Analysing Past Students Work Q1-10

I would give their thriller a Level 3. Listed below are a series of comments and criticisms of the film and why I feel it deserves a Level 3:

1. There were a variety of shot distances used eg; close-ups and mid-shots. However, I would have liked to have seen more shots taken from further distances so that there is a greater variety of shot distances used

2. There were a large number of jump cuts used, which I felt were appropriate for a thriller, but I think it should've had a transition where the shot fades in/out to work with the thrilling elements of the film.

3. There was some dark, unsettling music used in the film which relates well to the thriller codes and conventions, but it didn't sound climatic enough, so as it came close to the end of the film, I wasn't expecting anything surprising (or thrilling) to happen.

4. Natural lighting was used, and this is typical of most thrillers in terms of micro-elements, which makes this thriller exceptional.

I would give their research and planning a level 3. Here are some reasons why:

1. Their analysis of thriller codes and conventions was of a high standard, but they should have analysed more thriller films so that their research would have gone into greater detail.

2. Their organisation when it came to bringing in props for their filming was sub-standard, because they didn't remember to bring them in. They should have had a discussion and shared the responsibilities and been responsible for their own props and what they brought in. If they had been, I would have given them more marks.

3. The level of presentation for their posts is really good, as they are colourful and work with different fonts, which makes them easier to analyse.