This week I was not directly involved in the production of WINOL, however I watched it when it was aired and thought that it was a huge improvement from the dummy edition, although there were still things which could be improved. Each week I will be posting a critical reflection about WINOL. I will critique each section of the bulletin explain which parts I thought were good and which could be improved.
Headlines: I think that the headlines, particularly the footage of the protest worked well because you were still able to hear the natural sound as well as being able to hear Cara saying the headlines. I also thought that the strap lines were much better as they were bigger and bolder than previously which made them easier to read, without distracting the viewer from the footage. I also thought the footage of the goal was great to use in the headlines because if it had just been footage of match it would have been unlikely to get the viewers attention.
Strikes: I thought that the scripting for the introduction about the Southampton strikes story was very good because it didn't over complicate it at all. I liked how the package started with the natural sound of car horns, air horns, etc because it allowed the viewer to become almost involved in the heightened atmosphere. The interview with Mike Turner was well framed and you could hear him clearly despite the noise in the background. My only criticism would be that the strap line said he was from 'Unison', although there was nothing which explained what Unison was so that caused some confusion.
I thought it was a good idea to interview the man who had been blowing the conch, because when watching the footage he seemed like the most interesting man because it is unusual to be blowing a conch in the centre of Southampton. However, his strap line only said that his name was 'Jeremy' and that he was a social worker. It was explained in the debrief that the man did not want to give his last name, and Brian then stated that if this is the case then you cannot use his interview. Just having 'Jeremy' in the strap line looked unprofessional and could have also caused confusion to the viewer who may have been wondering if he had been shown before, or was important enough to be known only by his first name.
The interview with Cllr Jeremy Moulton was well framed and the quality of sound was good, and my only criticism would be that perhaps there needed to be more of an explanation of what his job is and why he was relevant to interview about the strikes.
Lecturer strikes: I thought the footage of students walking around at the start of this piece with Tom's voice over was good because it was something to keep the viewer interested as he talked. I liked his piece to camera, and he had definitely taken on board what Chris had told us about keeping our hands moving, which looked professional. However, I also thought that he could have cut down his piece to camera a bit. He could also have been walking in his pieces to camera to make them a bit more interesting for the viewer.
The interview with Eric Silverman was good because he was a relevant person to talk to about the effects the strike would have. It was good that the shot was de-centered, although it could have been a close up instead of a mid shot to make it look a bit more professional. The cut aways through the interview which showed Silverman talking to someone were confusing because it was not clear who he was talking to, and whether or not the sound was him talking in the interview or was now him talking to someone else. It would have been better to have cutaways of something else, although it is understandable there were not a lot of other shots that would have made sense with the story that Tom had not used already.
Budget Cut: I thought the footage of the high street at the start of this piece were very good, as was Lou's voice over. The interview with Michelle Price was relevant but the camera was looking down on her when it should always be at eye level. Also, it would have looked better if it was a head and shoulder shot rather than seeing her sitting in a chair. The cut aways of inside the care home were slightly confused and almost conflicted with the point of the story. Price was talking about how little money the home already receives, but we were being shown a room with a flat screen TV with no one watching, and three flat screen computers with no one using them. This almost gave the impression of luxury goods in the care home that are not even being used, which conflicts with Price's complaint that they do not receive enough funding.
The interview with George Beckett was good in the sense that it was a relevant person to interview, and he had a brilliant voice for video. However the framing was not consistent with the rule of thirds, it needed to be de-centered.
Lou's piece to camera was good because he was de-centred and you could clearly hear him. However, he kept looking down which made him look a bit shifty and unprofessional. Also, the cut away to the bed was confusing and perhaps unnecessary.
Sport: The footage of the football was really good because you were able to see the goals, which is the most important part. The natural sound was brilliant, and you were still able to hear the voice over at the same time. The only criticism would be the pole that was in shot, however this may have been unavoidable.
The ice hockey footage was also very good, and the replay of the goal looked really professional. However, the footage went on for quite a long time and the commentary became confusing.
I thought that the handover from sport back to news was too a bit jokey and was unprofessional for a news programme.
Antarctica: I thought that the voice over the pictures of Antarctica was really good because it was simple and allowed the viewer to absorb the images without being confused by the reporter's voice.
The interview with Kevin Saw was completely relevant and well framed, although the strap line could have appeared quicker because we see him before we know who he is. Like in Tom's piece, the cut aways in this package which showed the same person were extremely confusing, especially as he was in the same place in the cut aways as he was during the interview. It would have been better to film some of the equipment or just general views around the lab.
The second interview in the package with Dr Ed Waugh was well framed because he was looking the opposite way to Saw in the first interview.
Presenter: I thought that Cara did an amazing job as presenter this week. She had a clear voice and a good pace throughout the whole bulletin. The only thing that could be improved would be if she pinned her fringe back because it was covering her eye for majority of the bulletin.
No comments:
Post a Comment