Synopsis Draft 2: Questionnaire Analysis I had four people read and answer sixteen questions on the second draft

of the synopsis. The feedback I have received from participants should provide the basis for my third draft. Question One Did you read the synopsis in one sitting?
Yes No

Writing this question, I intended to establish whether or not the Synopsis was being read as it was intended. I felt it important that this synopsis should read fluidly from scene to scene, in one sitting, much like how a short film is watched. The continuity between scenes is vital in short films, given that every scene is supposed to carry the story on somewhat; it is therefore good that all my participants read it as such, giving.

Question Two: How many times did you read it? If more than once, did you understand what
was happening in it as you read it?

Once Twice

The whole purpose of this question was to attain how well I conveyed the Story of my short film through writing. Other questions address this in the questionnaire, though this is the most general one. Ideally, participants would not have to have read the synopsis more than once, as I wanted it to be as visual and easy to understand. It is therefore good that nearly all my participants read it in one sitting. The one that didnt stated that they did understand it well. The other responses to the second part of the question were similar: they all stated that they understood what they had read. Although this doesnt actually demonstrate the extent to which it was understandable, it does to an extent indicate that there were no major faults in the synopsis.

Question Three
What were the positive aspects of the Synopsis? Once again, this is a particularly general question they do not require the participants to think too hard, merely describe the positive areas of the synopsis that jumped out at them. As was expected, answers to this question were rather diverse. The two most common aspects of the synopsis that people liked were its concise nature, and the relationship between the brothers particularly the pranks played on the older one. One participant commented on it being identifiable, the pranks being conventional, yet the ending adding a dark twist to the older idea. I am pleased that this aspect of the short film has been particularly been pointed out, as it is that which I regard as very important in terms of narrative, given that my synopsis revolves around this dynamic. One participant states the worry he felt for the younger boy, which indicates an emotional response from him. That my story was concise was also an important aspect to the narrative, as short films must be concise in order to work one participant stated its brevity as resonating after reading it, which is just the kind of response a short filmmaker should wish for when constructing their narratives. As a synopsis, two responses commented on its detail, both in order to set the scene and with regards to the surroundings being explained well. Hopefully, this indicates that my synopsis was written in a fairly visual way, one objective I am very conscious of.

Question Four
What did you think could be improved, how? Again, this question was written to draw attention to the most apparent flaws in my synopsis. The response that impacted me the most commented that the stakes were not high enough, and therefore they felt the general situation lacks any dramatic atmosphere until the end. This was the response which I had desired the most, given that this was what I was worried about and wanted to change the most about the synopsis. They felt that the generally farcical beginning of the story compared to the rather dramatic conclusion was perhaps too confusing for the small time and recommended to transform the idea into a full out drama in order to create the most impact. I am therefore going to attempt to raise the stakes when I redraft this, and perhaps have less of an emphasis on the pranks motif. Conversely, one response stated that nothing needed to be changed from the story which although I appreciate as a compliment, I still regard the former comment as the more constructive and important of the two. Instead, the participant commented on my repetition of the phrase again at one point in the synopsis as needing to be changed, which indicates that I should take more care in my writing. Indeed, another response admitted to not understanding where the door that the brother came out of was. This demonstrates that although they may have answered that they fully understood the synopsis, parts of it werent clear enough. The participant offered the advice of writing the scene in more detail. Finally, a participant commented that the emotions of the characters seemed to change almost immediately. I attribute this to the time limits I am constrained to, and will attempt to rectify this by tuning down the action in the film, perhaps creating a quieter, yet still dramatic film.

Question Five
Did you think the story fitted well into the 5 minute time frame?

Yes No

As can be seen, one participant did not think my story fitted well into the five minute time frame, this was the same one who discussed its low stakes. In this response, the participant criticises the transformation of genre which appears to occur in the short film (as they stated previously). The time frame was allegedly too short to execute this transformation proficiently, and that the story lacked focus because of it. Again, I will attempt to address this issue through creating a more serious tone, which I think I can achieve by raising the stakes. Besides this comment, responses generally received the length of the synopsis positively. One commented on the emphasis on action instead of too much dialogue, which, according to Milgrom, would be a good thing giving the short film much more of a cinematic feel. Other responses discussed the unity of time, place and action given the house interior in which all the action takes place. It would therefore appear that my main room for improvement here is increase the dramatic power of the scene, heightening the stakes and perhaps putting less emphasis on the prank motif.

Question Six
Did you think any of the events unnecessary to the story Although participants commented that the story worked well in the time frame it is limited to, I wanted to rack their brains just in case they identified something that could be changed. Milgroms proposition that every scene must carry the story forward has remained in the forefront of my mind when writing this story. One participant stated that indeed all events helped create a simple and easy to follow story, which is ideally what I wanted to achieve. Although the participant most critical of the story said that generally the story being told in this synopsis did not contain any unnecessary scenes, the story in itself was flawed, and the practical jokes that ran the story were unnecessarily dominant. A similar response criticised the laughing of the younger brother as a little overdone, indicating that the motif of laughter used to carry the story onwards was unneeded. Another interesting response stated the brother hitting his younger brothers head against the wall as being unnecessary. I confess that I do not fully understand the nature of this answer. To the overall narrative, I would argue that it was crucial to the film; however they may be referring to brothers responses. This may be confusing, though it does bear redolence to the comment made previously about the characters emotions changing so drastically within such a short space of time. I will therefore alleviate some of the violence, perhaps making the violence that occurs more accidental rather than malicious.

Question Seven Could you visualise the setting and the action of the scene? How could it be made more visual? This was the more specific variant of the second question. I wanted the prose to be like glass, so the reader could see the film as clearly as they could. Responses again were generally positive. One participant was very positive about visual style of writing, saying that it had been described very well, and that more visual writing was not needed. Another participant again said that the simple writing made it a very easy read, though perhaps a more imaginative use of descriptors couldve been incorporated into the synopsis. Another response could indeed visualise the film, though commented that it couldve done with more detail. I will therefore make emphasis on detail while redrafting the synopsis. Finally, a participant referenced question four, in which they explained their confusion towards which door the boy emerges from otherwise, they explain it was fine.

Question Eight
What did you interpret as the meaning of the story? If anything? According to Milgrom, it is incredibly important in a short film that the audience understand what the filmmaker is trying to say. This question is therefore important in seeing whether or not audiences received what I was trying to convey to them. The overall message of the story revolved around the irrational use of violence in response to a problem, and how its consequences can cause one to lose control of the situation. This meaning was indeed registered (in a sense) by two participants, one of whom stated to know when to stop (which both brothers do not do in the scene) and the other said dont fight fire with fire. However, two responses falsely identify sibling relationships as the meaning, with one participant simply stating the above, and another commenting that Family relationships are easily broken if you do not treat them well. Family relationships are the dynamic from which I hope to identify this meaning, rather than being the meaning itself, although it is a fundamental aspect of the meaning, given that a sibling is generally an oppositional force in one sense and someone who is cared greatly for in another. I am not willing to break the brotherly dynamic in order to accommodate my meaning; therefore I am inclined to adapt the meaning of my story accordingly.

Question Nine What themes and/or issues could you identify?

Through this question, I was Responses almost exclusively discussed family relationships in one way or another. Two responses simply stated family relationships, which Id agree is a big theme in my text. More specifically, one wrote The fragility of sibling relationships, and how playfulness can soon evolve into serious violence. Again, I had this in mind when I wrote the synopsis. Similarly, a participant stated anger issues and anger and violence. It appears my idea explores a very specific range of themes, which I personally do not see as a problem given the time limits I am under when constructing this narrative. It appears that no theme or issue is discussed which I did not intend to be discussed, and the themes that are raised are rather vast.

Question Ten
Did the story have any distinct tone? Im not sure how to explain it, answers one participant, the tone seemed quite light, but slowly got more intense as the brother got aggravated. Tone is rather closely linked to genre; therefore the changing tone is somewhat representative of changing genre. Another participant points this out, the same who was most critical about my choices of events previously. They argue that the tone undergoes a metamorphosis from farce to drama, and that the atmosphere changes are too sharp, the audience are unable to catch up. I therefore think it important to, when redrafting, stick to one particular tone, the one which is developing through hearing these answers is a rather elegiac, dramatic one, which hopefully would leave a dramatic impact by its end. Another response comment on the storys dark tone, which I was not particularly looking to establish, though I can see this tone in the storys ending. Perhaps a more straight forwardly dramatic narrative would patter out this darker tone. Finally, one response commented on the constant tone of frustration which carried itself throughout the piece. This is created through the growing anger of the protagonist towards his brother, I presume.

Question Eleven
What genre conventions did you identify within the synopsis? Now the participants had discussed Tone (which is linked closely to genre), I decided to see what genre they derived from the peace. Results were unsurprisingly muddled, given the apparent transformation in genre. The most drastic of responses commented that they thought the genre was drama/horror. I did not wish to convey any element of horror through this synopsis; therefore I must urgently cater to this dark atmosphere which has festered upon the readers imagination. Other responses were as I expected, with one participant identifying a hybrid between farcical comedy and drama, the other saying drama/comedy. Lastly, a participant correctly identified the genre as Family Drama/Social Realism. Social Realism is what, ideally, all participants wouldve written down, though the emphasis on pranks and jokes made the genre difficult to identify, which is possibly the biggest problem I am facing with my synopsis.

Question Twelve
Whose point of view do you think we follow in the story?

Older Brother's Younger Brother's

According to Milgrom, the point of view can completely alter the meaning of a story; therefore it is incredibly important to know that you are telling the story from the right perspective. This question was merely to be sure that participants knew whose story this is, and that my writing shows this. From this response, I am pleased to see that every person who answered the question answered correctly.

Question Thirteen
Did you find the protagonists situation relatable? What about it? Responses to this question generally found that although some people dont have siblings, the situation in general a familiar and relatable one. Two responses stated that they personally didnt relate to the brotherly aspect of the text, one was an only child and one didnt have a younger sibling though both commented on the fact that they could understand how it might be relatable to those who do. I feel as though these participants neglected the events, and focused too much on the brotherly dynamic revolving around the synopsis. I am not willing to alter this dynamic away from siblings, however: and therefore may attempt in the next draft to write about siblings with harder intensity, which will not make the characters relatable, instead it will cause the audience to feel sympathy for them and their situation. This could be done by raising the stakes. Another participant stated that they found the protagonists situation relatable through the serge of anger they feel towards the brother, and finally, a participant similarly stated the situation as rather common and therefore easily identifiable. These participants are thinking outside of sibling relationships, and thinking more generally in terms of the emotions the character feels towards his brother.

Question Fourteen
Do you think a change happened to the protagonist at the end of the story? What change? Every participant agreed that a change occurred in the character though responses did vary somewhat. The most obvious change people identified in the character was the transition from a calm, good boy doing all the chores, to a mean angry boy who would cause harm to the people around him. Two participants thought of it in these terms, which Id agree are valid. The remaining two participants commented on the change from his angered state when hes chasing his brother to his more subdued, worried state once he almost severely hurts him. He, as one participant states, loses control, and realizes he shouldnt have. A change must occur within a character in a short film, they must go from an A point to a B point these responses appear to suggest that this change is identifiable in my story. Perhaps I could make the change in him more evident by the end.

Question Fifteen
Which character did you sympathise with the most? Why?

This question was a reinforcement of the older brothers status as the protagonist. Even despite the ending, in which he risks seriously hurting his brother, I want my audience to feel most sorry for the older brother. Unfortunately, three responses both stated that they felt bad for the older brother first and then at the end they felt bad for the younger brother. To solve this problem, I could make the climax of the film more accidental. Instead of pushing him with an intense amount of force, the push may be an underestimation of strength, causing him to panic following the head meeting the door. Possibly, I may also contain a threat within the climax rather than an outward act of violence; therefore the general moral message of the story still exists, whilst the protagonist is still hopefully the audiences main focus. The participant who stated the older brother as the one they sympathised with the most as he is close to *their+ age. Presumably, the younger brother is also close to her age, however (I am unable to change this), therefore I take this as a fault in my synopsis, and will attempt in later drafting to establish the age difference between the two as minute.

Question Sixteen
Do you think that the story accurately represented a sibling relationship? How? As my idea is partially a Social Realist film, verisimilitude is very important. I am forced with the admission that this subject is not something I am an expert in, therefore it is important to carefully make sure that no mistakes are being made in the writing of this film. Luckily, responses from participants were reasonably positive regarding this question. One response stated that siblings play pranks and irritate their elder brothers/sisters and the elder sibling does tend to react strongly, therefore it is accurate. Siblings play jokes on each other and then get upset and fight, says another participant, however, they also state that perhaps hitting the others head against a wall is somewhat drastic. This violence which occurs is again questioned by a participant commenting that sibling violence is usually playful and not purposeful. The final participant commented that teen siblings very hesitantly hurt each other and that their arguments may be too petulant for their age. In order to respond to this, I have decided to lower down the violence within the final scene to merely a raised fist, perhaps it will shake. I feel this will create a much tenser dramatic impact, whilst simultaneously creating a more believable atmosphere that the protagonist is so angry he about to hit his sibling in the face, rather than simply push him and misjudge his strength.

Sample Responses as evidence of feedback