"Candy Apple Red" is now online after playing the festival circuit this past year. I finished the movie in November of 2010, and it picked up a few awards at festivals across the country. It played at the prestigious Cleveland International Film Fest among others. And now I'm putting it online for all to see. I'm still proud of it and of my actors. Since we're not supposed to get into camera specifics here, I'll just say it was shot on a DSLR that I bought in 2009.
"Candy Apple Red", my award-winning short film
- Thread starter dvbrother
- Start date
I mainly used old Nikon primes with an adapter I got off eBay. A 28, 35, 50 and 85mm. I used the 14-140 kit lens to shoot the one wide shot of the loft. The very first shot of Emily talking on the phone after the opening title is on an Olympus OM 50mm. I have an OM to 4/3 adapter and a 4/3 to micro 4/3 adapter. You put those together and old OM lenses fit perfectly. I didn't have the Nikons that day and I used the old Olympus lens from my wife's still camera. It's a great lens but it has a different color cast than the Nikons and you couldn't intercut them if they were used in the same scene. I shot almost everything at f2.8.
Didn't you post the trailer for this a while back, or was it on Vimeo? I remember seeing it, but glad to see it in the entirety. Your actors were top notch, and any awards were well-deserved. Nice composition and cinematography. I too love the color cast of the old Nikon primes and learned the hard way about the difference in lens color cast when editing (mixing Nikon with Panasonic). It made for an, um, interesting time in the color grade. And I think from now on I'm gonna go with your choice to go f2.8. After I spent so so much time hunting for focus with f1.8 or lower, I think you made a good artistic choice, that is still strong and cinematic. Good to see what that looks like, and learn from it.
Anyway, I'm babbling but it's great work.
Anyway, I'm babbling but it's great work.
Thanks for watching it. And thanks for the kind words. Yes, working at f2.8 has been the zone that I ended shooting GH2 projects with, too, even though I have f2 lenses and some f1.4 lenses. For specific shots, shooting wide open at f1.4 may be cool, but f2.8 is very respectable and allows you to keep things in focus without going crazy. I actually think f2.8 on a m4/3 camera looks more like Hollywood and less like the Canon 5D super-shallow DOF. Thanks again!
Yes, unless you have very expensive lenses, the widest aperture can be quite soft. I think many 35mm still lenses tend to have a sweet spot of f4 to f5.6. But the trendy thing to do is shoot with them wide open, which isn't how they were designed to work best. My 50mm f1.4 looks really soft and "bloomy" at 1.4, but at f2, it looks crisp. At f2.8 it's tack sharp.
this is really and excellent film and shot beautifully! the acting was exceptional with lots of depth. captivated me and especially all the times when no words were being spoken. very very well done with the girls looks and inuendo's. how much direction did you give? did the 2 girls know each other prior to doing this? in the film their attraction to each other felt very fresh like they were really just getting to know one another. how many people tested for these 2 girls for you to settle on these 2?
colors and tones fit the vibe of the movie nicely.
just a little curious...the girl was a bit "the elder" of the main guy. she was gorgeous of course but a little curious as to your thought process of casting a woman obviously older (although very very attractive) than the guy. personally i think it added "something" to the story...cant say quite exactly what but...it seemed to at least for me add depth to the slight mystery of the nature of these people. well done and can see that this would be well recieved by others viewing.
inspiring!
david
colors and tones fit the vibe of the movie nicely.
just a little curious...the girl was a bit "the elder" of the main guy. she was gorgeous of course but a little curious as to your thought process of casting a woman obviously older (although very very attractive) than the guy. personally i think it added "something" to the story...cant say quite exactly what but...it seemed to at least for me add depth to the slight mystery of the nature of these people. well done and can see that this would be well recieved by others viewing.
inspiring!
david
David, thanks for watching. Your reactions and questions are very perceptive, as they touch on aspects of the real actors personalities and traits that weren't implicit in the script. Here's what I did. I wrote a six page outline that laid out the basic beats of the plot, but only included a few lines of dialog. I intentionally left lots of room for improvisation. One of the women was a professional actress. The other had no acting experience at all. They did not know each other previous to this film, and the scene at the party where they are talking to each other is actually only the second or third time they had ever been in a room together. My job as director in that scene was to just let them have a conversation, and I provided suggestions for topics they could talk about. I only redirected them if they got too silly or strayed too far from what I thought the movie was about.
So I think my experiment paid off. By creating characters who had many similarities to the real actresses, and throwing them together, I think the end result is a very organic, natural feeling movie. It's the first time I'd ever tried anything like that (I began in horror, sci-fi and comedy) and it's not something I'd do for every film, but I think it worked for this one. I'm proud of it.
I only auditioned these two women. In fact, the original script only had a part for one woman, which was written for one of the actresses who I'd always wanted to put in a movie. Then I met the other woman, who was also very charismatic. So instead of having to choose one actress over another, I completely reconceived the movie so that both women could be in it! That's where my genius lies!:cheesy:
And as for the choice of having an "older woman" in that role, it's basically because the actor playing the boyfriend is someone who I'd worked with before on another director's project, and I knew he'd be really good. And in real life, the "older actress" had a younger boyfriend at the time, so it seemed right.
The last thing I want to say is that, if I may be so humble, the "depth" of the movie you mentioned may be accidental. Not to say that I wanted a shallow movie. Far from it. But I think the choice of using a non-actress paired with a pro actress, and an improv script gives an illusion of depth. This is a philosophical pondering that would take too long to completely discuss here. But what I mean is that the lack of Hollywood artifice and the lack of obligatory conflict scenes make the viewer sort of fill in the gaps of what's missing. So I think the depth is created in the viewers mind. Does that make any sense?
I think the GH2 is definitely a superior camera to the GH1. If "Candy Apple Red" shot on the GH1 seems to handle highlights better than GH2 footage you've seen, all I can say is that it's probably more in the approach to the lighting than it is the technology of the camera. I now own a GH2, and the "Smooth" setting handles highlights in the exact same way as it did on the GH1.
The GH1 had two problems with it's imagery that I didn't like.
1. That dreaded fixed-pattern noise that manifested in the shadow areas just below middle-gray. I accidentally underexposed the dialog scene of the two girls at the party by about a stop, and their skin tone was right in that zone where the FPN would show up. The Vimeo compression helps hide it, but after that, I tended to purposely overexpose footage on GH1 then print down later in Final Cut to avoid the FPN.
2. The GH1 had an annoying tendency for certain colors to spontaneously shift blue. This happened on skin tones. So right in the middle of a close-up, certain parts of the face would tint slightly blue. This was a known issue with the camera. It drove me nuts.
The GH2 fixed both of these problems, is about 2/3 stop more sensitive, has much better noise reduction at high ISOs, and has live HDMI out. The ETC mode, audio level controls, and more make the GH2 superior to the GH1 in every way.
My opinion about the GH2 is that the Smooth setting handles highlights better than the Cinema setting. Smooth has a roll-off that's more like film. Cinema has that red channel clipping that plagues the AF100. So if you use Smooth, and then control your contrast ratios with either fill light or just forethought into where you're placing your subject in the frame, you should get a very film-like look.
Ian-T
Veteran
I don't know about you but every time I watch this she reminds me of Kim Basinger.
Her name is Sharon Wright. I've heard others say she looks like a young Ellen Burstyn. But coincidentally, she was in a parody of "9 and 1/2 Weeks" where she played the Kim Basinger role. Maybe that was why they cast her. It was directed by a friend of mine. You can see it here:
i hadnt specifcally thought of basinger but now that you mention it...yes i would agree. for me not only outward beauty but emmited a very attractive and appealing femine personality that makes it hard to look away.
the OP said one of these girls had never acted before. i wonder which one because i thought each was exceptional.
david
dvbrother,
you say you cant take full credit for the "depth" of the acting? i think i get where your coming from but i think your being far to humble though. many directors are able to reap the benefits and wonders of actor performances that just bring their own magic to a set so i think its fair to take a little more credit that you are giving yourself.
maybe just the mere fact that there was such a vibe between these 2 women was just because of a comfort zone they felt with you? a trust thing i suspect. thats a great thing. like you said you shifted somewhat from your initial game plan because you felt something better than the more locked down dialogue you had. you can still take credit for having the sense to do that.
aside from the feel of the storyline your camera work and editing was very compelling to the story as well. IMO equally as strong as the acting. so overall a win win from both perspectives. its not hard at all to see why this film has been succesful for you.
david
p.s. i thought the guy in the film was a very good fit as well. obviously he wasnt there to have the endearing elements as the 2 girls but he played his role very well to setup the rest of the story. got so sidetracked the the bulk of the rest of the story i forgot to comment on him.
you say you cant take full credit for the "depth" of the acting? i think i get where your coming from but i think your being far to humble though. many directors are able to reap the benefits and wonders of actor performances that just bring their own magic to a set so i think its fair to take a little more credit that you are giving yourself.
maybe just the mere fact that there was such a vibe between these 2 women was just because of a comfort zone they felt with you? a trust thing i suspect. thats a great thing. like you said you shifted somewhat from your initial game plan because you felt something better than the more locked down dialogue you had. you can still take credit for having the sense to do that.
aside from the feel of the storyline your camera work and editing was very compelling to the story as well. IMO equally as strong as the acting. so overall a win win from both perspectives. its not hard at all to see why this film has been succesful for you.
david
p.s. i thought the guy in the film was a very good fit as well. obviously he wasnt there to have the endearing elements as the 2 girls but he played his role very well to setup the rest of the story. got so sidetracked the the bulk of the rest of the story i forgot to comment on him.
Last edited:
swopiv
Active member
Really well done Todd! I enjoyed this a lot. One of the best shorts I have seen in a long time. I preach this a lot, but too often people try to make short films with a gimmick, or to cram a feature into ten minutes. The film you have made is exactly what a short should be: a snapshot in time, a moment from life.
As for shooting 2.8 on M4/3, you're right about it looking more cinematic than shooting wide open. Most films shot on 35mm film stick to around T4 for general shots, so for any given shot with the same field of view 2.8 on M4/3 approximates 4 on S35.
D.
As for shooting 2.8 on M4/3, you're right about it looking more cinematic than shooting wide open. Most films shot on 35mm film stick to around T4 for general shots, so for any given shot with the same field of view 2.8 on M4/3 approximates 4 on S35.
D.
Oh sure, I pat myself on the back for being a good director, who has discovered an intuitive gift for working with actors, bla bla. Secretly, I'm very proud of the movie. But I'm also secretly just as aware that the experiment could have blown up in my face. If I had misjudged that these 2 women would have any chemistry together, or if their acting didn't cut it, what would I have done? It turned out very well, and I'll just say that my gamble paid off. The movie succeeded beyond my expectations. One thing it taught me was that in order to make good art, you have to be willing to take a risk. You have to put yourself right out there in a zone you may not be totally comfortable with. Not TOO risky, mind you, but you have to have at least one foot in unexplored territory.
Yeah, it's funny, I'm notorious for trying to cram too much into a short film. I've finally learned my lesson. I just spoke at a seminar about "Writing a great Short Film Script", along with other writers and filmmakers. One of the key things we mentioned was simplicity. A short can only be about ONE thing. We emphasized to the audience NOT to cram a feature's worth of events and emotions into 10 minutes. It won't work. So I'm right with you.
Martti Ekstrand
Veteran
Still as great as when you invited me to preview it a year ago. Now let me repeat myself: go make a feature - or a bunch. You know this stuff.