For our sketches, we aimed to understand the case study through parody, and in doing so, we hoped to gain a clearer idea of what narrative form the case study took. The issue we faced was that in some respects we considered the case study to follow a narrative style due to its set structure and logical sequencing, however it wasn’t necessarily cause and effect, and its form as an educational review seemed to oppose this idea. From past knowledge, we knew that a narrative structure tends to have cause and effect, but its how loosely this term can be used that caused us problems. There isn’t a clear cause and effect structure, however in the review, discussion over one thing leads to another, which leads to certain shots being used, which leads to a certain critique, which leads to an overall score. The whole video, in a way, is a case of cause and effect, especially when you consider that the point of a review is to determine a final opinion based on a range of topics brought up before hand. This is very cause and effect, but not in a traditional sense. To try and determine this further, we added a character to our sketches, aka. a more traditionally narrative element. By doing this, we found that we were more or less parodying the structure of the case study as a non-narrative video, and so through this device we kind of determined that the original video is less narrative than we have first thought, and this could definitely help us in the future when it comes to the next project, and determining how we might play with narrative structure. At the very least, we now have a clearer idea of what narrative form is, and how it might be applied to our future sketches.
