"Without Provocation" - a Norm Sanders (Envision) film

ORGINAL, non filtered versionof the film!

ORGINAL, non filtered versionof the film!

As it's now past 3pm PST, and voting has closed for SpyFest, I think it's safe to go ahead & post the original non filtered version, or those who want to see it:


ORIGINAL NON FILTERED FILM


FILTERED / ANIMATED LOOK


Both films have revised audio as well, where I wanted to have the dialogue work as a panning stereo track. Though completely unconventional, this film was all about taking risks & doing things differently, AND because we've got so much CU's we're dealing with in one room and a number of cast, I though the stereo dialogue may help to place the characters in the room, when heard OS, etc.

If you feel the panning dialogue is distracting, please let me know! Also, if you dig it, please let me know. Before we go to the final 5.1 mix within the next week or so, I'd like to have a final decision on this as to whether we leave it or force all the dialogue down the center channel, which is more industry standard.

Look forward to your thoughts! And to those of you who were bothered by the filtered/animated look, I'd look forward to your thought especially to see if the original look works better for you, and what you think of the performances now. :)

I'll see about rendering out a version soon that has the filtered look on just the drug use scene only, to see how it flows.
 
Norm, I think it is a much better film without the affect you applied in post. Film acting is obviously about nuance and you lose the smaller facial expressions with the affect applied. Everyones performance improved in my view and the tension increased. I think the affect created an artificial barrier that derailed that part of it. Nice film!
 
Norm, I really liked this one, except I'm not too sure about the effect. Did you intend to go for a Waking Life type of feel? It just looked odd, and kept me from being completely immersed. That said, I'm impressed with your acting skills, very solid. This was enjoyable, and it certainly felt like a big production, with the SWAT gear and all. And the confrontation with Robin was well done too, lots of tension.

Nice work man! Thanks for a good time.
 
Bosindy, I still like the filtered version.

The good part about the unfiltered version is that you can see the makeup on Rebecca.

I'm anxious to see the other reviews!

When are the winners gonna be posted... jeez.
 
Jim (bosindy), thanks for the additional feedback after watching the non filtered version. So while the film improved for you, in the more normal state, did the story, script and performances actually WORK for you? No worries if not, just wanting to guage what the definition of improvement was.

gabrielflorit, I didn't intend to go for a WAKING LIFE feel, as I've not seen it (never even heard of it before). I DID want to do something inspired by SCANNER DARKLY (though I've only seen trailers of it). Thanks for the kudos, and feel free to check out the non-filtered version (link above) to see if anything improved for you, or is at least less distracting.

Zach, the good part is you can see Rebecca's makeup? C'mon, lol. :happy:

BTW, for anyone interested, I've put together a quick (1 minute) BTS clip of the building of our Flash Bang, which I had to create the night before, since we couldn't find a military surplus store that had anything other than fragmentation grenades ...

BTS - MAKING OF THE FLASH BANG
 
Just kidding, Zach! I meant there are folks on here (*coughs* mark harris!) that would like the non filtered version for other reasons, lol.

Though I'm pretty sure the scar shows in the filtered version as well, you're right in that it does show up MUCH better in the non-filtered version. Claudine did an EXCELLENT job with the scar, as well as makeup in general (bruising on the Wife, etc.).
 
Norm -

You're right, in certain shots like this it does show up, but I guess since it wasn't as solid as in the other one I was subconciously dismissing it as hair.
1181534620.jpg


However it stands the test of no filter up close and still looks eerily real. Nice job.
1181534733.jpg
 
Norm Sanders said:
Jim (bosindy), thanks for the additional feedback after watching the non filtered version. So while the film improved for you, in the more normal state, did the story, script and performances actually WORK for you? No worries if not, just wanting to gage what the definition of improvement was.
BTS - MAKING OF THE FLASH BANG
Click to expand...


The film as a whole worked for me (it worked for me with the affect but at a lesser level)

The performances were really strong. The women were great and this version improves them for me. (particularly Rebecca's performance now that I can see her eyes.) I thought you were good overall, especially as stated, when you come to a higher level of emotion. There was brief moments when your performance seemed slightly off (which the affect highlighted more), the deliver of the first line "the boy ..." but you also were really present at other times. (when you ask Rebecca if she just mentioned your name) I have a lot of respect for people who direct and act and I am impressed overall.

The story is made to be a thriller and it delivers on that. Especially without the distraction of the affect. It has good tension throughout. The music really serves the piece adding to the tension. The cinematography really comes through for me now and the framing of the close ups were spot on.

The face off between you and Rebecca pointing guns at each other is a bit derivative but it works well for where the story ends. The gun shot looks a bit fake now that you removed the post, so maybe you can do something more with it. Overall I would give it a big thumbs up. I think you were going for a departure and theme wise this seems to be; from what I know of your work. I enjoy this and am looking forward to more films from you; and discussion about filmmaking in general.
 
Thanks for the added notes, Jim, much apprecaited! I've got a version that I just rendered out to an uncompressed AVI, that mixes the filtered with the non-filtered version, to see what people think. Basically, the first time we see it is the drug scene ... then it blends back in on the low 'whoosh' SFX as I pick up the picture frame coming back to the group. Then, as I pull the trigger, we degress back to the filtered look, which will take care of the blood/FX concern. We come back to the real, non filtered look again when we leave slow motion/surreal at the sound of the gun blast, outside the room with the SWAT team. Finally, we make one last transition to the filtered look as we go back to slow motion, during the CU of Rebecca's face, as you can see her mouth the F-Bomb.

We'll see how people like it ... I've got to render it to a QT7 file now, which will take at least an hour or more that I'll be off line.

Shawn, that UTube video has some INCREDIBLY funny moments, thanks for sharing!!
 
"RE-MIXED" version of WITHOUT PROVOCATION

"RE-MIXED" version of WITHOUT PROVOCATION

Okay, taking suggestion by those who thought it could be good to blend the filtered with the non-filtered version, I give you the following mixed version. :)

Still looking for feedback as well about the audio (specifically the panning/stereo dialogue), but look forward to your thoughts on the visual, to see if this should be our final (should we want to submit to another festival, etc.).

MIXED VERSION
 
Norm! Yes! Im just checking out this version, i didnt see the last version but wow, i really think this short is gripping and dramatic, it was one of my favorites of the fest. And i love all the acting from all the actors. No problems there. Your surround mix sounds great on my mackie HR824's. Great job with the panning of the voices, it really added another level to the sound design.

Here are some nitpicks that are minor and more of a personal preference, but it would make the world of difference to me:

1. the gunshot at the end, when you kill your partner, its soft. If you listen to the gunshots in THE DEPARTED of JACKIE BROWN they are crazy loud, powerful and disturbing. Its more effective that way. Either jack up the volume or i'll email you a gunshot from the George Lucas fx library.

2. speaking of the end... there needs to be some deliniation of sound to create more impact from where the movie ends and the credits begin. As is, the music comes on too strong on the credits and you missed a key sound design element that would add weight to the grenade exploding: the music should build and build to the climax and "boom!', huge grenade sound which cuts off the music. As the grenade sound fades out the credits are silent. Thats a finale, thats impact. Anyway just an idea.

3. early on in the short, when they peak through the blinds, i would love to see a few SWAT guys scurrying around to surround the house. I feel like this shot is missing, but would add a lot to drive the motivation for paranoia.

4. If you want to stick the filter back in on certain scenes there needs to be a reason for it. Putting the filter on the heroin usage scene is brilliant, in addition you should put the filter on the quick cut of the guy snorting blow.

or

just use the filter on any scene with the child, just so theres cohesiveness with the visuals. (i prefer you keep the filter on the drug scenes because it makes more sense).

My point is, I would remove the filter from the end, like you have it, and only use it for specific scenes, to enhance the scene for a reason. like the drugs. sorry, if im being repetitive.

Lastly, the scene where you show the view from the child in the crib (i think thats what you were doing?)... the camera lingers a touch too long.

These are minor! I love what you did and how quick you did it.
Mucho props.
-Matt
 
very well done. great job on this norm. i had you in my top 3. it was just plain memorably entertaining. and thats what its all about.
 
Short...

Short...

Well, well, well...so I finally made it to dvxuser.com

Norm-

I think that out of your three shorts I have seen, this one was, by far, the strongest; no stilted performances, good vision, excellent editing.

I prefer the non-filtered version for a few reasons. 1.) It allows the viewer to get swept into the story easier, 2.) I was more visually engrossed in the film, and 3.) I personally think that the filtered effect is a bit of a cheap gimmick used to help carry a film when the story is lacking (ie-Scanner Darkly). While I like the effect when used sparingly, I just don't think we needed it...

Now for some constructive criticism...

I think that you are a good actor, a tremendous editor and an unbelievable producer. Some advice from a directing standpoint: Learn more about camera angles and how they can affect the audience. There are a few shots that could have helped you tell the story even better.

For example, choosing to show Rebecca's breasts in the frame without her face was a poor choice. She is being degraded by your character at that moment and we, as viewers, should be forced to choose between looking at her face or looking at her breasts. Rather than leaving that choice up to your audience, you made the decision for them.

There are a couple other techniques that would have helped give more power to Seller and more sexuality to Anita's character, but I won't go into that here.

All in all, I thought it was great. I've watched about half the other shorts in the festival and only saw one that I enjoyed more than Without Provocation, so kudos to you.

I can't wait for the next project!! It was a pleasure working with you and I hope that the future holds much more for us. I'll talk to you later.

-Matthew Merz
 
Norm. After seeing the unfiltered cut, I take back most of what I said about your performance. I think you were a little low energy in the opening scene compared to the other actors who were much more keyed up throughout and I think the filtering just swallowed your performance in this earlier part of the short. That filter is such a barrier to the actors, IMO, without the proprietary software and team of VFX guys to make sure the nuances come through.
 
I think the unfiltered version is a huge imporovement. I can actually tell what's happening now, what the room looks like, what the movements are, etc. I think the acting seems better in this version as well, now that I'm not so distracted by the filter. I thought your acting was better as the film progressed.

I noticed the jump cuts and was wondering what the point of that was. I found that to be additionally distracting.

I think the film could be improved with some additional color correcting. Maybe adding a gritty look to it with more contrast. Just a recommendation.

There's also an insert shot looking the railing of the stairs. The shot is held for a long time and seems to have no purpose except for the dialogue that's over it. That sort of pulls me out of the action that's going on, especially with how long it's held.

Lastly, the phone continues to ring while the SWAT team is in the middle of their raid and already in the house. I would think the police wouldn't be calling still if they were busy raiding the house. Just a thought.
 
Last edited:
Defcon said:
Norm! Yes! Im just checking out this version, i didnt see the last version but wow, i really think this short is gripping and dramatic, it was one of my favorites of the fest. And i love all the acting from all the actors. No problems there. Your surround mix sounds great on my mackie HR824's. Great job with the panning of the voices, it really added another level to the sound design.
Click to expand...

Thaks, Matt (defcon), really glad this worked for you as well as it did! Also thanks for the feedback on the dialogue. Totaly against the rule of thumb, but this was about doing things differently.

Defcon said:
Here are some nitpicks that are minor and more of a personal preference, but it would make the world of difference to me:

1. the gunshot at the end, when you kill your partner, its soft. If you listen to the gunshots in THE DEPARTED of JACKIE BROWN they are crazy loud, powerful and disturbing. Its more effective that way. Either jack up the volume or i'll email you a gunshot from the George Lucas fx library.
Click to expand...

Feel free to e-mail away! :) norm at eefilm dot com

Steve_Arm, you had mentioned the same thing a while back. If you've got a particular gun SFX you love, feel free to forward it ... I'll take a listen to anything that comes in & use the best sounding one (forwarding on to Herman, of course, who's doing the final 5.1 mix as well).

Defcon said:
2. speaking of the end... there needs to be some deliniation of sound to create more impact from where the movie ends and the credits begin. As is, the music comes on too strong on the credits and you missed a key sound design element that would add weight to the grenade exploding: the music should build and build to the climax and "boom!', huge grenade sound which cuts off the music. As the grenade sound fades out the credits are silent. Thats a finale, thats impact. Anyway just an idea.
Click to expand...

You're right, and it's a good idea. Originally, I had the vision that we'd just hear this deaf ring for a while as it died out ... but I also knew I wanted some score in there, and don't believe I effectively communicated with Herman in advance. Then with my leaving & him only being able to give this a one draft go (he may have done more on his end, but wasn't able to run anything past me prior to festival submission), it's what we have. When I finally did hear it, I was so in love with his music that I completely forgot I DID want more of a sickly silence (or deaf ring) before the music began to come back in.

Without having to have him rework that section too much, I might be able to simply slow the credits down by 5-10 seconds, which will allow him to simply push the music back some before coming in.

Again, thanks for that.

Defcon said:
3. early on in the short, when they peak through the blinds, i would love to see a few SWAT guys scurrying around to surround the house. I feel like this shot is missing, but would add a lot to drive the motivation for paranoia.
Click to expand...

Um, yeah ... too late. Next. :)

Defcon said:
4. If you want to stick the filter back in on certain scenes there needs to be a reason for it. Putting the filter on the heroin usage scene is brilliant, in addition you should put the filter on the quick cut of the guy snorting blow.

or

just use the filter on any scene with the child, just so theres cohesiveness with the visuals. (i prefer you keep the filter on the drug scenes because it makes more sense).

My point is, I would remove the filter from the end, like you have it, and only use it for specific scenes, to enhance the scene for a reason. like the drugs. sorry, if im being repetitive.

Lastly, the scene where you show the view from the child in the crib (i think thats what you were doing?)... the camera lingers a touch too long.

These are minor! I love what you did and how quick you did it.
Mucho props.
-Matt
Click to expand...

Good idea on the filter ... I'm still trying to figure out exactly where to have it. Since I've heard from several parties that they PREFER the gun/blood FX with the filter, I decided to add it at the slow motion effect ... like things weren't as real at that moment (or all hell has broken loose ... much like during the drug flashback). I'll likely kill it from the end, but at this point, I'm thinking of leaving it at the drug flash back, and for the slow motion effect with the blood/gun FX, SWAT, etc. Thoughts? Otherwise, I'll just have it at the drug flash back only, as I think it'd be too quick & ood to throw it on Carter when he snorts his coke.

I didn't know what you meant by about the kid in the crib, but I think you meant when we were looking through the railings. I agree, a tad too long, but if I make adjustments there, it adjusts quite a bit from that point forward with regards to score, blah, blah, blah. After a fest like this, I've got to look at ROI (return on investment) for my time. I could always tweak or try to improve things, but it comes a time when you've just got to put a project to bed & move on. Be proud of the accomplishment(s), learn from mistakes, and apply those things to the next project.

Some of the EASY & quick stuff you mentioned above, no problem. Not so sure about the cut ... I'll check with Herman, however.

Thanks again, Matt! Great feedback & ideas!

Neil Rowe said:
very well done. great job on this norm. i had you in my top 3. it was just plain memorably entertaining. and thats what its all about.
Click to expand...

Neil, as someone who's on the same page as I am (through our PM discussions), as well as someone who's turned out some incredibly cool work (i.e. your DramaFest entry had some INSANE visuals & shots), this really means a lot to me. Thank you. :)

idesofmerz said:
Norm-

I think that out of your three shorts I have seen, this one was, by far, the strongest; no stilted performances, good vision, excellent editing.

.....

All in all, I thought it was great. I've watched about half the other shorts in the festival and only saw one that I enjoyed more than Without Provocation, so kudos to you.

I can't wait for the next project!! It was a pleasure working with you and I hope that the future holds much more for us. I'll talk to you later.

-Matthew Merz
Click to expand...

Thanks, Matt (idesofmerz)! Though you didn't make it over here to see the editing, you didn't miss much ... just me pulling my hair out as I was trying to do a style I'd not tackled before. Glad it worked for so many people.

idesofmerz said:
I prefer the non-filtered version for a few reasons. 1.) It allows the viewer to get swept into the story easier, 2.) I was more visually engrossed in the film, and 3.) I personally think that the filtered effect is a bit of a cheap gimmick used to help carry a film when the story is lacking (ie-Scanner Darkly). While I like the effect when used sparingly, I just don't think we needed it...
Click to expand...

Points taken. Thankfully you'll have both versions available on your cast & crew DVD. :grin:


idesofmerz said:
Now for some constructive criticism...

I think that you are a good actor, a tremendous editor and an unbelievable producer. Some advice from a directing standpoint: Learn more about camera angles and how they can affect the audience. There are a few shots that could have helped you tell the story even better.

For example, choosing to show Rebecca's breasts in the frame without her face was a poor choice. She is being degraded by your character at that moment and we, as viewers, should be forced to choose between looking at her face or looking at her breasts. Rather than leaving that choice up to your audience, you made the decision for them.

There are a couple other techniques that would have helped give more power to Seller and more sexuality to Anita's character, but I won't go into that here.
Click to expand...

Thanks again for the kudos on the acting/editing/producing. As far as directing, and learning more about camera angles, I agree it could/would be helpful, and it's on my to-do list. From a story telling stand point, absolutely. Otherwise, I defer a LOT to the DP's I work with, as I HAVE to trust their judgement on what will look great, as well as tell a good story. If I don't trust them, why have them?

As far as focusing on Rebecca's breasts, we're litterally off her face for about 2 seconds or less, the cut right back to a wide shot. What I had WANTED to do was get a shot/angle of SELLER looking down at ROBIN's breasts ... however, by the time we got to my close ups, it was late, and I was fried ... I forgot to give the same somewhat snearing/sexual stare that I had been doing when we were doing Rebecca's close ups. So moving down her open shirt (from her face) was supposed to be more of SELLER's POV. Unfortunately I didn't have that take/angle to work with ...

But ... I didn't want the CU to go to waste either. And, I don't want anyone to think for a minute that I enjoyed editing that in my office ... frame by frame ... on my 36 inch widescreen HD monitor.

Feel free to post other ideas on what you feel would have brought SELLER's character more power, or LINDEN's more sexuality. We're all here to learn, and are open to ideas, myself especially. But, it's difficult to tell a director that a choice of their was a 'bad choice'. It is art, it is subjective, and there are reasons behind every decision. Some will love them, some won't. So it's a choice, but not necessarily a bad one.

Jack Daniel Stanley said:
Norm. After seeing the unfiltered cut, I take back most of what I said about your performance. I think you were a little low energy in the opening scene compared to the other actors who were much more keyed up throughout and I think the filtering just swallowed your performance in this earlier part of the short.
Click to expand...

Yay!! Maybe others won't think my acting sucked as bad either now, lol! :) Seriously, thanks for taking the time to watch it again, Jack, and I'm glad the performance improved for you.

flmmkr said:
I think the unfiltered version is a huge imporovement. I can actually tell what's happening now, what the room looks like, what the movements are, etc. I think the acting seems better in this version as well, now that I'm not so distracted by the filter. I thought your acting was better as the film progressed.

I noticed the jump cuts and was wondering what the point of that was. I found that to be additionally distracting.

I think the film could be improved with some additional color correcting. Maybe adding a gritty look to it with more contrast. Just a recommendation.

There's also an insert shot looking the railing of the stairs. The shot is held for a long time and seems to have no purpose except for the dialogue that's over it. That sort of pulls me out of the action that's going on, especially with how long it's held.

Lastly, the phone continues to ring while the SWAT team is in the middle of their raid and already in the house. I would think the police wouldn't be calling still if they were busy raiding the house. Just a thought.
Click to expand...

Hey flmmkr, thanks for the feedback! Also, great job with SORRY ... very well done & entertaining! Glad you guys placed!

For the stairs, yep ... too long. I can see about making an adjustment, but see above on my concerns about ROI.

The jump cuts are to keep the flow, really. Since the cuts are so frequent from character to character, I felt the need to give a little pop or some kind of camera action/movement if we stayed on a character for any length of time ... just to keep the pace & sense of movement going. I would NEVER do that in a film like WHERE SILENCE FALLS, for example. I also wanted to add that slight sense of being in the room with them, or documentary style, where the camera is adjusting as we move along in real time.

Good idea on the additional contrast ... I'll do some tests to see how it works out.

For the continued ringing phone, when SWAT breaches a location, their main purpose at that point is to prevent injury/death to themselves and/or any potential hostages/innocents. The phone would be a distraction to them vs. cluing them in that they may be trying to come in after them, etc. Same thing with a flash-bang ... it's to catch them off guard (stunning them), so they can apprehend them, if at all possible without fatality. So that's why we had the phone continue to ring.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top