2 Short films

Glen Hatsumi

Glen Hatsumi

Member
Sorry everyone, I posted my film footage a poor way last time and so it got moved to the 'cafe ala DVX. I will give you some links straight to the films this time as I would love to hear some feedback:

Pawns was shot on a PAL JVC (small and crappy):

http://www.nuancefilms.com/pawns.mov

http://www.nuancefilms.com/Pawnsflash.html
http://www.nuancefilms.com/pawnsflash.html
Shades was shot on our DVX100b shortly after it arrived:

http://www.nuancefilms.com/Shades.mov
http://www.nuancefilms.com/shades.mov
http://www.nuancefilms.com/Shadesflash.html
http://www.nuancefilms.com/Shadesflash.html
 
Last edited:
The first film had some terrible acting so I just stopped it halfway. It was really uncomfortable to watch. I'm guessing that it was one of your earlier works because the second film was much better.

Beautiful photography for shades. The intro was shot beautifully. The first girl (the wife) delivered a short but good performance.

However, there were obviously many flaws including some awkward lines.
"I'm the man who was there..."
"You're the man?" - unnecessary repetition?
It sounds like the two people on the phone are just delivering their lines. The girl on the other end of the phone is just reading the lines of the script, the way they were memorized in her head. But it was strange... for that split second, I could see some honest emotion coming from the actress.... that last words "See you at six!" was very heartfelt. This was the one and only good part about her performance. Trevor's performance was a drag. He didn't take any time to enter into the character's mindset and I'm sure you didn't take the time to shape the character. He didn't connect with the character - his emotions were bland, boring, cliche, obvious. The only good part about this movie was "see you at six". I'm sure many other people would agree with me. What happened before you shot that? Did you do any coaching? Maybe the actor brought up some images or somehow connected with the character's emotions. If you can get that little glimpse of light (see you at six) and somehow get the rest of the performances to that level... you will become a great director and you will have a fine film.

Edit: Also, the girl delivers a decent performance when she is talking about the novel. I think it's because she has something physical to do while she is "performing". She's moving around, turning on the faucet, doing stuff with her hands. This usually gets the actor's focus off themselves. They might stop watching themselves because their attention is taken up with something physical. Try it yourself!
 
Last edited:
Thanx for the feedback, I really appreciate all that was said.

I would definitely agree that the acting in both of the films was not near what it shoud be. I am sure it is a symptom of two things a)bad writing and b)poor actor direciton. I have to take the blame for both as writer and director. In shades I was most pleased with Kristen's acting (the girl who plays the wife in the earlier scenes), she is very natural. You're certainly on to something when you say that not enough time was spent with the actors exploring the characters. It is something that has become the main focus of our next short. Hopefully I can work on this area of my direction.

Again, thanx a lot for the criticism.
 
if anyone else has had a chance to watch the films I would love to hear if you agree/disagree with the initial criticism, or if you have any other things I can work on. I would really appreciate any feedback, as it is a great tool for learning.
 
Nice little short.
I agree with the above posts, actors needed to be more realistic, but that comes in time....
Your boom pole operator needs to be less 'fidgety' on the pole, I could hear ruffling...
Keep at it!
 
thx lake films.

lol, It's funny that you should mention the rustling considering we didn't have a sound guy for the shoot. Unfortunately being that the crew consisted of one person, me, I simply set up a condenser and tried to get as much as I could out of it. For this reason, as you probably heard, our sound has always been garbage. It is something we shall rememdy in the next film as we are bringing in a good engineer. It will be so nice to not have to worry about it. thanks for watching, I really appreciate it.

Trent
 
Since I got the impression Shades is your best effort, I'll stick to looking at that. Didn't think too much of it to be honest. The opening was nice and in generaly the cinematography was good, although some more camera moves would've been nice. I'll take a handheld camera looking cheap, but getting the camera where it needs to be to guide an audience over nice, professional, boring tripod shots for most shots. I try and limit completely static shots to a few as possible on any film.

Acting was vary student-ish. They tried to hard to try and make people feel sorry for them. An actors job is to feel the emotions and sympathy comes. Actor's feel the emotion by thinking what the character thinks. I've seen that type of acting (good acting is a combination of casting and directing) in movies friends of mine have made (and I'll admit earlier movies of mine) where they said to "play is angry" or "play it sad". I don't know what you did, but just a lesson adjectives aren't playable emotions. You don't go find your wife dead and think "man I'm angry right now" you think "my wife is dead...what happened" and the emotion comes naturally. Trying to play an emotion almost always looks forced. Direct in verbs. Never adjectives.

The story wasn't all too interesting. Rather cliche with the guy's gf or wife. It just seemed boring and kind of random. Not to mention it's kinda tricky to figure out it's the same guy that sees the man shoot himself as is in the next scene. At first i wasn't sure if it was a flashback or not.

Sorry if this is rather direct, but I've always thought of friends for "that's perfect. keep it up" and the internet for "this is what you need to work on"

Good Luck with future films.
 
Hi Glen,

This is in response to 'Shades...'

My first observation was that it was shot beautifully. If you don't mind my asking, what lenses/ colour grading did you use to achieve the shallow depth of field stuff and the colours? I especially love the wide shot in the beginning where it's all snow yet there's a warm, nostalgic look about it.

I agree with most comments about the acting...a bit wooden, and the guy wasn't compelling enough to draw me in to his story. The sound was dodgy too. But the pieces are there man, you have a good eye, and I'd love to see more of your future films here! :)
 
Gohanto - thx for the comments, I appreciate your honesty and agree with pretty much everything you said. As for the camera movements, unfortunately that was out of necessity since I didn't have any equipment to assist in movement. As for using handhelf, I am opposed to it in my own work. It is something I need to get over, I know, as it is beneficial for situation requiring that immediacy. As we amass more equipment the camera will begin to match my imagination.

Carlos - We shot with and without an adapter. When we did use it (BTW it is a my35 static adapter), we used both a 50mm F1.8 and a 105mm f2.5. Are adapter is nikon mount in case you are wondering.

Thanx again to everyone for the criticism, I really appreciate it. You have solidified many of the beliefs I already had in regards to what areas I need work in and so it gives me direction. Hopefully our next short will be a step above either of these in every aspect.
 
Hey there,

It is an adapter that a guy on the here used to make for people, he called it the My35. It is a static adapter. It's nice, certainly there is a few things about it that you kind of have to decide whether you can live with, but it is fun to play around with. I am not sure that I will shoot with it on anything I intend to project.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top