Final project — The completed short
The finished two-to-four-minute AI dramatic short, screened and defended as a directorial statement, not a generation lucky enough to work
Due: 28 May 2027 · Weight: 60%
The brief#
Finish a film you can defend every choice in — the one Assignment 1 planned, or one you deliberately chose to make instead.
Weeks 7 through 12 turned a pre-production package into footage: anchor frames, directed takes, an assembled sequence, a cut, a sound pass. This project is that pipeline’s output, taken all the way to a finished film — plus the reflection that makes the directing visible rather than incidental. If you’re finishing a different story than the one you locked in Assignment 1, the same pipeline ran against your own replacement plan instead — see “What you submit” below for what that plan needs to include.
The near-final cut you screen in week 12’s workshop is not this submission. The eleven days between that screening and this deadline are the revision period, and the critique you get at the screening is what it’s for.
What you submit#
- the finished film, 2–4 minutes — either finishing the story you locked in Assignment 1, or a different story you deliberately chose to pursue instead (a full switch is fine; an unexplained one reads as drift, not choice)
- if you switched stories: a short pivot plan for the new one — an updated logline, the world/character bible entries it depends on, and a shot list — so there’s still a locked reference your continuity choices get checked against, the same role Assignment 1’s package always played
- a director’s statement naming three decisions you made on purpose (a shot choice, a take you rejected and why, an edit or sound choice that changed the meaning of a scene) and one continuity or generation failure you hit and how you repaired it — if you switched stories, the switch itself must be one of the three, defended against continuing the original
- a brief reflection on authorship and the limits of the tools: what part of this film is a directorial choice, what part is a limitation you worked around, and where you’d draw that line differently next time
Complete the project#
There is no fixed template for the film itself — design it as your own. The guidance below is instructions and a self-check for each of the three parts you submit, not an example to follow.
1. Finish and lock the film#
Your task: Take your near-final cut from week 12’s screening through the revision period to a finished 2–4 minute film. It must match the world and story you’re finishing with — either the one you locked in Assignment 1, or one you deliberately switched to instead. If you switched, write a short pivot plan for the new story (an updated logline, the bible entries it depends on, and a shot list) and submit it alongside the film: it takes Assignment 1’s place as the fixed reference your continuity choices get checked against. An undocumented change reads as drift, not choice, whichever story you finish with. The film has to stand on its own: someone watching without you in the room needs to follow it end to end.
Check your work: Does every shot, cut and sound choice serve one legible intent, rather than each merely looking fine on its own? If a viewer asked why a moment looks, sounds or cuts the way it does, could you give a directorial reason rather than “that’s what the tool produced”?
2. Write the director’s statement#
Your task: Name three directorial decisions you made on purpose — for example a shot choice, a take you rejected and why, or an edit or sound choice that changed a scene’s meaning — and defend each against a specific alternative you didn’t take. If you switched stories since Assignment 1, the switch itself counts as one of the three: defend it against the alternative of continuing the original story — what made the new story worth the cost of restarting pre-production. Name one continuity or generation failure you actually hit and how you repaired it. Then name the one specific change you made during the revision period in direct response to a note from week 12’s critique screening.
Check your work: For each of the three decisions, have you named the alternative you rejected, not just described what you kept? If you switched stories, is the switch itself one of the three, with continuing the original named as the rejected alternative? Does the revision-period change trace to an actual critique note, rather than a change you’d have made anyway?
3. Write the reflection#
Your task: Write a short reflection on authorship and the limits of the tools you used. Name, concretely, what in this film is a directorial choice you made, what is a tool limitation you worked around, and where you’d draw that line differently if you made this film again.
Check your work: Could a reader tell, from your reflection alone, which parts of the finished film reflect your judgement and which reflect what the tool would or wouldn’t do? Is the line you’d draw differently next time specific, rather than a general “I’d try to be more creative”?
How the marking criteria apply#
| Criterion | What the marker looks for |
|---|---|
| Directorial coherence and craft — 45% | Whether story, shot design, performance direction, continuity repair, editing rhythm and sound work together as one visible intent across the whole film — not whether any single shot looks impressive in isolation |
| Director’s statement — 30% | Three decisions named and defended against a specific alternative; one failure diagnosed and repaired; one revision-period change traceable to an actual critique note |
| Authorship reflection — 25% | A concrete, specific account of what’s a directorial choice versus a tool limitation, and a specific answer for where that line would move next time |
A student who can name why a take was rejected is judged more strongly than one who can only say a take was kept.
Detailed marking rubric#
Each criterion above splits into three dimensions. Each dimension is scored out of 10; a criterion’s mark is its weight scaled by the average of its three dimension scores (for example, three dimension scores of 8, 7 and 9 — average 8 — earn 45 × 8/10 = 36 of the 45 marks available for Directorial coherence and craft). The bands below describe what earns each range; a score can fall between bands where a piece of work only partly matches a description.
Directorial coherence and craft (45%)#
| Dimension | 7–10 | 5–6 | 1–4 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unified intent across story, shot design and performance | Every shot and performance choice traces to one legible intent; a viewer can infer why a significant choice was made without being told | Most of the film reads as directed on purpose, but one or two moments feel unexplained or arbitrary | Choices read as generation defaults; no discernible throughline connects them to a directorial idea |
| Continuity discipline | Breaks are correctly typed (character drift, spatial, temporal) and each carries specific fix-or-accept reasoning; only what needed fixing was touched | Some findings are named and reasoned, but typing or reasoning is inconsistent, or a break goes unaddressed without comment | No visible continuity discipline: breaks are unaddressed, or fixed/accepted with no visible reasoning |
| Editing rhythm and sound | Transitions and pacing are deliberate and legible as choices about time or connection; sound is shaped scene by scene to support the intended emotional read | Editing and sound choices are present and mostly functional, but at least one stretch defaults to whatever the tool produced | Cuts and sound feel like untouched defaults; no evidence of a deliberate rhythm or sound decision |
Director’s statement (30%)#
| Dimension | 7–10 | 5–6 | 1–4 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Decision specificity and alternative comparison | All three decisions name a concrete rejected alternative and explain the difference it makes to meaning or effect, not just preference | Decisions are named, but at least one lacks a real alternative comparison, or the reasoning is generic (“it looked better”) | Decisions are listed without comparison to an alternative, or fewer than three decisions are given |
| Failure diagnosis and repair | The failure is named precisely — what broke and why — and the repair directly targets that cause, not a general redo | Failure and repair are both present but only loosely connected — the repair isn’t clearly shown to address the stated cause | Failure or repair is missing, or too vague to evaluate (“something didn’t work so I fixed it”) |
| Revision-period response | The stated change is clearly traceable to a specific, named critique note, and the statement says what changed and its effect | A revision change is named but its link to a specific critique note is asserted rather than shown | No revision-period change is stated, or the one given reads as work that would have happened regardless of the critique |
Authorship reflection (25%)#
| Dimension | 7–10 | 5–6 | 1–4 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Choice-vs-limitation specificity | Names specific moments in the film and states plainly, for each, whether it is a directorial choice or a worked-around limitation | The distinction is discussed but mostly in general terms rather than tied to specific moments in the film | No real distinction is drawn; the reflection stays generic (“AI has limitations but I did my best”) |
| Honesty about limitations hit | Names a real limitation actually encountered during production and how it shaped the finished film | A limitation is mentioned but its actual effect on the film is unclear or understated | No limitation is named, or the reflection avoids acknowledging any |
| Forward-looking specificity | States a specific, actionable change to where the choice/limitation line would sit next time | A future change is gestured at but stays vague, or restates the choice-vs-limitation point without adding anything new | No forward-looking statement is given, or it is too generic to act on (“I’d try to be more creative”) |
The spec
The brief poses the problem and leaves room for a response. The spec is the fixed part: what a marker checks. Some lines can be checked mechanically; the rest call for judgement.
- submitted by the deadline, in the format named below
- it stands on its own as a two-to-four-minute film, without you there to explain it
- a short director's statement accompanies it, naming three directorial decisions and one thing that went wrong and how you handled it
- the statement names one specific change made during the revision period, in response to a note from week 12's critique screening
- if the finished film tells a different story than the one locked in Assignment 1, a short pivot plan (updated logline, world/character bible entries, and a shot list) for the new story accompanies the submission, and one of the statement's three decisions is the switch itself, defended against continuing the original story
How it is marked
| Criterion | Weight |
|---|---|
| Directorial coherence and craft | 45% |
| Director's statement | 30% |
| Authorship reflection | 25% |