, when filming at any place like this, you can never be sure of what it's going to be like on the day. We worked out the scene in detail and even walked the paces of the characters, which was highly useful in gaining a more accurate idea of what was going to happen. An extra bit was even added at the end, which we are very excited about. It involves a short fight scene in a lift that goes from one level of Trafalgar Square to another. We also have had to make minor adjustments to the sequence, such as instead of the man getting shot and falling into the fountain, now only his head falls into the fountain. We framed a few shots, such as when Davidson is coming out of the station underground and Trafalgar Square is established. It turned out that this worked out very well as the underground opened up directly onto the square! Overall this location scout was very successful, and it will play a key part in the success of the filming. I am very glad we went on this trip, as now everything is much clearer.

Film Classifications - 18

18 rated films are the highest rated films on general theatrical release. There is also 18R, but these films are not shown as widely, and are reserved for sex shops and specialised theatres. 18 rated films can go extremely far in regard to violence, sex, language etc, and the boundaries are continually being stretched. Twenty years ago, what is now rated an 18 would have been banned, showing the development of the film industry and the acceptance of some topics being shown on film. 18 rated films are not always pointless sex, violence and swearing, but a lot of 18's have actually won Best Picture Awards, such as American Beauty in 1999. Due to it being the highest film rating, there is a very wide range of what is shown in an 18 film. Some are reasonably mild and only show the odd bit of violence, but others are completely crazy, and go all out in every aspect. Films such as 'Saw' turn film away from an art form, and simply turn it into what is known as 'torture porn', and I personally do not think that these films are needed, as they degrade the art form. For our film 18 may be a little extreme, however if we feel that we'd need to delve into 18 territory to tell the story better, than we shall. The trouble with 18's is that it reduces the audience, and stops the teenage audience going to see the film. Teenagers make up a big part of the film's earnings and without them, the film would lose out on a lot of money. Seeming as our target audience is 16-25, we would lose one fifth of our audience by making it an 18, so I think that it may be inappropriate.

Overall I think that our film should aim for a 15 rating, as it takes it into the 'adult film' world and allows us creative freedom, while still attracting our target audience.

Film Classification - 15

If a film is rated 15, it means that no one over the age of 15 is allowed to view it, even if accompanied by an adult. These films can include more gore, harder swearing, more sexually explicit scenes and more. They tend to be taken more seriously than the lower classifications, as they are primarily aimed at an adult audience, with no attempts to please anyone younger. A lot of films that are aiming for the teenage audience cut out a lot of their violence in order to appeal to a wider audience. 'The Hunger Games' cut out seven seconds of violence in order to stick with its target audience and to allow teenagers to watch it. A similar cut was made in 'Taken 2', which is an interesting example, as the first 'Taken' film was rated '18'. 15 rated films do well because they attract a wide range of audiences, by sacrificing the younger years, they attract far more of the older generations, who, after all, are the ones with the money. This would be a good rating for our film to be, as it could include a fair amount of gore and swearing to make it more realistic, while keeping with our target audience.

Film Classification - 12

12 rated films mean that the audience has to be over 12 to be able to watch it, or they can be accompanied by an adult. These films are a significant step up from 'PG's' as they can include a bit of blood and they are allowed mild swearing. These are the borderline of adult films, as they are the start of getting into more serious topics, but they are still very mild. 12 rated films tend to appeal a lot to a teenage audience, as they allow all teenagers to see it, however this means that an adult audience may be reluctant to go and see it. The James Bond franchise is an exception to this rule, however, as it is an accepted franchise that is loved by all  ages. 'Licence to Kill' was the only Bond film rated higher than a 12, but nowadays would probably be considered a 12.
I think we could consider making a film that would appeal to this classification, but maybe it's a tiny bit too mild for our liking as it cuts down on how much we can show the audience

Film Classifications - PG

'PG' stands for parental guidance, meaning that people under the age of 12 should not watch it without the consent of their parent. PG films are a slight step up from U films in the sense that they can subtly reference drugs and sense and nudity is allowed, but not in a sexual way. PG's are still not very explicit in any way, and are still aimed at a young audience. Again, I do not think that this would be a suitable genre for us to do, as it would not appeal to an adult audience, and they may not think that it is serious enough for them.

Film Classifications - U

When a new film is released, it undergoes a process known as film classification, that gives the audiences an idea of the sort of audience that is recommeded for the film. For example, more violent, swear-heavy films would have a higher rating, as they are not suitable for a young audience. In Britain, films are classified by the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC). In the following series of posts I will go through each of the ratings and talk about what makes a film that rating, and what sort of audience it would attract.

This is the lowest film classificational; it stands for 'Universal' - a universal audience. This means that anyone can watch it, from babies to elderly people, however they tend to be aimed for a very young audience. A lot of U rated films are animation and almost all of them are aimed at the 5-7 audience. There are a few exceptions, such as a few of the Star Wars films are U rated, however they are aimed for a very wide audience. This film classification is very much for family films, and you do not get many thrillers that are made for this age group, especially not serious thrillers, because of their dependance on threat and violence. I don't think our film is rated for a universal audience as it is aimed at a 16-25 audience who may think that watching a U rated is childish, and it would reduce our audience.

Location Scouting Plan

On Saturday, my colleague and I are going location scouting in London. We have explored a few more places around London, and we are going to visit them, to check that they are suitable and filmable. The following is a list of the locations we will visit:

 Trafalgar Square

 Our current first choice for location - an iconic square at the heart of London.

St. Dunstan-in-the-East

 An old church ruin that has been converted into a garden - an eerie garden with a past.

The Embankment

 The Northern bank of the Thames - provided a stunning backdrop of the South Bank

Horse Guards Parade

A high contender to be featured in the film - a great look with a great backdrop. 

The Gherkin

 A wildcard - we'll investigate, but there's not much we'll be expecting.

Hungerford Bridge
Half railway, half modern bridge - an excellent location!

Admirality Arch

 Both stunning and omnipotent - a marvellous piece of architecture!

Canary Wharf Station and Park

The modern side of London - its station is a great example of modern architecture. 

I shall expand on these locations when we have explored them thoroughly, we have explored our train trip as well:

- Waterloo - Northern Line north - Charing Cross
- Embankment - Circle Line East - Monument
- Monument - DLR east - Canary Wharf

While there we will film the locations and take a lot of pictures to be thoroughly prepared for filming there in a few months time.

Naming the Film

A suitable name has been devised for our film: 'Sins of the Martyr', this is a play on the phrase 'sins of the father', and it works well with our plotline.
We have made a quick teaser poster to help us get our heads in a creative mindset.

Opening Two Minutes Synopsis

After numerous discussions with the co-chairman of Enigma Entertainment Ltd, we have decided on a suitable opening two minutes for our film. The setting is Trafalgar Square, the ultimate location in regard to convenience and iconicism.
Agent Davidson is in deep cover with the kidnapping organisation, and is preparing to join them in their latest hit, but the boss hasn't turned up. The target arrives and the timing dictates that the hit must go ahead at that moment. Davidson calls him up, to discover that the boss is running away from an unknown enemy, but the hit must go on.
Davidson and his team advance into the square from different angles, communicating through ear pieces. Suddenly things start going down hill. One of the team is shot by a sniper on a building and the team scatters. Davidson realises that the sniper must be working for the L.E.E, and sees that he has been betrayed, but he does not know why. The kidnapping has failed, and the hit has disappeared in the panic. Davidson runs away and bumps into the boss of the company, who has been shot by an unknown assailant. In his dying moment Davidson reveals to him that he has been working for the L.E.E all along but has been betrayed, and the boss gives him the number of 'someone who could help' before dying.

Although this synopsis is by no means detailed and full, it gives an overall impression of the scene, introducing several enigmas and dragging the audience in from the outset. It appeals to the 16-25 male audience through fast paced, yet intelligent action sequences, and through its twisting plotline. This opening will soon be expanded upon, and storyboards and maps will be drawn up.

Questionnaire Response

Here are the results of our questionnaire, they will be highly useful in tailoring our film to make sure that as many people as possible get what they want out of it. A lot of our creative decisions will be based off these results.

What is your favourite type of action sequence?

 - Chases                                                                  46%

 - Fight Sequences                                                    36%

 - Shoot-outs                                                             18%

 - Other (Please Specify)                                           0%

What is the most important element of an action film?

 - Action Sequences                                                  54%

 - The battle between good and evil                          6%

 - A good-looking, muscular protagonist                   20%

 - Stunning locations                                                  20%

Which of these films do you prefer in relation to fighting style?

 - Sherlock Holmes (2009)                                        10%

 - Bourne Identity                                                      84%

 - The Dark Knight                                                    6%

What trait do you value most in an action film protagonist?

 - Muscle and gunpower                                             24%

 - Technique and cunning                                           46%

 - Good looks                                                              20%

 - Uses militaristic semantics                                       10%

What sort of locations do you prefer in action films?

 - Iconic buildings                                                        72%

 - Iconic landscapes                                                      15%

 - Small scale locations with their own personality       13%

 - Large scale landscapes                                              0%

In an action film would you sacrifice realism for spectacle?

 - Yes                                                                            97%

 - No                                                                              3%

What do you expect to take away with you from an action film?

 - A profound moral message                                         5%

 - An enjoyable spectacle                                               75%

 - An inspiration to achieve greatness                             5%

 - A jealousy for the life of the protagonist                     15%

Questionnaire - Action Films

We have created a questionnaire in order to find out what people want out of an action film, and what they would enjoy. We haven't given much choice for the questions because we would like to see what they would chose out of the options available, in order to narrow down our creative choices.

What is your favourite type of action sequence?
 - Chases
 - Fight Sequences
 - Shoot-outs
 - Other (Please Specify)

What is the most important element of an action film?
 - Action Sequences
 - The battle between good and evil
 - A good-looking, muscular protagonist
 - Stunning locations

Which of these films do you prefer in relation to fighting style?
 - Sherlock Holmes (2009)
 - Bourne Identity
 - The Dark Knight

What trait do you value most in an action film protagonist?
 - Muscle and gunpower
 - Technique and cunning
 - Good looks
 - Uses militaristic semantics

What sort of locations do you prefer in action films?
 - Iconic buildings
 - Iconic landscapes
 - Small scale locations with their own personality
 - Large scale landscapes

In an action film would you sacrifice realism for spectacle?
 - Yes
 - No

What do you expect to take away with you from an action film?
 - A profound moral message
 - An enjoyable spectacle
 - An inspiration to achieve greatness
 - A jealousy for the life of the protagonist

Film Treatment

"Untitled Nick & Pip Action Spy Thriller Project"

 

Directed by Nicholas Ashurst & Philip Smith

 

Based On A Story by Nicholas Ashurst & Philip Smith

 

Starring

Lee Davidson

Philip Smith

Zubin Parekh

Richard Young

James Richardson

Nicholas Ashurst

A British agent (Lee Davidson), operating for the "L.E.E.", is sent into deep cover with a terrorist organisation, run by an international kidnapper (Philip Smith), where he must foil their plan to capture a person of great interest (Zubin Parekh) to the agency.

The mission brings them to London, where they attempt to seize the target, however the kidnappers are swiftly eliminated by an unknown assailant (James Richardson), and the target goes missing. Seemingly betrayed by the men he once trusted, Agent Davidson must work on both sides of the law to bring the right man to justice and to discover the truth, taking his adventure across the globe.

From Moscow to Rio, his journey will explore the the dark underworld of international terrorism, and political corruption of familiar territory.  Nicholas Ashurst and Richard Young co-star in the much anticipated feature film from the visionaries that brought you 'Love, Lies & Venice', 'FRANCE 24' and 'The Nero Complex'.

The target demographic for this sweeping blockbuster is the 16-25 male audience, who will be drawn in by the fast-paced action sequences, exotic locations and twisting plotline. The throbbing muscles of the lead protagonist are enough to make the toughest woman swoon, and the romantic slant is both unconventional and heart melting. Fans of the directors' previous works will be fighting for front row seats upon the release of the most anticipated motion picture of the year.

Location Scouting Within London

London is a gold mine of locations, most notably, of course, the big, world-famous tourist attractions that are recognised and acknowledged by millions. If we film in one of these locations, the production value sky-rockets, and the whole film looks so much better than ever before. Filming in these locations does give us certain restraints such as not being able to use fake guns, or do anything too extreme, as well as having to film very subtly so as not to attract too much attention.

Trafalgar Square

Trafalgar Square is very iconic, and also very film friendly. There are so many tourists filming in Trafalgar Square that we would not be noticed at all, and the surrounding people would not draw attention to themselves. It also can be filmed from any angle and still look spectacular, meaning that we are not restricted in where we point the camera. There are so many opportunities in Trafalgar Square, which definitely outweigh the obvious restraints. I think that it would make a brilliant location, and I'm definitely putting it high on our list of locations.

St Pancras Station / High Speed trains

St Pancras Station is one of the more dramatic looking stations in London, due to it's two layers, high ceiling and it's just general good looks. In addition to this, it is the home of Londons high speed trains, which not only look stunning from the outside, but also have a very classy interior. If we were planning on any conversations in trains, this would be the place to come. We're not going to use the standard public transport, as it tends to be riddled with graffiti and vandalism, which doesn't look very good for what we're trying to portray. Obviously, this is yet another location that would be impossible to shoot gun sequences in, but it's a decent location for dialogue scenes. Of course, it is also very accessable, seeming as it is a station...

Hyde Park

Hyde park is a much more open environment in which to film, and we would not get as much distraction from the public, or low quality sound. It also looks very impressive, and is iconic. The Albert memorial and the Royal Albert Hall would serve as a strong backdrop for any scene. The park also looks like a much friendlier environment, and would be an excellent contrast to a more industrial location; letting the audience breathe. Also, the flowers and gardens would lull the audience into a false sense of security that could work very well in creating suspence.

Location Scouting - Outside London Part 2

A few more locations outside London that would be good to film an action/ thriller in:

Fullers Earth Works

This location is incredible - a deserted factory less than an hour away! It is the perfect setting for an action sequence, following the conventions of the Terminator films and many episodes of 24. There is so much potential for brilliant film making here, but there are a few problems: it's due for destruction very soon and has a risk of asbestos, which of course makes it dangerous. We could use this location, but we'd have to be very careful, and have to make sure we got it all filmed in one day, which could be very hard.

Robins Cinema

This location is an abandoned cinema, which looks extremely good! It is easy to imagine a shootout taking place between aisles and chairs in the empty, run down cinema, and it would make a very cool location. It's also a very interesting location; audiences would be stunned by the creativity of filming in a disused cinema, and this would work very nicely. The downside is that is takes a fair bit of scrambling over rubble to get to, and the lighting could become an issue...otherwise, it's a very fine location indeed!

St Peter's Mortuary

It may be a little creepy filming in a disused mortuary, and a few of the people I was planning to shoot with are a little unwilling, but this is a really good location! It's practically just been deserted, leaving everything the way it should be, which is good for an interrogation scene, or something like that. However there is an obvious issue about filming where the dead have been kept, and I can hardly ask my lead actor to lie on a mortuary operating table. The location is very good otherwise, totally accessible, legal and cinematic!

Location Scouting - Outside London Part 1

As I have mentioned in a previous post, locations are key in the success of a film, especially a thriller, therefore I'm going to scout out various cinematic locations close by. It may seem strange to location scout before having a solid idea, but it's good to know what's available...even Steven Spielberg confesses to changing many things according to location! These locations have to look great and cinematic, but they also have to be easy to film at. It would be hard to film at a place where you need a guided tour and many places ban video cameras, however, in some locations we could film without looking too conspicuous, and although they are busy we would just look like tourists! I shall do a seperate post for the London locations.

Waverly Abbey

Waverly Abbey is a group of decent size ruins in west Surrey, that look incredible! Their cinematic potential is very high, and they have, in fact, been used in a number of high budget films such as '28 Days Later'. This is the sort of place which, if used effectively, would definitely boost the production value. The Abbey is free of entry, has no one 'guarding' it, and doesn't get many tourists. I have seen a video on youtube with people climbing all over it...it's practically been left to rot. It is about half an hours walk away fromt the train station, which is convenient for transportation, and is the opposite direction from the city, making it very secluded. In other words, it is very practical to film at and looks great! A perfect location for the right scene!

Bognor Regis Beach

Bognor Regis seems like the perfect seaside town, and this is a very good attribute for a film. When people see a beach in a film, they don't want to see a random beach, they want to see what they think a beach should look like. Bognor Regis isn't far away on train, and the train station is practically on the sea shore. In summer it is crowded with tourists, but we're filming in the winter, when it will be just about empty, meaning we can do whatever we want. It's practical to film at, and it looks great. Yet another brilliant location!

Frensham Pond

 

Frensham Pond is in Farnham, which is about an hour and a half away by train. The pond, which is practically just a big lake, has a very eerie look to it, and it would make an excellent location for a film. It is relatively easy to access, and it quite empty at the right times, such as winter, which is when we're filming! The only problem is that it doesn't really look like the setting for an action film, more of a horror film, however for the right scenes it could work admirably.

A Low Budget Thriller

Thrillers are notoriously a very high budget genre, and with this in mind, for the thriller to be successful, it needs to look expensive. Obviously, we do not have the money to make a high budget, explosive thriller, so we must figure out ways to make it look much more high budget than it actually is. To do this we must avoid trying to include things that involve destruction and explosives, and focus on good film making, in order to not look like we're trying and failing, but instead look as if we know what we're doing. Therefore we must very carefully plan out a suitable story, that could be filmed on a low budget, but could look as if it was filmed on a much higher one. In the world of successful thrillers it's all about production value.

An easy way to boost this production value is location. No one wants to see a film that is filmed in the director's back garden or bedroom, and they don't want to see a film that was filmed in the directors school either. Of course, schools are used a lot as locations, but they are very idealistic schools, and most schools just don't look 'cinematic' enough. Our school especially does not look even the tiniest bit cinematic. Even if houses and schools are avoided, it would still look cheap to film down the local high street, as, once again most of them do not look 'cinematic' enough, and once again, it's a very cheap look. If you were to take a look at the latest Bond film 'Skyfall', you'd realise that most of the locations were very exotic, and there's not a single scene in the film that is filmed somewhere less than spectacular. This is a convention of most thrillers, that must be followed. Location scouting, therefore, becomes a key part of making the film, and is something that I'm going to focus on very keenly. So if I've crossed off all the obvious, amateur-cliche, 'uncinematic' places, then that means that I'm goign to have to go further afield in order to make this film well. My mind is drawn straight to London, which is a mere 45 minutes away on the train. London has many extremely iconic locations, and just one of them would boost the production value considerably. I shall definitely put it under consideration! The only problem is that most thrillers require weaponry, and I'm not planning on pulling out fake guns in the middle of London, so if we were to film in London, then I'll have to adapt the opening scene to suit it. I shall discuss locations further in a later post.

Another way to boost the production value is the acting. The fact is, picking actors out of friends is never going to be the same as having Hollywood actors, so the acting needs to be both easy and minimal. If they're not good actors, then the obvious option is to give them an easy part, and a small part. Give the bigger parts to the better actors, and adapt the parts to suit them. To get around this acting dilemma, I'm also going to make sure that there isn't much acting needed, just following people, or getting punched, or waiting...simple things like that. I'm not planning to give them roles that the greatest actors would struggle to play!

Yet another way to boost the value is to play on my strengths. I know what I can and can't do, and I know what I can and can't afford. For example, if I had a car that was going to the dump anyway, I'd have a scene which involves a car being destroyed, which would look incredibly high budget, but it would actually cost me nothing! I'll have to think over what these strengths are. I also already own a lot of film making equipment, so I can use this to my strength. I am very adept with using Final Cut Studio, so I will edit my film on that instead of the school's option of Adobe Premiere. Personally I prefer Final Cut as well...I shall discuss it in a later post.

I've found three solid ways to boost my production value, and I am sure to think of more! This is a very good start, because if it looks as if it's expensive, it'll look much better. I don't want my audience knowing that it was done by an amateur, and I don't want them thinking about what's wrong with it, such as a shaky camera, bad match-on-action, or some stupid cheap errors. I want them to be thinking about it in the way they would think about any film: about the storyline, and what's good. With many amateur films I find myself thinking about what's bad about it, but I want my audience to be thinking what's good!

Moodboard - Action Film

This moodboard should help us to come up with ideas for our action film and get the creative juices running.

Choosing a Genre

When picking a genre for our opening two minutes we had to be very careful in making sure that it we picked the right genre. A lot of genres cannot be done well on a low budget, and some require a very experienced and refined film making ability to be able to execute effectively. The obvious film genres are:

- Action

- Animation

- Biopic

- Comedy

- Crime

- Documentary

- Drama

- Horror

- Musical

- Period & Historical

- Romance

- Science Fiction

- Fantasy

- Thriller

- War 

- Westerns 

I decided that from this list I should eliminate animation, biopic, comedy, documentary, horror, musical, period & historical, romance, science fiction, fantasy, war and westerns...which is almost the entire list! I shall explain my reasoning:

Animation
Animation is a very hard genre on a low budget simply because of the very specific set of skills it needs to work it. I have a very low skills set in the area of animation; I can manage rough CGI against live action, but to make a wholly animated film would take a lot more. There is only really one way in which I could do animation, and that is by doing claymation - using plasticine and taking pictures, then moving the model, then taking another picture and so on. The is very time consuming, and at a low budget it wouldn't look very good anyway. Therefore I am not doing animation.

Biopic
Once again, I can't do a biopic thanks to practicality. They require a very specific storyline, and the locations and actors are also very specific, which, not only limits my creativity, but also is extremely high budget. I could only really get it to work if I chose the person very carefully, and kept it very closed up in a house or somewhere. I don't really want this sort of limit, so therefore I am not doing a biopic.

Comedy
Comedies have to be funny. If they're not funny, they're not good, and if they're not good then I don't want to make one. It's really that simple. They can be made on a low budget, and technically they are easy, but it's just the small issue of having to make it funny that brings it down. Therefore I am not doing a comedy!

Documentary
A documentary would be very easy to make; they could be about anything! That's exactly why I don't want to do a documentary! I don't want to do a genre that is too easy, and isn't very interesting anyway. Documentaries limit your creativity more than any other genre, and I don't want that sort of limit. Mockumentaries would appeal to me a little more, as they aren't true, and it would be fun, but once again it comes back to the issue of making it funny...

Horror
A lot of people are choosing to do horror, and I think that it's the worst genre possible to choose. I'd rather do animation then horror. They are very very very hard to make, and make well. Even in the professional film business horrors are hard to make very well, and very few of them receive critical acclaim, and the ones that do are hybrids of other genres, like in 'The Silence of the Lambs'. Horror films have to have a scare factor otherwise they are not successful, and when it comes to amateur teenagers trying to scare an audience, the success rate is not very high. It would fall back far to heavily on cliches, and would lack a personal flourish to it, which is essential in being successful. I have seen a great many amateur horror films fail drastically, and this is not a route I want to take. Finally, for an amateur film maker, horror films are the most cliche genre. They look as cheap as they are.

Musical
We could do a musical, except for the fact that we have to write our own songs, perform them, record a backing track, choreograph dance sequences on top of making an AS level film...

Period & Historical
These are some of the most expensive genres around. Every tiny detail has to be in tune with the period in which the film is set, and that requires huge amounts of money! Just think about how much a quality feather pen would be, to have as a tiny, yet essential detail in a scene! The only way we could do this would be to go into a forest and hire out some costumes, which both limits our creativity and still costs a fair amount of money. It also includes a lot of research into language, culture, clothing etc, and would take a lot more planning than the time available. As much as I would like to make a period or historical film, it is just unfeasible.

Romance
Romance genres are a possibility, but I don't really want to do one as I'm not a huge fan of the genre anyway, and it would not garner enough enthusiasm from me. I don't think I would be able to show enough film making techniques, and I don't think it would stretch me enough. Also, kissing scenes could be very awkward to watch and film, and sex scenes are out of the question.

Science Fiction
Science fiction is a very expensive genre. It requires a lot of SFX and money, and although I can handle a small amount of CGI, I don't think I could handle a full on science fiction film. I don't want our film to look cheap, and I think that by doing science fiction it would look very very cheap.

Fantasy
Expensive.

War
Expensive.

Westerns
Expensive.

So overall it comes down to budget and skill. Skill not just of the film maker, but of the actors and the composer and the animator. With these out of the way the genres I have left are:

- Action

- Crime

- Drama

- Thriller

Between these genres I think I will choose to do a thriller, as they are a challenge, but not an impossible one. They can look great, even at a low budget, and if I do it well, I think it could be a real success! 

Preliminary Task Evaluation

For our preliminary task we wanted to do something a bit more exciting then just walking in a room and having a few lines of dialogue. Although it does include these features several times, it also has a lot more to it. We wanted to run some tests in preparation for our opening two minutes, which included testing out several fights scenes, so to kill two birds with one stone, we integrated a few fights scenes into our preliminary task.
The film was shot in eight hours, and editing is taking considerably longer, due to the complexity of the piece. Obviously the main difficulty we encountered was choreographing fight sequences, shooting them from several angles and all the while keeping it safe. I have had a bit of training in cinematic fight choreographing, so I rose to the challenge of the numerous sequences that the film entailed. Each fight had it's own unique feel to test out different styles, so each one had it's seperate challenges.
The first fight was a fairly standard, Bourne-style fight, with punches and pushes. It was shot down the side of a house in a very closed in alley, that allowed a lot of pushing into walls and gave it a claustrophobic feel. Despite its fairly conventional approach it was still a challenge to work out how the fight would progress, and how the protagonist would overcome the antagonist. The hardest part of the fight was when I am thrown into the piece of wood, and then I hit Lee (our lead) with the wood. This was hard as the wood was very solid, and was painful to hit at the sort of pace we were looking for. We had to put padding up our sleeves in order to avoid any major bruises, we had to move at a slightly slower pace. However this pace was sped up in editing by the removal of a few frames just before the hit. I used this technique for most of the hits in the sequence, and it made the hits look much more brutal. I am particularly proud of the first punch thrown, as this looks incredibly realistic. It looked very brutal without any editing at all, but once I removed some of the frames it looked very painful.
The next scene was a lot easier as the fight wasn't so long and was much more one sided, with a quick resolution. This meant that we did not have to choreograph as much and it wasn't too much hard work for our lead actor who was already tired from his previous fight scene. I kept the editing tight for the take-out of the roof guard, and tried to keep the disarming manouvre to a beat, so it was very fast paced and very stylish. The more that is cut out of a fight, the faster it is.
I really enjoy the next scene as it looks visually striking and is a very exciting scene. It was interesting trying to come up with a scene using guns instead of just a usual fist fight, and it was challenging trying to keep it exciting despite the distance between the shooters. In the edit it was slightly faster then I intended and is over in just over ten seconds, which, although disappointingly short, nonetheless is one of the most brilliant scenes in the film. To give the scene its cinematic realism I added some muzzle flashes to the guns, as without them the guns looked fake and were awkward to watch. The muzzle flashes are no entirely realistic, and they do not always look great, but on such a low budget they worked, and were much better than just leaving the guns. One big thing that I feel we need to work on is our gun recoils. When the guns fire, the actors' reaction is not entirely realistic, and I think that before we film our opening two minutes we need a training day on gun recoils.
The next scene in the bathroom offered both the audience and the character time to recover from the rollercoaster opening of the film. A slightly comedic element can be found in the shot of Agent Davidson fixing his hair in the middle of an infiltration. Another reason for this scene was that we needed to prove obviously that we could execute match on action effectively through opening a door. I had noticed in a lot of other peoples preliminary tasks, the smoothness of the transition between grabbing the door handle in one shot, and opening in the next was weak, as it was not fast enough. In reality, opening a door does not take long at all, and I think a lot of people assumed it needed much longer. Not only does this detract from the action, but it looks bad. I think in ours we 'opened the door' effectively, and we used the close-up to pick up the pace again and throw the audience back into the action.
The next kill is very comedic - a terrorist wearing a balaclava to the shower? From here the film takes a very comedic twist, and becomes much more fun. I confess that this was not entirely intentional, but the arrival of a new cast/crew member opened limitless comedic possibilities, and from then it just seemed right that the film should slowly become more and more absurd. The final scene was planned to be exactly what it became, but originally we had no comedy building up to it, but we decided that it needed a bit of justification for the genre switch, as turning comedic suddenly might ruin it and lose the audience. Therefore we slowly drip fed our audience comedic moments, and we slowly built up how close together they were and how absurd they were. In our final piece we do not intend to include any comedy whatsoever, so it was nice to try out this genre, and explore its possibilities while we could.
The following fight was the hardest fight yet, as it required the highest physical endurance from both actors. The knife at the start of the fight broke several times, until by the end there was only half a blade. It was not a real knife, of course, but a fake, poundland knife that was obviously going to break very easily. We should probably have thought that through beforehand. The fight didn't turn out nearly as well as we had hoped, as we could never film the fight all the way through with no mistakes, due to its complexity. This meant that in the editing process it was hard to link, so we had to use the jenga sequence as a cutaway. Another problem that we encountered with this sequence was that the acting went slightly downhill. The characters moved too slowly, a lot of their punches looked to fake, and the reactions to the punches were delayed. This took a lot of editing to get around and to make it look decent. I used cutaways downstairs a few times to get around unusable areas.
I think the next scene is one of my favourites in the film. I think that the comedy works really well, especially with the use of the Russian national anthem, that goes away as soon as the antagonists get shot on the stairs. We had to shoot this a few times (no pun intended), as it took a fair amount of commitment and trust to fall down the stairs onto each other. The shots of Agent Davidson walking down the stairs are the only shots in the film that involved a tripod, as our entire film crew had just been shot on the stairwell.
The kitchen fight was definitely our most creative fight sequence, but also our most dangerous. Seeming as it involved using kitchen tools that could cause injury, we shot this scene in parts. Unfortunately this affected continuity, and sometimes it looks a little disjointed, however it is never too much of an issue. I am particularly proud of the part where Agent Davidson picks up the meat forks and uses them as 'claws', as this looks very cool, and is just the sort of idea that would be used in professional action movies. I also love the shot where we placed the camera on the trolley as it was thrown across the room, and I think this is a very creative shot.
Finally we come to our dialogue sequence. For this we wanted some very mysterious lighting, and I like the way that Agent Davidson is backlit in a silhouette, but also holds the torch. It looks very mysterious, and frames him in what is sometimes known as a 'hero shot'. The professor is lit very naturally by Davidson's torchlight, so the audience only sees what the protagonist sees. However this low lighting mixed with the non-HD format resulted in lines moving across the screen which is annoying, but it's only a minor issue.
The finale was relatively easy to shoot, as we were used to fight sequences by then, so it only took about ten minutes to choreograph.What made it hard was the level of endurance required. It was extremely hot in a monkey suit and a balaclava, and so we couldn't run it through as many times as we would of liked, simply because of how much hard work it was. We were all very tired at this point, and we needed to shoot it within the hour. Fortunately, in that time we managed to get most of the shots that we wanted, and there were no major continuity errors that we needed to sort out in post. I was worried that there was a lack of shots, but when it came to editing, it turned out that it was fine. Strangely, when I exported the sequence the music had slightly adjusted itself so it wasn't how I wanted, but I didn't mind too much, and I couldn't find a way to fix it.
In conclusion I think that our preliminary task was a big success, as we demonstrated a keen understanding of the film makign process, and we did it creatively. Our major criticism was the length of it, as none of the others exceeded even half its length, but I don't think it's an issue, as we did what we wanted, and we tested out a lot of things that would be vital in the success of our final piece.