I am evaluating these short films on the following criteria:
The candidate's use of technical skills:
- awareness of conventions of layout and page design
- awareness of the need for variety in fonts and text size
- accurate use of language and register
- the appropriate use of ICT for the task set
- appropriate integration of illustration and text
- framing a shot, using a variety of shot distances as appropriate
- shooting material appropriate to the task set; selecting mise-en-scène including colour, figure, lighting, objects and setting
- manipulating photographs as appropriate, including cropping and resizing.
The levelling for these technical skills are as follows:
Level 1 (0-3 Marks) - Work is likely to be unfinished. There is evidence of minimal ability in the creative use of any of the technical skills.
Level 2 (4-6 Marks) - There is evidence of basic ability in the creative use of some of the technical skills.
Level 3 (7-8 Marks) - The candidate is expected to demonstrate proficiency in the creative use of most of the technical skills.
Level 4 (9-10 Marks) - The candidate is expected to demonstrate excellence in the creative use of most of the technical skills.
Lewis Underwood's Ancillary Tasks
|
|
In regard to the review I really consider the layout, range of font sizes, language, ICT, integration of illustrations and text, and manipulating of photos shows a proficient use of technical skills and the range of shots I believe only shows a basic level of creativity, compare to the poster it doesn't have the same house style or synergy. Though it contains all the codes & conventions for a film review it doesn't have a similar professional quality that the posted as compared to it's counterparts.
Graham Forward's Ancillary Tasks
|
|
I have a similar problem with the layout and design of the review it doesn't look professional or contains the traditional code & convention that I have associated with a film review. The background is one solid colour, there is not a large image that contains most of the page, the text is interspersed and erratic - the design is not professional and the layout or structure does not abide by the traditional conventions of a review.
Daniel Parslow's Ancillary Tasks
|
|
I believe that the review is a level 2 as the design and layout does not abide by the traditional for that is used in film review magazines and shows a basic level of creativity which is the same for the use of ICT, integration of images and text, shot types, mise en scène and manipulation of photographs. however I did awards a proficient understanding for the use of different font sizes and the language that has been used to write a review, for immediate the writing reflected a similar yet unrefined style of review that is not traditional of a magazine's writing style.
Steven Jones' Ancillary Tasks
|
|
When evaluating the film review I consider the layout to be showing a proficient use and understanding of the codes & conventions that are traditional for magazine review. A proficient uses also been shown to the use of the language, ICT, integration of illustrations and text, mise en scène, and the manipulation of photographs. However the use of font shows an excellent understanding of the differences in Sideys relativity the importance of the information, on the other hand the choice of s shows a basic level of creativity.
Laura Budden's Ancillary Tasks
|
|
When evaluating the review however I believe it only shows a minimal level of creativity, the use font, ICT, shop types and mise en scène all, I believe show a minimal capability and creativity in regards to creating a magazine style. However the layout, language, ICT, range of shot types, and the manipulation of photo, I believe show basic level of creativity and therefore I considered this review to be at the top of a level 1. from me this review is the professional quality to rip there is traditional for magazine review at the amount of content is limited which indicates that it is of a minimal unfinished quality, that is associated with the level one.
After my evaluation of the ancillary tasks from the short film brief, I have come to the conclusion that the areas that are the strongest in terms of the creation of the poster are the layout, ICT, shot types, and manipulation of photos. However the areas that I believe I need to focus on as much as the others are the use of language and the integration of illustration and text. When I was evaluating the posters these are the areas that I consider need more work to create a professional feel, need as much consideration as the layout, ICT, shot types and manipulation of photos have.
In regards to the review of the areas that I consider to be the strongest are the use of font, language, ICT, and the integration of illustrations and text. However the areas that I believe I need to consider when creating my review, as much as the other areas are the inclusion of different shot types and the mise en scène of the shots, to create a professional and coherent review that buys by the traditional codes & conventions of a magazine review.