"A Verse Before Dying" - AF-100 Western Short

Honestly, my expectations were to watch the footage of the AF100 and not the story at all. It was like a little extra to have some story and not just shots of watefalls, carnivals, night shots, someones cat, someones girlfriend or kids :) That's why I haven't said anything about story as I thought the intention was more to push the AF100 through cinematic examples. For that I am grateful, because that was the big question. All the things you mention have nothing to do with the camera, thankfully! :)
 
Thanks for the feedback, Mark. There's no rule that says anyone has to like or even agree with the choices made in making the film, regardless how many mods were involved. It's your opinion, and you're entitled to it, on this site or any other. And while I may not agree with many of your criticisms, I would never begrudge anyone their right to have and state their feelings on any aspect of the film.

The one point I will correct you on is the budget, which was nowhere near "well above $20K," I assure you.
 
I think there's a lot of great work visually and content wise on display here. I'd also like to congratulate the team, especially Luis, Cliff and Stephen for providing such good professional examples on screen and off, not only with how well run their set was by all accounts, but also with their handling of some of the more critical comments within the thread.

Like Chris Gore says in the "Ultimate Film Festival Survival Guide" (unpaid endorsement) - "Any attempt to defend your work won't come off in a good way, so win that battle buy not fighting it. all a filmmaker can really do in a post discussion of their work is answer questions and make jokes." (summary) Luis, Stephen, and Cliff are great examples of that.

Post discussion / interaction with your audience is important. We've seen prominent feature film threads here on user, disintegrate into ashes over the filmmaker's handling of criticism of their work. As Slamdance festival staff told me - sometimes the post discussion can make audiences / critics like a film better that they may have been on the fence about or vice versa. Also, as it was related to me, the Duplass Brothers got their agent after one of their films (a short?) screened at Sundance. What did the guy say to them when he walked down to the front of the theater? "Great movie"? nope. "I like the way you guys handle yourselves. Let's talk." If the movie sucked, of course that would have been the end of the agent's interest. But the closer for him, going of what he said as the story was told to me, was the way they handled themselves. There's lots of talented young directors out there. There are fewer that know how to not piss people off on their way up.

Having done it the right and wrong way, handling criticism is as valuable as any other filmmaking related skill I've learned here, if not the most valuable, and prepared me greatly for the non virtual festival world.

In short - there's a lot to learn about a lot of different aspects of filmmaking here, on camera and off, and while we can debate various aspects of this film or any other film, Cliff, Luis, and Stephen's character and professionalism are unaissalbe. I'm a bit more accomplished now than when I started making films here a few years ago, but, speaking for myself, my learning curve is far from over (obviously) and these three are folks I look to to emulate and learn from in many ways.

Pay attention folks. This is how it's done right.

Stephen Mick said:
Thanks for the feedback .... I would never begrudge anyone their right to have and state their feelings on any aspect of the film ...
Click to expand...

Many Kudos and thanks guys!

:beer: :beer: :beer:
 
Stephen Mick said:
Thanks for the feedback, Mark. There's no rule that says anyone has to like or even agree with the choices made in making the film, regardless how many mods were involved. It's your opinion, and you're entitled to it, on this site or any other. And while I may not agree with many of your criticisms, I would never begrudge anyone their right to have and state their feelings on any aspect of the film.

The one point I will correct you on is the budget, which was nowhere near "well above $20K," I assure you.
Click to expand...

Thanks, removed that part from my post.

But to the guy above...and I guess to you guys. Am I missing the big thing here? Was I not supposed to watch it for those things? Is this solely a pixel-peeping exercise? If so, fine, I'll just move along. But let me know if I'm just missing the whole thing.

And I know you guys are mensches, and I like and respect all of you guys. That's why I don't think it serves you at all to sit here and go: "good footage". I didn't expect anyone to get bent out of shape. I've opened myself up to Luis with some ROUGH-ASSED footy this year and asked for brutal truth. I know it's just the work and am pretty objective.

You'll get your chance to go after me guys when I send you the super-special edition of THE LOST CHILDREN this March. It comes with 3 dozen rotten eggs for throwing at the screen, as well as a picture of my face attached to a dart board.
 
I think they made a "film" just like any of us do and expect it to be treated as a film. Not just a test. I think some folks like Grimepoch are thinking of it as a test first out of gratitude for the effort that went into it / the opportunity to see the AF100 put through its paces. Would be a lot of work for just a test though. Pretty sure it's Stephen's baby as much as LMTF is mine or RPDM is yours. The hype around the tech is an excuse to get together and make something you care about - and oh yeah, play with the cool tech. Could be wrong though. Stephano?
 
I love the dream sequence by the way. Also, the wide crane of the reverend coming out around the horse with the dead body on it is very cinematic. Also liked many of the walking shots into the gun fight. Just watched it again on the 1080p TV via Boxee.
 
My determination on the intent was soley based on the speed at which it was released. This is an extreme short in my opinion, and with that, I apply the same feeling I do to most shorts, they don't have a lot of time for a lot of story and so they are what they are. I've scored about 10+ short films for SCAD students over the last few years and even the best of them are always having to give up something to be so short. To me you have to pick between detailed story and little scenary, or little story and lots of scenary :) Sure, this is only based on my opinion of what I have seen, but there just wasn't a lot of time in the movie to get too deep unless it was made a bit longer. That doesn't mean it is wrong for it to be longer, but, I just assumed it was getting it out there sooner given all new tech and old tech were being used together to see what came about of it.

I mean, I am sure the guys went into making it for more reasons than just the camera, but to me, that was really the biggest thing I wanted to see and the thing I payed attention to most. I actually had to watch it a few times because I was so much looking at the footage and not immersed in the story.

And about the dream sequence, it to me was the best part in the whole thing, followed by the helicopter shot. I thought there was some great cinematography in parts of it that I was like wow, that is great, and then other parts like the bar that were vacant and didn't feel like a real old western bar. It wasn't the camera but lack of detail (and I am a detail person :) ). Also, I talked earlier about the lack of sound effects and ambience.

But, all that said, I guess I just can't get over the camera footage. I'm so happy with it and given I have an AF100 arriving Monday, it's what I was focusing on more than anything.
 
As promised, I've taken the full film offline and put up a new, revised trailer. Thanks to all those who've watched the film and provided their comments!
 
I said it before, and I will say it again. I loved it. I dont know any of these guys who made it. So I can tell you im certainly not brown nosing. I Got the story on my first time watching it.

Yeah, there were a few MINOR things that could have been spruced up like the bar. But my first thought on it's lack of props was, "ok this is rough town, and probably a rough bar with gun slingers gettin drunk and breakin things". So yeah, made sense to have a bare bar in that respect. And the lack of extras, well The gunman said" A body a day" I think that's enough to make people not go out. So on that, I thought it worked not having extras on set going about business as usual. I guess what im getting at, is there's a pretty good explanation for the way it was done. You just have to listen to the dialogue.

As far as the many wide shots go. I thought it worked. It was a beautiful location, and lots to show. I dont feel the story would have been told any better by using close ups, infact I think just the opposite. It gae a sense of open and vastness. Almost a lonely feeling.

The one thing I do agree on though is the acting. When I watch an actor as a viewer. I hone in on one main aspect. "Are they convincing?""Did the performance convince me the actor was the person he was portraying"? On the kid- barely. I thought his performance was a bit weak. I wasn't 100% convinced he was, who he was portraying. I did feel the other actors carried his performance and made it work. The bar tender was great, as was the evil gun slinger. The preacher was flat, it worked, but coulod have easily went the other way had the others give weak performances as well.

Overall, I dug the story, and the technical aspect. It was fun to watch!!

I think Mark Harris is a good filmmaker as well. It goes to show how different people do things differently. It keeps it fresh.
 
MattinSTL said:
Probably the only lav that naturally sounds as good as a decent shotgun is a DPA or maybe a Sanken COS11... but generally speaking... a decent shotgun in the right setting... OR even an Oktava or other hyper, in the proper use... will sound much better overall then any lav. This is as long as that mic can get in close. That's it... bottom line. If a shotgun or hyper can get even remotely close... just out of frame... then yeah, I'd take a boom any time. Really close for a lav means right where a tie-knot would be... really close for a shotgun means a CU or MCU with the boom just out of frame.
Click to expand...
This should be memorized, along witht the bold/italics on the caveat, by anyone doing location audio. - Tim
 
TimTheFoolMan said:
This should be memorized, along witht the bold/italics on the caveat, by anyone doing location audio. - Tim
Click to expand...

Thanks for reposting what Matt said. Even though I don't dabble in sound, I'll be remembering that very simply put bolded fact from now on.
 
TimTheFoolMan said:
This should be memorized, along witht the bold/italics on the caveat, by anyone doing location audio. - Tim
Click to expand...

I also prefere using boom before using wireless. Wirelles can be usefull when the boom misses one word or when the talent turns the head away during a line.

For situations with many people talking I prefer using 2,3 ,4 , 5, 6, 7 8 9 10 11 1564646464 boomoperators rather then 8787978979 lavs.
 
Hello

Could you help me out please. I went through 10 pages but don't have the strength or time to go through 100 right now....

Could you tell what is holding the Nanoflash onto the AF100 and where I could get one? And what is powering the Nano? Looks like two batteries, but how is it connected?

Watch the clips and the quality looks awesome. What lenses are on there too?

Many thanks!!!
 
The battery we were using on the Nano is the regular rechargeable battery that Convergent Design sells for use with it. It looks like a two-cell battery in a white housing. It connects to the Nano through a hirose 4-pin connector. We rigged it to the Nano just using a simple rubber bongo tie.
 
Barry_Green said:
The battery we were using on the Nano is the regular rechargeable battery that Convergent Design sells for use with it. It looks like a two-cell battery in a white housing. It connects to the Nano through a hirose 4-pin connector. We rigged it to the Nano just using a simple rubber bongo tie.
Click to expand...

Thanks Barry, but look at the pic. Doesn't look like a bongo tie, looks like some sort of plastic arm, clamp thingy!?? Do you have a link where they can be purchased? Or the right name for them?

http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w305/mcgeedigital/Verse%20b4%20dying%20day%201/IMG_7701.jpg

Edit - PS talking about the nanoflash device connector to cam
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top