1. Anna Blackman
EVALUATION 4

2. SECTION A
From the focus group screening of “Delirium”, we received both praise and criticism to help us achieve the best grade possible after altering
specific parts.
For the focus group screening, each class member wrote down positive and negative aspects and gave us a score out of 10. On
average, from this, we received an 8, having been given one six, three sevens, six eights, two nines and two tens. From this response, I was
pleasantly surprised and was happy to have such a great score despite the trailer not being completed yet. For the negative feedback, we
were told that the trailer was “too long”, with the “beginning dragging on a bit too much”. Having been told this and being aware of this
beforehand, our group acknowledged the issue and shorted the beginning sequence by 30 seconds as addition to other shots throughout
the trailer. As other negative responses, we were told that adding more transitions, jump scares and more “killing scenes” could make the
trailer flow more smoothly. Having gained this knowledge, we began by adding more fade to blacks between scenes, adding a second jump
scare after the first and in between the “Delirium” text and collision cutting all of the psychiatric action to make the trailer seem as if the
killing within the film is fast paced, constant and frightening.
When focusing on the positive aspects of our trailer, we received quotes stating the narrative
is “unique”, “clear” and “realistic”. Other positive aspects mentioned include how our music
worked appropriately with the action on screen and how the action was always “interesting”
and kept the spectator engaged. The gore effect of Sophie slitting her throat was one that
many people thought was realistic and clever, which promoted our psychological horror with
the partly gore sub-genre feature. Linking in with this, our sub-genre of psychological was said
to be illustrated well by the “excellent” jump scare of myself turning into a “monster” with a
sack on my head.
Having received all of this feedback and more, I felt that I strongly agreed with the fact we
needed to shorten specific parts of the trailer and how all of our action was easily understood
and captured well and cleverly. As a mixed response, we received feedback stating that the
trailer needed some dialogue. Having acknowledged this, we also had feedback stating that
they liked the fact we had no dialogue. With this mixed response, I felt that I strongly agreed
with the non-dialogue due to this not being a typical convention and felt that this added
tension and a unique element to our trailer.

3. SECTION B
After the focus group screening, as mentioned, there were many aspects that we needed to alter or develop. Having taken 30 seconds off
the beginning of the trailer and shortened any other shots that could be smaller or enable the trailer to flow smoother, the length of our
trailer was now perfect and the music timed itself right for the jump scares and other pieces of rhythmic action.
With the transitions, we decided to add more fade to blacks and kept the contrast of scenes to a darker, low-key shade. For the
music, we knew that shortening specific scenes would make the jump scare out of sync and so had to play around to get the music to
match the action perfectly.
After the first jump scare of myself being changed into a “monster”, we added a second jump scare of me jumping towards the camera
with a knife. This second jump scare is unexpected and makes the ending memorable.
With all of the action of the three girls in the psychiatric hospital, we edited all shots into collision cutting from slow and quiet to loud and
fast. By doing this, all of the action builds up, becoming tense for the spectator and visually engaging.
Having edited these specific parts of the trailer, I feel that it has all helped towards our end result and having had the focus group
screening, have learnt a lot about our team work, gained new knowledge and was able to distinguish positive and negative aspects of
our trailer for improving.

4. SECTION C