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 geodemographic. 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.