Continuity - Accident Sequence (BLK)

a) What techniques did you specifically use to create continuity (narrative flow) in your accident sequence?

• We utilised a few techniques in order to ensure the sequence made sense and wasn't confusing for the audience - which is the purpose of continuity.
• Firstly, shot one is slow paced and pans across the corridor following the character, Matt. This could perhaps be classified as an establishing shot as although it doesn't show off that much of the location, the audience is still able to discover the first main character. They also get a chance to see books and a poster, which connotes the idea that that the setting is in fact, a school. 
• Shot 1 and 3 are both taken from Matt's left. This allows the audience to understand the direction that Matt is walking in (this technique is called the 180 degree rule).
• The first three shots of the sequence are cross-cut, meaning they switch between the two characters and tell a different story for each. As the audience would expect, both stories interlink later on.
• Shot 4 is what's known as a master shot; it helps establish the location and in this case allows you to see both characters' journeys collide, quite literally...
• Additionally, the sequence include a variety of shots, as to not make it not too dull. The shots are all substantially different  in order to not conflict with the 30 degree rule. The 30 degree rule states that consecutive shots should have a difference of more than 30 degrees so that it seems a change in shot was necessary and so that it doesn't look uncomfortable. 

b) In hindsight, what could you do to improve the continuity (narrative flow) of the sequence?

• Unfortunately, one of our shots got corrupted. It was meant to be after the over the shoulder shot of Matt and show me running down the next flight of stairs looking rushed and checking my watch whilst in a head on long shot.This would've further added to the narrative and made the sequence more interesting.
• My main criticism however, is the fact that in shot 4 and 5 there is a glitch in the transition. By this I mean, it seems odd how I seemingly port from one position in shot 4, then to a  few meters ahead in shot 5. To correct this we should have enacted and recorded both shots as a whole, but from two different points of view. This would have meant that I would be running in the same line for both shots and it would've also allowed us to have a longer window of time for which we could have cut between both shots. This technique is known as match on action.