SHORT: "At Last Sight" - Short Film

That it was conceived and made in 24hrs tempers my criticisms. A location that would have let some of that beautiful light thrown on the buildings hit the actors would have been good. The exposure was reasonable, considering. The sound was the biggest issue, although with the HV40 I believe that would mean separate sound which might be too labour intensive for a 24hr film. The actual sound design was pretty good but the SNR of the recorded sound wasn't up to scratch. The story was just a little underdone but the idea was sound. Again, given more than 24hrs it would have been a lot slicker. The subversion of expectation was handled well. I enjoyed being confounded right up to the end and the 'twist' fell on the side of satisfying rather than trite. The acting was patchy but serviceable. In a couple of shots fairly good. At 2 minutes it might be worth your while to remake it for the experience and make it all it can be. It is a pretty good subversion at the end and with good sound, good light, a tweaked script and rehearsed actors this could be pretty good.

The other thing that would elevate it would be a more creative approach to framing and editing. Getting on the other side of your actors would have opened up the space, and use the production value of the location. I know there isn't much room behind the actors but you can move them away from the fence for that shot, just frame in tight and noone will know that they've moved. Even without doing that an OTS shot such as shooting over the attackers shoulder to show the victim would reinforce the power relationship in the scene. You could use the telephoto range to bring them apparently closer together. Or physically closer together. It would have been effective in the back and forth if a ranted line or two had been nose to nose. Other shots like a close on the actor's face when he says 'i loved you, too' would have allowed him to emote and made the scene that more powerful. You were using more interesting shots at the beginning but by the end you were mostly just flipping between two shots.

The only other thing I guess, especially after reading your synopsis is in reference to what the story is about. I don't need to fully understand what a movie is about to enjoy it. I like movies that are open to interpretation, as long as you get the sense that the filmmaker has a sense of what is going and isn't just stringing you along (like the middle part of Lost when they were just trying to keep the money train rolling while they figured out where to take it). So if you wanted people to get a specific understanding of what your film was about, a couple of points: 1. no idea what the title has to do with anything, if it is a reference to last time they see each other the title needs to be a lot stronger; 2. 'their whole operation'...??? what is their whole operation (not mentioned once) and how was it ruined?

Personally I like it ambiguous but I'll tell you what I got out of it. I saw it either as a troubled teen who couldn't handle the sense of abandonment when his close buddy ditches him for a girl or alternatively I was more leaning towards a homosexual couple, one of which experimented with the other side (hence felt nothing for her) causing his unstable lover to spiral out of control. In either case the events seemed driven by the emotional instability and lack of perspective of young adulthood. For a moment I got the sense that some plan went wrong but it seemed more like a misdirection than the plot given that they was no elaboration and the direction events took. If there is a further subtext it didn't come through with any clarity, but to reiterate - I think the ambiguity of this movie is it's strength. I'd personally scrap the logline and give the script a spit polish only, its 95% the way there. Have a proper rehearsal with the actors (with some rehearsal and guidance seem capable of everything the script demands), plan your shots and sound and spend the right amount of time in the edit and you will turn acceptable into impressive.

Last question. Is that Sydney? If so kudos for avoiding the bridge and the opera house.

As always, consider my analysis as talking points. If something I said doesn't resonate, then ignore it. After all it's longer than the movie :)
 
Next time please turn off the auto-exposure on the camera. The changing exposure of the sky as your actor moved around in the frame was very distracting.
 
One BIG isue in sound and don't worry EVERYONE does it and it sounds "simple" but its "THE most difficult thing in sound:

"THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN STEREO AND MONO"

ONE mic = ALWAYS mono...always always always....always... yes always...

STEREO = always 2 mics or stereo mic...

And if you plug in a mic directly into the cam in one channel... (left OR right) you have to pan it in the middle/center so it sounds out of center...

So, go back to your edit, pan it in the center... hop you go !!! :-p
 
Thanks for the feedback guys, it's really appreciated! I lurk a lot on these forums so I should return the favor and give my two cents to the community.

I have no idea what I'm doing when it comes to audio but I'll do my research and get it right next time. Cheers.

And thank you especially Egg Born Son for the complete breakdown of the movie, it really helped me out and gave me an idea on what I can improve on. Your criticisms have actually inspired me to make another film this month and really take my time and get things the way I want them. (So look out for that one, I'll be throwing it on here for sure).

And yes, I do live in Sydney.

Again, thanks guys.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top