REPURPOSED
Marco, Penelope and Krista

It’s difficult to discuss another group’s pitch without confusing it with their proposed content. I’m not sure which I’m supposed to do but I will probably end up doing both . . . let’s go.

The group’s pitch was unfortunately structured. I found that Marco did most of the speaking, rather than the speaking work being spread evenly amongst the three group members. This being said, the content was beautiful – Marco’s spoken imagery as he described the past, present and future of Coburg’s sites of change had a strong sense of nostalgia and appreciation. If they can convey the same tone within their documentary then it would be applaudable and appreciable, and I don’t doubt that they can do so.

The pitch was hurried, for no fault of the groups, as coming next-to-last is no easy timeframe in which to present. Despite its slightly hasty air, the content was fully formed, so much so that when they had finished, the content was picked apart by the panel, and pulled from the dense content was the golden shining light of human interest. As Paul announced, the group should not worry with the interest of newly reformed spaces, but the stories of the people, the strange calamity of the Coburg high street where old greek men sit at an old cafe smoking cigarettes over their morning coffees – the old-school ammunitions shop which no one is ever seen going into or coming out of. These are the stories, both visually and narratively, which have a keen quirk of human interest from their surface to their core. To reinstate, the beauty of their pitch was that it was so dense that it could be picked apart for the small mentions which hold far more weight than the bigger scheme.

I applaud the group for coming through with a pitch which was as interesting as their film may one day be.

When receiving comments from a panel, it is best not to interrupt them, speak over them, or curtail their input in any way – 7/10