DOC: Metro

711

711

Well-known member
Almost finished cut of our short film/documentary. Inspired by 50 People One Question. Any comments and constructive criticisms are appreciated. Thanks!

Eric

password is metro

 
I liked the concept and the timelength I think was appropriate. The constantly shifting focus was distracting and I think took away from it. Also I think you can get to the point a little sooner - give us a clue near the start as to where we are going.
 
Thanks, Noel! A lot of people have mentioned the focus choice as being annoyinh. At the time, it seemed like a cool artistic choice, but I can definitely see how that could be annoying. Nothing I can do about it now, though, unfortunately. :[

To tell the truth though, the gripes have mostly come from people on the forums and such. When non-filmmakers watch it, I rarely get comments on that. It's funny.

Thanks for watching!

Eric
 
I liked it. But I do agree that it could have began a little sooner and not lost any impact and the focus thing was distracting at times. Mainly in the shots that started "in focus" or nearly focused and then adjusted to out of focus and then back...those shots just seem like they were done for effect which takes a viewer out of it a bit. Had they all been slightly out of focus and brought into focus it might not have been as obvious.

Good work with it.

-Martin
 
Thanks for watching Mortay! I agree. If I could go back and reshoot it, I would have been much less aggressive with the focus shifts. I thought they would be subtle enough to convey a certain feel for the film, I never thought that they would detract from the film. But thanks again for the feedback!

Eric

P.S. I thought the focus thing was somewhat the look that the original 50 People One Question had captured, and I was trying to stay somewhat true to that. Am I mistaken?
 
The similar technique can be seen here on the original creator's video: http://fiftypeopleonequestion.com/fi...new-orleans-la

I guess I didn't do it justice in the focus department. Or, that video must have annoying focus as well... which if that is the case, then I don't know what to say since that was the look I was trying to imitate, lol. Regardless, thank you everyone for all the input thus far!
 
I like the idea.

As said before, the out of focus is more annoying... Maybe it would be cool if it's only once... sometimes it works, sometimes not.

I think during the speeches, the out of focus effect was to much.

Also, I had no clue where its was....Well yeah I know it's a metrostation and I know it goes underground and maybe more then one level etc... But a shot from outside maybe
or one "very large" shot
 
Thanks for the feedback dre!

Yeh, the focus was probably overdone, oops. :[

There were multiple levels. There was the exterior that we show in teh beginning (The hollywood sign) in teh rain. Then it goes down an escalator to a room to purchase tickets. From there it goes into a centrai lobby area (where we resided), and then down another set of stairs to the actual subways. So, we tried to put all the shots together in the beginning to create a setting that makes sense in teh viewers' head. But, I agree, we could have done a better job establishing the area even if it was with just or two more wide shots.

Eric
 
I saw that. But the best thing to settle the viewer is a "wide shot", it's called "establishing shot" also... The larger the shot, the more time it takes for a viewer to overview it.

For example when there's a wide shot with an elephant in the middle, it is possible no-one sees it....untill you tell them.. and then they can't stop looking at it anymore...
 
Yes, I am familiar with establishing shots. The reason I lack any real substantial wide shots is cause of the genre/subject. Because of all the differences and such in the shooting styles for a project like this vs. something narrative, I got caught up and forgot that kind of footage. Definitely noted for future productions, regardless of teh genre, however. Thanks!
 
Last edited:
The out of focusing is a bit much, but it's a nice effect. I think it's just that it's done so often, and during the speeches (not during pauses or at the beginning where you're 'adjusting') that makes it so invasive.

But you brought up a key point. No one points it out who isn't a 'trained' filmmaker. So that could mean one of two things. It really doesn't bother someone who isn't a filmmaker, or simply that they noticed it but didn't know how to word it or something else is going on. Perhaps they do notice it on a subconscious level and it makes it less enjoyable for them, they just don't know why.

Anyways great film. I also agree the beginning is a bit long. Take about 2 minutes just to get to it, and this is a 6 minute film. So that's 1/3 of it just intro and random shots. The intro should have started with a hint to where it was, and then do maybe max 30 seconds of shots. Also seems like you interview more people than you showed the answer for. Maybe a quick montage of the answers at the end, cut a bit faster would have been nice to end it with.

Then there are the random cuts to a green color. What's the purpose of this? Sometimes it felt unnecessary.
 
Agree with all of what you said about the focus and subconscious vs the conscious for the average viewer.

As far as the editing and pacing choices, I was doing my best to establish the feel this video (http://fiftypeopleonequestion.com/films/1-new-orleans-la) created. They use the prolonged video portraits in the front which help give a feel of who the people are. Also, I think the faces themselves are one of the most fascinating aspects of the whole process. The people who I showed and didn't include in it were for several reasons, and even more were not cut into the final video altogether. Some the audio didn't work out, and others I just couldn't fit their answers in anywhere without making it both excessively long and boring. I was also cutting to the music, as it wasn't an original piece, so I was limited to certain time restraints and what not.

The teal screens had some reason behind them, too (or so I like to believe, haha). They broke the segments up into a) establishing setting b) establishing people c) establishing question d) answers. And, I also like the way it broke it up and imo allowed for a better build up.

I hope after watching the original video I linked above, you can see the reasons for the choices we made with this video. I am not saying that the teal, video portraits, etc. are the best way to do it, but rather that it was the method used previously that we were trying to imitate. Thanks for all the input, Jon!

Eric
 
It's normal that you 'as a director", didn't know that. That's why there's something like "a DOP, a soundguy, camera-assistant, AD, producer-assistant, producer...."

And as Jon said, people "feel" there's something wrong, but they don't know what it is. If the dialogues would sound very far, roomy, lot's of reverbs... they would have to be more concentrated to listen
without them "realising" that they're concentrating...but then they get tired but they don't know why....

Same for "bad" framing, bad light, bad makeup...bad editing...etc

This was a general answer, not specific for yours....
 
Most certainly. I agree that that audiences, even when they are not exactly sure of what the annoyance is, can tell when something is done improperly or "out of the norm."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top