StoryBoard:

Storyboard/ Discussion:

The first shot had always been planned in my head, consisting of a mid shot of my character 'the man' opening his front door to find the lonesome box containing the invisible dog. Seeing the door actually open would signify the initial constraints of the man being absorbed by his isolation and his hermit-like characteristics- hence the invisible dog being recognised as his saviour. I had always intended the word 'puppy' scrawled on the box. This may have played with a viewers heart-strings, but my main intention for doing this was to establish both man and dogs relationship and how this unusual relationship has time to blossom and grow through the narrative of the film. This would allow the tragedy of the dogs death to have more of an impact on the viewer, whereas I suspect not so much if I had not acted by allowing the viewer to see the beginning of such a relationship.

The P.O.V shot would be seen as vice versa, as I had imagined the next shot would be taken through the perspective of the dog. This would once again reinforce the almost instant tight bond between these two characters in the fond. The close up shots of these particular shots would also help to signify the fondness each have for one another.

A comical scene where the man decides to give his newly adopted pet a wash. the specific use of bubble bath would reinforce the idea of slapstick and how the dog, although interacting with the scenery is still invisible.

A scene where I attempt to teach the dog how to sit. Notice how the dog does what I tell it to?

A scene that has the introduction to the lead. This would hopefuly further extend my intention to create both hilarity and absurdity within my short. The plain and average background of a simple brick wall would further illuminate the dichotomy between the once normal and sad man with the abnormal concept of an invisible dog, allowing an audience to question whether this animal is real or not.

Further shots of slapstick. Although there are many comical moments, I purposefully wanted to lure my audience within a false sense of security so that they are initially unprepared for the sudden change in tone, when the death of the invisible dog is finally revealed

The confrontation between the man and his invisible dog and the a lady and her real dog is incontrovertibly my favourite scene within my short. Not only is it very comical (and if I do say so myself, with appropriate comic timing) the whole meeting between the four characters appears rather awkward and challenges what some viewers at the initial screening of my short disliked about the film. Some viewers where irritated by the fact that they did not know if the invisible dog was real or just invisible. I wanted to make the film ambiguous so that each individual viewer had the choice to believing if the existence of the dog was true, or just a false sense of reality- this relating back to my belief that all form of art is subjective and dependant of the person, and cannot be tied down to one particular view. Therefore, this is my way of playfully toying with such narrow minded critics!

The actual illness of the dog. Later on I decided to have this cut, as I thought such a crude image was not needed, I not wanting to insult the viewers intelligence, and spoon-feed them the plot.

The montage of awards would help to highlight the pain of the man regarding the loss of such a talented and wonderful dog.

The burial of the dog, leaving the man once more alone. In my belief this is a sad yet appropriate ending. It reveals my intention for the film to show the importance of loving and living life. I knew the ending was always to be very dark and sad, thus supporting my decisions to apply many humorous moments within my short, so as to gain an equal balance of comedy and tragedy within my story.