Behind Closed Doors Post Questionnaire Graphs

For our Post-questionnaire we didnt want to ask many questions that asked about things that we as a team didnt really have much interest in. Instead we wanted to ask precise, straight to the point questions that gave us information on the main parts of the film such as the films strongest and weakest points and if we had pulled off creating a rama film.

Question 1: What Genre was the film?

This question was asked to test if the genre of our film was clear to the audience. If it was clear then we would know that we had used the codes and conventions of a drama film correctly, if it was not clear then we would know that we had failed at upholding the codes and conventions of a typical drama film. The graph above clearly shows that people were able to deceiver the type of film our film falls under as 100 answered !rama. This means that our film was clearly a drama and that for us we"d followed the codes and conventions enough for people to understand our conveyed genre. Question 2: How much would you say you enjoyed the film?

&s our film"s narrative was of a controversial nature that could"ve caused some, if not all people to feel uncomfortable when watching the film I thought it would be great to see how people responded to the film despite the storyline and find out how much they actually en'oyed the film. &s the chart shows people seemed to en'oy our film despite the sensitive content and those who filled out the questionnaire only chose the options *en'oyed+ or *en'oyed a lot+. Question 3: What would you say was the two weakest points of the film out of the options below?

#or question three, we aimed to gather information about which aspects people thought were the weakest within the film, so we gave them a choice of $ out of % options. &s the graph depicts the ma'ority thought that sound was the weakness with acting and lighting not far behind. (e gathered that sound would)ve been our weakest area as well as lighting but acting coming in 'oint second was a surprise to us, as a group.

Question : What were the two stron!est aspects of the film?

-uestion ., was a follow on from question / and it was aimed to see which aspects people thought were the strongest within the film presenting them with the same % options from question /. This time editing came on top as the strongest aspect of our film. 0owever acting came in 'oint second again, suggesting that people)s opinion on the acting of our film varied meaning it was probably neither the worst nor the strongest. &lso within this question there isn)t as much variation in the answers which could suggest that our strongest aspects were easier to identify and that most people agreed what they were.

Question ": What could there ha#e been more of?

&s a team we wondered what more we could have included in our film that might have made it that better. #rom our discussion we came up with two things that we thought there might not been enough of it as a team. The two things were *characters+ and *dialogue+ however we were mainly concerned about the dialogue than characters. Therefore included it in the questionnaire and the outcome was that ,0 agreed with us and said that there could)ve been more dialogue. The other ,0 were split equally between characters and the option of adding nothing at all.

Question $: Would you describe the film as%%%

1ur final question was an option based question that asked participants to complete the sentence. (e wanted to see what their overall view of the film was so that we)d have a rough idea as to how succesful the film was in terms of preference and standards. &ll whom answered selected the preference of *good+. This was a great response as we knew that our film wasn)t an absolute flop but was to a good standard it wasn)t great but good was good enough for us. There was a second part of the qeuestion that allowed individuals to e2pand on their choice however it was optional so most did not complete it but one stated that *it was puled off well+.