COLD CALLS by John Whalen featuring Blanchard Ryan (OpenWater) & Ben Bailey (CashCab)

That was a great flick. Ben Bailey was hilarious. Too perfect.

It was nice to the scriptfest winner so beautifully visualized.
 
Very well acted. Gotta love the talent pool.

I has a question: What was the motivation behind the wides? Or, why were the majority of the shots wide shots? Even when there are push-ins they make it to, at best, medium-wides if that makes any sense at all. Probably doesn't.

Not that this is a bad choice, I'm wondering why just to learn something for myself that I may not see.
 
Arrrgggg.

I just typed a scene by scene answer to your question then hit the wrong button.
:badputer:

Will recreate it after I take the dog out for fetch. :(
 
HAHAHAHHA!!!!

Ok.. sorry for not reading the thread but it is 41 pages long!

I really liked the sound! Also the location was great... must have had some wide lenses too. The lighting was very good too! Excellent plot!

I bet you were working with little time, obviously, but let me point out the weak points if I may. I though the lead actress did a bit of a weak job, though I am sure with a bit more editing time it would be much better... I wonder if the Director had his hands full with other jobs to do at once. The montage of calls was cut a bit slow for my taste. Finally, the cinematography wasn't my favorite. I know that it was a funny movie but I would have liked to have seen it shot in a bit more of a serious way. None of these were bad though, just not as perfect as I would have like to see them and with little time and resources they were all very good.

The set design for the call center was great. It looked a bit too clean but other than that it was excellent! Again I loved the plot! :)

I bet there is a lot more to be squeezed out of this film in editing and I'd love to see it once more if that ever happens.

Now I'll try to search through to see how much time was put into production and the size of the crew.

Good job!
:thumbsup:
 
Great work, I learned a few things while watching.

The ending though ''I think that one's for you'' would fit perfectly for me, but that's just a matter of taste.

Everything else looks really pro to me. One again, great job!
 
Kholi said:
Very well acted. Gotta love the talent pool.

I has a question: What was the motivation behind the wides? Or, why were the majority of the shots wide shots? Even when there are push-ins they make it to, at best, medium-wides if that makes any sense at all. Probably doesn't.

Not that this is a bad choice, I'm wondering why just to learn something for myself that I may not see.
Click to expand...


OK try two:

Drafting in word this time. So I don’t have to retype everything.

SHORT ANSWER:
It’s a light piece that doesn’t have a psychologically driven arc, not a real one anyway, and the type of intimacy that close-ups can foster aren’t necessary and maybe inappropriate, potentially shrinking the production value. Also close-ups should be earned I think, not just standard coverage. Jump down to the discussion of the Detective scene if you don’t want to read the whole long answer ☺

Also I think we are tighter more often than you realize.

LONG ANSWER:
To quote Gary Marshall : “Shoot it tight, they’ll give you a million dollars to make a TV show. Shoot it wide, they’ll give you a million dollars to make a movie.”

So that’s one reason. Movies rely on close-ups less than TV because the actors are projected on a large screen. So this is the oft forgotten last element for a cinematic look. To just back off a bit. Shooting / cutting close all the time can make the piece seem small or like TV.

The other reason is that I feel, like Walter Murch, that close-ups should be earned. His rule of thumb – if you can see the actor’s eyes you don’t need to go closer. It may be a great choice to go closer. But it shouldn’t be the defacto. Restraining yourself from going close as a matter of rote gives the close-up power. As with an exclamation point, it loses meaning if used at the end of every sentence. Used deliberately it’s a great tool to give yourself. It says “all of this stuff is on a similar level of importance, but THIS … this is what I want you to get, what you need to see” when you drop the closeup.

Another way of thinking about it is that close-ups are the the most intimate of shots. So that’s another guide to choosing shot size.

Who do we see from head to toe? Strangers.
Who do we see framed like gunslingers – thigh up? Co-workers, acquaintances.
Waist up? Friends across the dinner table.
Head and shoulders? Family.
So close we can’t see the whole face? Lovers in pillow talk.

So if it’s a light absurd comedy where we don’t need to identify on a deep level emotionally with the characters. And in fact the first three scenes are just a lady getting some odd calls from a telemarketer that she initially writes off, then there’s no need to go in much tighter. We can see her eyes. Read all the beats because they’re not complex beats, but simple ones we all get. Telemarketer = meh. So keep it wide, keep the moving feeling bigger and save close for later maybe. But going in super tight when these are almost just “stasis” scenes isn’t necessary and would probably make the movie feel smaller in terms of production value and more cramped as well.

Typically I try to save the close-up for more revelatory moments, dramatic moments. The part of the scene when you get to what the scene is really about, why it was written. Or, when the character is uncovering that dark moment from their past, realizing they really are in love with the other character, deciding to step of the edge of a cliff, etc.

Often when working under the gun you get your three set ups / two shot sizes. A wide two shot and closer shots for each actor. So you have to kind of make a blanket decision for the scene when the ideal might be a two shot master, a wider medium – dirty or not with the other actor partly in it, and then a much closer shot for that key moment.

So scene by scene:
1st THREE SCENES
Again the 1st three scenes are just her getting calls while reading a book, chopping vegetables etc. Not wanting to make things seem too dramatic or intense here. Keeping it light for the first three scenes so we have somewhere to go.

At the beginning of the 1st bedroom scene we start with an ECU of the eyes only to suggest that she’s beginning to suspect something here. Then go back to wide and medium for the lightness

MONTAGE:
Shorter the scenes, the less coverage you need. And again, for the most part these are light and comedic and more about the setting she’s in and the dialogue than some deeper inner journey.

End of montage – here’s your closeup. She’s decided she’s not gonna take it anymore.

DETECTIVE SCENE
One of only two scenes in the film where two people actually sit and talk, and you’ll see some very tight close-ups here. So we have a wide shot. Which feels a little close to me for the genre. And then I think a lot of this scene is played too close. Due to our time situation and geometry of the space it’s all a little tighter than I might like. The close-ups are a little tight for the whole scene too. Ideally I would like to have had some looser mediums or medium close shots that we could play most of the scene in. That says “all of the information, emotionality, all of the ways the film is communication to you right now are of similar importance.” THEN when we get to the exploding gas part we could move to the very tight Warner Bros. Close-ups (forehead cropped) that we have to play most of the scene in. Then along with the great performances, writing and score, it might be even more ridiculously serious at that moment. That might say “This part is more dramatic, more intense, and we want yu to feel it along with the characters.” Remember too that most people don’t notice cuts or shot sizes like we do. So the average viewer would just sense a more intimate connection or bump in intensity. It works on us too even though we may be aware of the machinery at work.

BEDROOM PACING LONGER TALKING SCENE
Ok so variety of shot sizes and movement here, including ECU.

END SCENE
Only other two person talking scene. And again some close shots. The wides are good but again I wish I had something in between the wides and the head and shoulder shots. She’s pretty good but Ben is often cropped out of the frame a bit more than I would like on some of his closer shots. Not so much as in the detective scene, but I would like a more neutral shot of Ben (looser close-up) and something in between her wide and head and shoulders shot so I could keep it light and airy and amp up the tension a bit at the end.

So that’s my thoughts on close-ups. :beer:
 
Can't disagree with a thing you posted. I actually had to go back to my own short (the only one I've ever shot) and see what I did as far as CU's to Wide ratios... what do you know... I've got many more wides than I thought.

Thanks for the informative post, Jack.
 
Well you're ahead of the game intuitively.

Hudson had to spank me for being too close too often in Bonehand, though that was mostly due to not being able to get all the coverage I wanted due to physical / time limitations. But it's something I try to be conscious of.

We're out there with 2" flip out LCD's and 7"HD monitors and the temptation can be to shoot it like TV. Cause we can barely see what we're doing anyway.
 
There's that, and, having the lighting to deal with wides. The proper amount of rigging changes, naturally, when going from a wide to a tight.

That can really botch the will to move toward wider shots where you can get some really great camera action going. Tights are generally limited to a float and tilt at best.
 
the many discussions I had with jack the words Close Up were hardly used....

we wanted to show off the location as much as possible, while riding the serious/so serious its funny line..... and not making it tooooo slick... its weird shooting mock films. its like taking a good idea for a lighting plan, then saying what would jerry bruckheimer do.... then multiply by 5....
 
Ah, and the third bit: Location. The location was nice enough to be shown off as far as I could tell. Forgot all about that one. =P
 
Great film! Really nice job. Right from the very beginning the film grabbed my attention and it carried all the way through to the end. I have watched your other shorts for the other fests here and have enjoyed those as well.

Needless to say, there were some great shots and the cinematography was excellent in the film. It is clear that the shots were choices - and not routine. The way this was shot really brought the story forward as we uncovered more abexcellent exaout what was going on. You brought the script and made it come alive. This is the kind of thing I am trying to build up on myself - mple here. The lighting was great throughout, I really liked the dark room with the lamp on about 3/4 the way through, that was a neat setup.

As others have said - the wide shots were neat. I liked your write up on shots. I really liked that wider shot in the beginning and the dog running past - that was a really nice touch. I think little things like that add another layer to the film, something often forgotten.

Location looked great.

Sound was excellent, very crisp and clear dialogue. Phone dialogue was great! Excellent. The score was great - really helped move things along and added that extra layer.

Acting was very well done and very believable. The phone voice acting was great also! The edit and overall look of the film was great too. This was a very high quality short. I've only watched a few so far, but what a high standard!

Overall excellent, excellent job!
 
Last edited:
Jack Daniel Stanley said:
Well you're ahead of the game intuitively.

Hudson had to spank me for being too close too often in Bonehand, though that was mostly due to not being able to get all the coverage I wanted due to physical / time limitations. But it's something I try to be conscious of.

We're out there with 2" flip out LCD's and 7"HD monitors and the temptation can be to shoot it like TV. Cause we can barely see what we're doing anyway.
Click to expand...

I love spanking you. :beer: Especially after 12 beers at Fat Monsters.

Great post by the way in answering Kholi's question. I, obviously, agree 100%.

I found this to be you best visual piece as well.

But ODD is still the one that entertained me the most ! :beer:
 
Great film, Jack. -- I found it very interesting to look over the poster again after seeing the piece.

Wonderful acting all around. My "look-a-like" did a great job, and I LOVE the elevator music in the utility closet.

Absolute polish, Jack... something I look up to you for.

Funny script through-and-through. What a concept!
But hey... at least its not Calcutta.
 
Jack my friend :) I've watched COLD CALLS several times now.... and I've gotta say it doesn't quite work for me... now... let me disclaim everything I'm about to say... there has NEVER been a short from you I haven't enjoyed watching, in fact, I am constantly amazed by your work, and am sooooo darn excited to see a feature from you... (hopefully SOON!) :) That having been said, let's get back to COLD CALLS...

The short looked spectacular... and I briefly skimmed over the long post about the shot technique you used for this short, and loved everything you said.... I've just been learning that a lot lately myself as well, trying to go wide to not cramp the film, etc. Some great stuff here visually...

The performances in the short didn't quite work for me... I really felt like this could have been very funny, and it just never quite worked for me from the performance angle. I thought the lines themselves could have been funnier... I can't exactly put my finger on what it was about the performances I didn't like, they just seemed off to me... they didn't hit the right notes for the humor for me...

The script had tons of potential, but I'm just not getting the vibe from this one... I thought it could have been funnier... I took this as kind of being a dark comedy, which I generally really like and connect with, but I didn't here....

Technically this was wonderful, but the execution didn't click with me...

Jack, you're a good friend, and a phenomenal filmmaker... who I truly respect, and I still think you're the man... this just didn't work for me like your previous work has....

Thanks for the watch.
 
Brandon I appreciate and respect your honest opinion.

And would never discourage anyone from leaving their most candid thoughts here regarding the film.

Whether anyone loves, hates, or is luke warm about the film, I appreciate taking the time to watch and comment.

Now having said that ...

Your dead to me now. :)
 
The level of professionalism, technique, and attention to details in this short impressed me. Your audio is great, your lighting is typically great, and you've put that Letus Ultimate to good and proper use. Obviously, this short takes a different approach to Twilightfest in that it takes a humorous twist versus a creepy, go cry in the corner twist. I absolutely loved it.

SPOLIER (highlight to read)
The "inside the house" line was a little to cliche for my liking, but hey whatever.
END SPOILER

Overall, I enjoyed this and will continue to enjoy this film as an inspiration for quality filmmaking. WATCH OUT! Barry's in the house! Run for your life
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks viewing and commenting :beer:

SPOILER

I hope the "inside the house line" is very, very, very, very cliche :)

I mean we poured it on very thick, absolutely as thick as we could - and I assume you do know that's from several movies? So it's referential. Kind of a staple of the genre.

 
Excellent film, Jack. As always, great production values and performances. :thumbsup:

It also had some good lines in it (el chupacabra property damage - lol).

If we were using an eBay type grading system I'd give it an A++++ .

:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top