1/2. My first questions required the age /gender of my participants, these were typical introductory questions to gather relevant statistics for analysis. However, finding out the age was far more significant, mainly to ensure they are in my age range for my target audience. Luckily, most of my participants were within the 16/17 range, the age that I plan to represent most within my subcultures in my short film – this way it will hopefully be more relatable/amusing for my target audience.
This question was rather significant, as from what I found out from my interview stage was that 2/3 of my interviewees were unsure of examples of mockumentaries. By asking this question they could understand the kind of conventions a mockumentary could have, and the kind of things people would except from a mockumentary, for example, funny actors, a good script and wit/word play.
Question number 4 related to what my audience felt was important in a comedy. 45% of my audience stated that they would like to see good actors, and their ability to handle a script and delvier it successfully. Similarly, the next highest answer was talented actors (20%.) These top answers have enlightened me to perhaps hold auditions for parts in my film, and ask as many people as possible to ensure I will get actors who will take it seriously (I know that’s ironic as it’s a mockumentary, but I really do not wish for my short film to mocked for having actors who just think it’s a ‘laugh’)
What I also found interesting about this response was that 15% of my target audience suggested that is important for the humour to be “non-offensive“, I felt this was significant as I will utimately be humouring today’s current groups of teenagers, perhaps I need to deliver some scenarios to my target audience in later audience feedback for them to respond whether they would find it offensive or humourous. I do not want to ‘cross the line.’
I felt question number five was paramount in this questionnaire. As if nobody was even familiar with these documentaries it would be extremely ‘unfunny’ and possibly a waste of time. Luckily, a good 95% of my target audience are aware of these kind of documentaries, with only one person stating they were “not sure.” However I feel I can fully go ahead with my idea, as I am confident that people will understand what I’m parodying, and if they don’t, hopefully they will at least find it humourous and engaging anyway.
I was also very pleased with my participant’s responses to question number six. It is evident that 100% of my respondants know some typical conventions of a nature documentary, it is clear what they expect, which hopefully means they will ‘get’ the concept of my film when it is displayed.
For question 7, I gave them a short brief of my idea at the start of the questionnaire and asked if they would find it interesting, and left a few lines for if they were unsure about it. As this questionnaire was anonymous, I’m hoping my respondants were genuinely being 100% honest with their answer.
The two top answers (27%) stated that it was because I would be “mocking a cliche”, and that David Attenborough tends to have a very “serious style of commentary” and they feel it would be humourous against the visuals, as they would contrast completely. The next top answer (20%), was quite similar and said that it would be “ironic” which is exactly the answers I were looking for, I want my audience to understand it’s a parody and it is supposed to be ironic – hopefully making it amusing yet easy to undestand.
What I found interesting in this set of responses was the 6% that said “as long as it’s purely sarcastic.” This is my concern, I do not wish for my mockumary to be perceived as making fun of David Attenborough’s narration, and for people to find it offensive towards him – this is the last thing I want to happen. When the time comes when I write my script in full, I need to ensure I do not include anything that could be deemed wildly inappropriate and for people to think I am intentially being tasteless.