IT WAS JIM - a Film by the Happy Haoles

[Nick_Lee]

Those last shots were crazy looking. They looked like green screen or something. Idk what it was, but it looked fake. I suppose that's a good thing haha. Good acting I thought and black and white was a nice touch. What fisheye were you using? really sharp.

I thought that the car interiors would have been better without the fisheye. but nice acting and for such a last minute thing nicely done.

 

[The_Happy_Haole]

This is where I stand with the film as well. For the amount of time and the fact that there's still going to be work done to it (I think I read that somewhere), this is a solid piece.

I loved that you went for a nice long, focused take right from the get go to establish the situation. Very tactfully done! The style of the image stays consistent, but the stuttering of the image when the camera should probably be lying very still draws too much attention to itself. I know that in a truck that's on, it would be vibrating, but that's where some of the compromises begin. The realism would be substituted for a static shot, allowing the focus to remain on the actors. I'm sure you've thought of this, but I just thought I'd toss it out there again as a portion of my review.

With the cuts between a still environment to the truck moving, I recommend tinkering with L cuts to smooth the transition from shot to shot out. When the wind whipping by from the car's movement breaks in exactly on the cut, it's disrupting. And since there's nothing happening in the scene that would make such an abrupt cut necessary, I would definitely play with that a little. It should help smooth out the edit and make the viewing experience a little more fluid.

I also wasn't sure about the split-screen/cookie-cutter tool used when he picks the camera up. I think a simple fade to black or even a dissolve as you'd already used would have kept a consistency of effect.

I'm sure it's been mentioned already, but when we switch back to color (which was done in a fairly tasteful manner) I found extreme inconsistencies in the color levels in the s/rs set up. Both shots looked composited. If it's not composited, something needs to be done about the foreground levels on the long haired man and background on the other.

The acting was surprisingly good! The two men, despite knowing anything about each other, seemed very sincere and earnest about the situation. A few lines just didn't have the development to feel necessary, but the guys carried it well.

I would love to see this film more finalized, though. Great concept! :beer:

Thanks for the comments.

Where to begin.......

Yea, there is NO DOUBT we should've given ourselves more time. We have a laundry list of things we didn't get to. However, like I've said before, we are VERY pleased with what we were able to submit....given the time constraints. The more I say it, the more it rings like a lame excuse....but we found out about this fest late, and tried to get a film done in a very short amount of time. A lame excuse for an excuse, but that's our excuse. Next fest WILL BE VERY DIFFERENT for us.

When we were near the wire (submission deadline), we didn't even give ourselves enough time for a final preview (playback) and just uploaded whatever version we were able to compress under 50mb. The compression REALLY hurt us. It only really stings because we spent HOURS removing the grain, banding & artifacts only to see all that work THROWN OUT THE WINDOW (& re-introduced) with the crappy generic iPhone compression that got us under 50mb. Again, none of this would matter had we given ourselves more time.

OK, on to your comments.

I don't really know what you mean about the camera 'moving' (or not moving) in the truck. Does this seem unnatural to you? Perhaps if he slams on the brakes that the cam would fall onto the floor? I don't know, it didn't seem like an issue for us. Also, the actors are in the frame and you can hear them clearly. We actually had the idea to 'better frame' them but went with this angle for more realism.

Yes, there most certainly should've been an L-cut in the house to car transition (just another thing we didn't have time to address). Also, the "split screen/cookie cutter" transition was also not completed (and, if anything screams "unfinished" it is this).

There are inconsistencies in the color grading of the last scene (which were just addressed in a previous response).

From what the writer/director (Chris) has told me, the story is layered. As you see (on the surface level) what is going on POV etc, underneath, the central character is going through the (Kubler-Ross model) 5 stages of grief. Which, in reality, most people would not go through those 5 stages in 6 minutes (or an hour....or a day)...so, they were written into the story to be very subtle...and mixed in with certain key words/actions.

Thanks for all your comments/critiques Lawsuit_Boy (an SE Hinton reference?)

Aloha

 

[The_Happy_Haole]

Those last shots were crazy looking. They looked like green screen or something. Idk what it was, but it looked fake. I suppose that's a good thing haha. Good acting I thought and black and white was a nice touch. What fisheye were you using? really sharp.

I thought that the car interiors would have been better without the fisheye. but nice acting and for such a last minute thing nicely done.

Thanks for the comments.

The last scene's shots (unfortunately) are slightly unfinished. **please refer to previous posts for explanation.

The fisheye is the Century Ultra Fisheye Adapter (for the DVX-100).
The fisheye really NEEDED to be used in the car (& the other times) to maintain consistency/continuity. At times, feeling a little 'off', sure (& very intentional), but that was a very important part of telling the story from this particular POV.

Thanks again for commenting.

Aloha

 

[alex whitmer]

Like the acting, especially the walk to the burial site. Had a very natural feel, like two strangers would do in the middle of some bizarre circumstances. They seemed well paired without falling into that oh-so-tired Mutt and Jeff routine.

Some cool shots. Like nearly all of them.

Good film.

alex

 

[Blaine]

I'm really not sure what I think about this right now. Considering you used a POV, I have to believe they took whatever it was (a dog?) out and finished it off before burying it. It must have been alive before for us to see from its POV, right?

I wasn't wild about the fisheye...I thought Jim was about seven feet tall for a moment there.

The green screen was rough, but I read back and saw you tried to hurry it too much. I assume that you've learned from that and will give yourself more time before you next entry. I was also bothered by the rain on the lens in the walking shots.

Acting was okay. I liked the decision to start with B&W and go to color when you changed from the POV.

 

[The_Happy_Haole]

Like the acting, especially the walk to the burial site. Had a very natural feel, like two strangers would do in the middle of some bizarre circumstances. They seemed well paired without falling into that oh-so-tired Mutt and Jeff routine.

Some cool shots. Like nearly all of them.

Good film.

alex

Thank You Alex. We had fun making it.

 

[The_Happy_Haole]

I'm really not sure what I think about this right now. Considering you used a POV, I have to believe they took whatever it was (a dog?) out and finished it off before burying it. It must have been alive before for us to see from its POV, right?

I wasn't wild about the fisheye...I thought Jim was about seven feet tall for a moment there.

The green screen was rough, but I read back and saw you tried to hurry it too much. I assume that you've learned from that and will give yourself more time before you next entry. I was also bothered by the rain on the lens in the walking shots.

Acting was okay. I liked the decision to start with B&W and go to color when you changed from the POV.

Thanks for your comments Blaine.

It's interesting that you noticed that ("still alive?"). While we were in post, I witnessed an interesting exchange between the director/writer (Chris) and the DP/editor (Zac). Zac had tweaked the sound to create a really cool effect....but Chris nixed it saying that it would immediately raise the "dead or alive" question and bring it forward. Where, if we kept the sound proper & fisheye consistent, that question would fade into the backround.

The actor who played Jim (Travis) is 6' 10".....I'm sure the fisheye just accentuated that. You have a good eye, Blaine.

These fests here are great. Now that we know about them, we can't wait for the next one.

Thanks again for commenting.

Aloha

Steven

 

[Spear670]

I'm just going through these all for a second time and after reading some of the posts before me and your explanations I really have to give you credit. I won't pick at issues that everyone else already has, I just want to congratulate you on getting this in at the buzzer while still making it a fun film to watch.

What I didn't read was when we can expect the director's cut? I'd be very interested in seeing that.

Best of luck!

 

[The_Happy_Haole]

I'm just going through these all for a second time and after reading some of the posts before me and your explanations I really have to give you credit. I won't pick at issues that everyone else already has, I just want to congratulate you on getting this in at the buzzer while still making it a fun film to watch.

What I didn't read was when we can expect the director's cut? I'd be very interested in seeing that.

Best of luck!

Thanks for your comments Spear670. We really did have a lot of fun making this and running the gauntlet (time-wise).

I am fairly new to the DVXuser forum, but I think you can't submit outside of DVXuser until a certain date, right?

Chris (director/writer) and Zac (DP/editor) have been too busy with their respective "day jobs". I, Steven (aka The Happy Haole), have taken on the role of DVXuser liaison. Collectively, we have discussed the possibility of putting together either a finished "director's cut" or just re-shooting it. Reason being: because the compositing in the final scene was simply an "emergency measure" to be able to get it done and turn in something. We did not get the lighting right on the actor Dan (who played Dan)......so, although a few more hours in post would've made the composite a little bit tighter/better, it never would've got to the point where we were satisfied.

Initially (and right after we submitted it) we just assumed that we would go back in and FINISH. But we have come to those crossroads as to ......should we even try to fix the unfixable? or just reshoot that last scene? However, I do believe it'll end up being one or the other.

Thank you again for commenting.

Aloha

 

[Lawsuit_Boy]

Thanks for the comments.



OK, on to your comments.

I don't really know what you mean about the camera 'moving' (or not moving) in the truck. Does this seem unnatural to you? Perhaps if he slams on the brakes that the cam would fall onto the floor? I don't know, it didn't seem like an issue for us. Also, the actors are in the frame and you can hear them clearly. We actually had the idea to 'better frame' them but went with this angle for more realism.

Yes, there most certainly should've been an L-cut in the house to car transition (just another thing we didn't have time to address). Also, the "split screen/cookie cutter" transition was also not completed (and, if anything screams "unfinished" it is this).

There are inconsistencies in the color grading of the last scene (which were just addressed in a previous response).

From what the writer/director (Chris) has told me, the story is layered. As you see (on the surface level) what is going on POV etc, underneath, the central character is going through the (Kubler-Ross model) 5 stages of grief. Which, in reality, most people would not go through those 5 stages in 6 minutes (or an hour....or a day)...so, they were written into the story to be very subtle...and mixed in with certain key words/actions.

Thanks for all your comments/critiques Lawsuit_Boy (an SE Hinton reference?)

Aloha

About the cam moving: no no, I meant just the vibration of the lens. Along the outside of the image, it consistently bobs and vibrates gently, suggesting that either A) the truck vibrates a lot when idling, or it was being held in place by someone's hand. It's not bothersome, but it is certainly noticeable, and I'm assuming that you meant for the dog to be dead the entire time (hence the reason it's being buried and the reason for the sounds of the flies around it at the beginning).

I understand that it's layered. EVERY story is layered no matter how simple. There is always something more to pull out of every story, and I think you guys did a fine job exploring more than just the idea of presenting a film from the dead-eye perspective of a dog. Don't worry, I'm not a nit-wit that views thousands of films and doesn't get them :beer:

And no, that's not a Hinton reference. It's actually a nickname I was given in the 8th grade by friends of mine. Jon Coy Lawsuit Boy. There is an ENORMOUS story behind it that I'm still pondering as a screenplay project. There is a lot of political mischief/corruption involved as well as a lot of commentary on modern capitalist societies sort of in the vein of Conflict Theory to present. Black mail too.

 

[The_Happy_Haole]

About the cam moving: no no, I meant just the vibration of the lens. Along the outside of the image, it consistently bobs and vibrates gently, suggesting that either A) the truck vibrates a lot when idling, or it was being held in place by someone's hand. It's not bothersome, but it is certainly noticeable, and I'm assuming that you meant for the dog to be dead the entire time (hence the reason it's being buried and the reason for the sounds of the flies around it at the beginning).

I understand that it's layered. EVERY story is layered no matter how simple. There is always something more to pull out of every story, and I think you guys did a fine job exploring more than just the idea of presenting a film from the dead-eye perspective of a dog. Don't worry, I'm not a nit-wit that views thousands of films and doesn't get them :beer:

And no, that's not a Hinton reference. It's actually a nickname I was given in the 8th grade by friends of mine. Jon Coy Lawsuit Boy. There is an ENORMOUS story behind it that I'm still pondering as a screenplay project. There is a lot of political mischief/corruption involved as well as a lot of commentary on modern capitalist societies sort of in the vein of Conflict Theory to present. Black mail too.

I can't seem to figure out this "multi-quote" thing......

I will have to go back and look at the 'inside the truck' scene.

The layered response was in reference when you mentioned this; "A few lines just didn't have the development to feel necessary, but the guys carried it well".
Maybe so... We are certainly always in favor of losing dialog (and/or, at least making it more concise).

Your screenplay sounds interesting, Jon. Good luck.

Aloha

 

[Lawsuit_Boy]

I can't seem to figure out this "multi-quote" thing......

I will have to go back and look at the 'inside the truck' scene.

The layered response was in reference when you mentioned this; "A few lines just didn't have the development to feel necessary, but the guys carried it well".
Maybe so... We are certainly always in favor of losing dialog (and/or, at least making it more concise).

Your screenplay sounds interesting, Jon. Good luck.

Aloha

Multi-quoting is an absolute pain the arse. Don't worry about it.

Don't worry, I know what you meant. I was just making sure I didn't come off as saying, "your film is shallow and had no development, blah blah blah." I really do understand where it was going and what it set out to do. So kudos there. Once it gets finalized more, I think you'll have a nice film on your hands.

and thank you! I'm sure the project will stay in the can for a long time. I'm actually going to be doing a short soon (with an actual CREW this time) that explores LGBT and gender bending in order to eviscerate certain stereotypes and really take a sociological perspective on modern relationships.

 

[Michael Anthony Horrigan]

You made this quickly and it shows through I'm sorry to say.

I did like what you did with the perspective shots and the characters were fairly personable.

Considering how quickly you put it together it could have been far worse. Not that it was terrible, it just looks rushed.

Keep at it!

MAH

 

[MrKilloran]

The POV is interesting.
Not sure what I'm feeling about the fisheye, cant say if I like or dislike it.
Color shots look weird on the single shots of both men, like they were placed in the scene.
Acting and the situation felt natural, not bad for a last minute sort of thing .

 

[Norm Sanders]

I'm not reading the other comments, so forgive me for any redundancy in mine....

The opening was an interesting POV, as was then much of the film. I LOVED the look of when the lead got close up to the camera, on the floor, and we heard the flies buzzing. Priceless! We instantly knew it was a dead body, and had been there for a while, without him having to say a thing. SO perfect!

His dialogue, however, seemed expository at times. That said, I did love his line of "This is so not good" ... considering I thought it was a dead human, I found it humorous at the time.

I found the crossfade transition to be senseless when we were in the truck. It should be reserved for passages of time, and while I get that time went by, there was really nothing different, other than the camera/towel moving some. Would have been far better to simply bring us into that shot near the end, as thye're pulling up to the place, or maybe five seconds prior to that.

When they're digging with the shovel, the SFX were noticeably out of sync. I thought that perhaps it was the m4v file, and that maybe the audio had slipped across the board, but once we were back to their dialogue it seemed fine, so you simply need to tighten up the editing of the SFX, specifically the shovel noises.

When we're at the closeups of the guys on the hill, post grave digging, something is REALLY weird with the lighting, as I swear it looks like greenscreen. Was it greenscreen? Perhaps you knew you were losing light, so you simply shot some plates, and then filmed them later?

Lastly, the collar on the cross at the end is a nice payoff, to realize it was only his dog, but then as I reflect on the rest of the film I felt it was over the top for a dog, especially when he's telling the guy he nearly hit "it's not what it looks like", etc. I can understand that line for a dead person wrapped up in the truck, but not for a dog.

 

[Brian Parker]

Interesting film. The POV was an inspired choice and got you some good shots. I'm just not sure that the story had enough development. You're like at the start of what good be a prety good film if you just flesh it out and tighten it up. Thanks for sharing!

 

[The_Happy_Haole]

Thanks for commenting.

Just about everything was touched on in our (GIANT) 4 pages thread. Well, except for this....

His dialogue, however, seemed expository at times.

Based on this definition:

Expository writing is a type of writing, the purpose of which is to inform, explain, describe, or define the author's subject to the reader. Expository text is meant to ‘posit’ information and is the most frequently used type of writing by students in colleges and universities. A well-written exposition remains focused on its topic and listing events in chronological order. Examples of this type of writing are cooking instructions, driving directions and instructions on performing a task. Key words such as first, after, next, then and last usually signal sequential writing. Personal pronouns may be used in such writing, if needed.

I would have to completely disagree with you. It really wasn't a "murder by numbers" piece. However, the less information that is given, the more subject to interpretation it becomes. Also, the other character's line, "Is that what I think it is?"....yes, it's barely a red herring.

Other than that, I'm glad our piece kept you interested. Our film, like your film, was way down here at the bottom (of the list).....which may be why we are also short on comments.

We have relished all of the comments (both good & bad), it will certainly help us improve (all of us in DVX-land). I just happen to disagree with the expository evaluation. However, I do thank you for your comments.

Aloha

Steven

 

[The_Happy_Haole]

MAH, MrKilloran & Champloo,

Thank you for your comments.

We are glad that our unique perspective peaked your interest. It was a different way to tell a story, and yes, everyone here (on our team) wished that we had given ourselves more time. Next fest will be different.

Thank you for your C&C's.

Aloha

 

[John LaBonney]

I agree, definitely not bad for such a rushed effort. This beats most 48 hour film projects I've seen hands-down.

I liked the interesting POV and thought it was refreshing and interesting. I think the pacing could have been tightened up in a few small places. I agree that the raindrops on the lens were distracting and pulled me out of the mood. I liked the change to color, but I wasn't buying the greenscreen shots. Hey, these are just nitpicks, I honestly couldn't do any better, and I think you came up with a pretty good effort considering the amount of time you had available. I'll look forward to your next film!