I believe my film engages my audience of  people 15+ who watch a lot of YouTube comedy, as the film uses common conventions present in those types of videos.

For example, I’ve utilised editing and camera in order to engage my audience in a setting they already enjoy and are familiar with. I used quick cutting, witty comments through the editing and addition of text in Premiere Pro in a standard font, and zooms onto my face to create a sense of connection to YouTube comedy content, such as in videos by Dan Howell and Jacksepticeye.

I likewise utilised a front-on camera view where I spoke directly to the audience, in a casual and mainly unedited matter, to similarly highlight my video’s connection to casual Youtube-centric comedy, to enhance the comedy and therefore engagement with my audience through the appease of following standard YouTube conventions.

While I engaged my audience by following some YouTube conventions, I also created an uncomfortable film through purposeful subversion. For example, in the conclusion of my film, I specifically chose to not cut or otherwise edit my rambling; the messy conclusion served no clear purpose, and if I had chosen to strictly follow cinema and YouTube conventions, I would have undoubtedly have cut most, if not all of that section out. I also didn’t follow conventions for University assessments, nor traditional comedy videos. For example, most assessments are expected to be treated or at least presented, incredibly seriously. I took a far more lax approach when constructing my film. While I honestly did put a lot of work into the production, I presented my film as if I hadn’t, subverting multitudes of expectations about what a ‘real’ film is and what hard work means and how that is presented within a media product.

Though it is presented differently, my inclusion of swearing, comical editing and witty remarks were incredibly thought out and purposeful, and I feel the submission of this work is in itself, very uncomfortable and subversive in the real world context of academia.

If I were to continue working on my film in future, I would likely pursue my original idea in using narrative comedy to subvert expectations and cause a sense of discomfort.

However, if I were to strictly work on my film as it currently is in it’s evolved form from my original idea, I’d likely increase discomfort by experimenting with different aspects of film in a subversive way.

For example, I may choose to film my entire monologue in an extreme close up for no apparent reason, to both subvert and enact a sense of physical discomfort in my audience due to a lack of personal space. I also may use unconventional lighting, such as filming completely in the dark while I speak to confuse audiences and cause discomfort at my lack of following cinema (or YouTube) conventions. While these techniques would cause discomfort, I would need to consider the effect on my film’s engagement. For example, if I were to film with no or in low-key lighting, the audience being unable to see my face may cause them to lose engagement and get bored, as some of the ‘visual gag’ has been obstructed.