"Bright Lights" Super 16mm

Nathan,

I watched your short and would like to offer some critique. First of all, I really enjoyed the color and clarity from what I could see in the small version you posted for us. From the clip, the footage quality was close to what you might expect from a "Hollywood" movie. These aspects I did enjoy.

Some things I thought could have added to your film was lighting. Obviously, the lighting was there, but it was all flat. I think that if you had made more interesting light choices instead of lighting it flat, it would give your short more cinematic appeal. I also watched your camera work closely. I really enjoyed the framing of the shots, but they were all static. You may have opted to keep the camera still throughout because of the lack of film stock you had, which is understandable, but if and when you get the opportunity to direct another project, I would suggest moving the camera some. The static takes and flat lighting just took away some of the polish, in my honest opinion.

I also noticed a continuity error. The final scene in the short, you have some shot-reverse-shot going on here. When the camera is focused on Hunter's face, there is a halo effect on his head and Samantha's head. When the camera is looking at Samantha's face, the halo is gone. Just a thought.

Things that weren't so much in your control that I will mention here was that I did not enjoy the acting. I thought the acting wasn't so good, especially from the actor who played "Hunter'.

I did enjoy the footage of the 16mm and I really enjoyed the cityscapes.

Though I have more suggestions than praise, I did enjoy the film. I think if you experiment some with this, you will get some interesting shots. Thanks so much for sharing this with us!
 
SexyPants said:
I also watched your camera work closely. I really enjoyed the framing of the shots, but they were all static. You may have opted to keep the camera still throughout because of the lack of film stock you had, which is understandable, but if and when you get the opportunity to direct another project, I would suggest moving the camera some. The static takes and flat lighting just took away some of the polish, in my honest opinion.
Click to expand...

Han, from what I understand there is no dire need to move the camera. In classic cinematography moving the camera actually breaks the rules, and especially unnecesarily. Unfortunately (or fortunately, according to some) a lot of modern stuff goes against classic cinematography.

On the contrary, I respect the effort in this film in actually respecting cinematography.
 
Nathan, I just watched your film..twice! I really enjoyed it, and found it to be professional and enjoyable.
A few comments on it:
I found the lead actor 'Hunter' to sorta resemble a young Ralph Macchio. That look in the eyes and soft delivery style. He did a good job. The girl on the other hand I didn't care for as much. She got the job done, but she tended to take me out of some scenes with some of her performance choices.
As for directing and scripting, I found some of the scenes to be rushed and unrealistic. [SPOILER ALERT] For example, at one point the female lead is playing hard to get and unapproachable, then literally within 2 minutes she's taking off her bra and ready for sex with the guy. Not exactly what I'd call reality.
Now in your defense, I know you had a VERY limited time frame to deal with the narrative structure, so anything I'm knitpicking can be forgiven in this case. I would definitely like to see a longer version of this, or maybe a DVX version where you don't have the time and resource restraints that super 16mm brings.

As far as cinematagraphy, I found it to be great, especially the outside shots. The shots that I liked least were the apartment shots. But as others have said before , very little lighting was the problem-but luckily for your film that
with 16mm it's much more forgiveable. I Also saw a little bit of Martin Scorsese' Taxi driver in this film-the cafe and coffee shots.

Over all great job, and keep it coming
 
omar_ said:
Han, from what I understand there is no dire need to move the camera. In classic cinematography moving the camera actually breaks the rules, and especially unnecesarily. Unfortunately (or fortunately, according to some) a lot of modern stuff goes against classic cinematography.

On the contrary, I respect the effort in this film in actually respecting cinematography.
Click to expand...
Good point. However, it is my opinion that moving the camera a bit (in taste, not just for kicks), especially for this short, would have contributed a more organic feel to the film. I just thought the shots were a bit sterile, and this may have helped that a bit.

Also, I am in the "fortunate" category. I respect classical Hollywood, and there have been some great films that have been produced in that era, but I feel that a lot of those rules and guidelines tend to limit the freedom of film. These limits provoked filmmakers such as Hitchcock to do some of his best work, but this elitist thought on filmmaking is brash and limiting.

To sum it all up, of course you don't HAVE to move the camera, but it may have helped!

Just a thought.

P.S. Naruto is tha' man.
 
Last edited:
Great little short

Very very good. No negative comments at all. One of the best I've seen posted on here in my opinion. Well done.
 
SexyPants said:
Good point. However, it is my opinion that moving the camera a bit (in taste, not just for kicks), especially for this short, would have contributed a more organic feel to the film. I just thought the shots were a bit sterile, and this may have helped that a bit. Just a thought. P.S. Naruto is tha' man.
Click to expand...

Point taken. I just want to see people move the camera, and still put in the same amount of cinematographic effort in setting the frame appropriately in each frame, not as if they're shooting a documentary.

PS Don't want to digress from the thread, but I'm glad to see some adults who follow Naruto!
 
Thanks, omar, I think we are on a similar page.

Nathan, a few questions for you. What kind of film stock were you using? You said you had only 2000 ft. Was this all one kind, or was some of it balanced for daylight and some balanced for tungsten. Also, did you edit the short through the use of a digital intermediate?

The big question I have is how much did it cost to get the film processed/transferred?

Thanks for sharing this with us. Beautiful images, and I thoroughly enjoyed the skyline shots in the beginning. Very professional.
 
We shot the film on Kodak Vision 2 - 7218 500T for the vast majority of the scenes.

the few day scenes were shot on Kodak Vision 2 - 7246 250D.

We did not do a digital intermediate.

I'm not sure how much it cost for the processing and transfer, this was my student film and so the school covered the costs, I imagine it would have been near $5000 - $7000. But thats really just an estimate.

thanks for all the comments,

nathan
 
I loved it! That was just great. Vancouver really looks like a beatiful city and you caught that with some magnificent cinematography, which, I really enjoyed bytheway. I applaud you for how well you did with just so little of film stock.

Speaking of which, have you ever heard of Douglas Coupland? I'm sure you have. He's an author living in Vancouver who really likes to incorporate the city into his stories.
 
Nice!!

I really enjoyed your film. Simplistic yet beautiful. I hope this got you a good grade!!

Why is the girl familiar looking?? Has she been in other stuff, maybe when she was younger... I'm sure I've seen her act before.

Very nice cinematography and nice useage of the city. I'm curious about the title. I'm sort of thinkin it's along the lines of the girl coming to the big city with big dreams aka "Bright Lights Big City", and then ending up with the reality of homelessness. Were there any other title possibilities?

Great work nonetheless, hope this gets you some attention in town!
 
Beautiful short Nate! Love the cinematography, the sensibility and something that one has mentioned yet, the song you used, definitely gave the mood to the short. Reminded me of a garden state meets butterfly effect(ending part). Question1: How did you record your sound? Q2: Who's the singer?(can you give me her website?)

Honestly If you want to make a "movie" shooting on film is the right way. I can watch many movies shot on any a high Def format but it never gets me into the story. Film is the right way. My opinion.

good job bro.
G.
 
Last edited:
thanks for the comments.

the actress is Hanna Hall she's been in many films including Forest Gump (as young jenny), The Virgin Suicides (youngest lisbon sister), as well as the television show Standoff. She's set to star in Rob Zombies remake of Halloween.

The music in all the scenes besides when the two characters kiss each other is by Azure Ray, the other song is The Concretes.

Douglas Coupland is an influence of mine, nice one on picking that up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top