When editing our documentary, we found that it was good in many respects; for example, the audio was synced well and the cutaways worked to our advantage. However, the codes and conventions of our documentary often did not conform to other documentaries that we had analysed. For example, the titles on screen showing the questions posed to the interviewee were not useful; next time, it is important to ask the interviewee to answer in full sentences. Also, although our use of cutaways was successful, it would have been worthwhile to film some better cutaways; e.g teenagers on their mobile phones, to illustrate the exposition of our documentary.
Also, the title sequence was very amateur; it was not filmed well (on a handheld camera) and didn't flow with the rest of the documentary. Contributing to this, it was clear that the documentary was filmed within college, as the mise-en-scene was unproffessional and unrelated to the content. However, the title sequence was relevant to the exposition, as it showed a teenager using a mobile phone. Editing was successful, except a lot of dissolves were used, and the flow seemed rushed, and unappealing to the viewer. This made it seem even more amateur. The audio however, was good, as it related to the exposition and theme of the documentary, and was current at the time of release.