The aim of this questionnaire was to gather the comments of my audience to see what could be changed and improved in my film. A small sample was used, as it was a focus group, but the benefit of this is that the answers were fairly consistent and it was an overall opinion.
   The first two questions asked whether the film seemed like an introduction and whether it seemed like a social realism introduction. Luckily there was a unanimous decision by which all participants thought it was a like a social realism introduction. The question also required explanation as to why they thought it was a social realism film. The responses were, fairly similar in the sense most wrote because it had “naturalistic elements” such as lighting, and locations it was filmed. Another was how the introduction seemed integrated music, titles and shots, much like how a real social realism film would.
   The third question asked whether there were any serious flaws in my film. Again there was a fairly unanimous decision, but some flaws included that the final shot was bad as you could see a reflection of the tripod. Another point one participant didn’t approve of was the music. He believed that the music didn’t work well as it was too loud, and the use of it wasn’t clear. However, no one else believed this to be true, so to compensate I will continue to use the same track but at a decreased volume, so it isn’t too prominent.
   For the fourth question, the film received a lot of criticism. Every participant picked up something they did not like. The question was to find out whether the audience thought there were any unnecessary shots. Two shots were identified by from the responses. Most believed there were too many shots of the game being played, and that “it dragged it out for too long”. The second shot that received criticism was the final shot of the protagonist walking into the school which again “dragged the film out”. The final shot identified was beneficial because this meant I could delete it, as it was criticised earlier on in the questionnaire.
   The next question enquired as to whether the audience thought the sound worked well with the film. The majority of answers were yes, but some picked up on the fact that the speech within the film was too quiet, and the music drowned it out too much. They also commented that the argument didn’t sound “distance enough” as in the argument is supposed to take place downstairs, but it sounds like its just outside the door. Sound was also highlighted earlier in the questionnaire, meaning that this is the area that requires the most attention.
   The sixth and seventh question asked about the production titles, and the credits that come up during the introduction. The production titles received no criticism, which is a positive, however the same was not said about the credits. Every participant picked up on a flaw with the titles. The main one being that it didn’t flow with the pace of the music (the music is quite fast pace, but the titles fade in and out very slowly). Fewer participants commented on the positioning of the titles, as in some believed the titles should have been placed n another shot.
   From the analysis, flaws in my film that may have not been seen are now identified thanks to the questionnaire. It is also a good way to reach the demographic decided upon in the first questionnaire. Finally the fact that the participants were the film’s demographic, means that the improvements and changes that have been highlighted are very significant, as they are the people who would consume the film, it should therefore be tweaked to their liking.