My Best Friend Was An Alien - Short film shot with Canon 7D

[Peter Reynolds]

This was the first narrative I've shot with my Canon 7D.

The film was made for the Toronto 48-Hour Film Project. After selecting a random
genre (we chose sci-fi), films had to be made within 48-hours. It's quite the experience,
but we had a great team that made the process enjoyable. Tiring, but enjoyable

http://vimeo.com/17155458

Requirements (for all films)

Line of dialog: you know what they say
Character name: Alan or Alanna Roddy
Prop: A pumpkin

As I said, it was my first narrative shot with a DSLR. I really enjoyed it. I used three
lens: a Canon 17x135, a Tokina 11-16 and a Sigma 70x200. I also used the Kessler
Pocket Dolly for 2 shots.

As always, your comments or questions are welcome. I don't normally shoot narrative,
(and this time I also wrote and directed it) so any advice would be appreciated. It
can only make me a better filmmaker.

Cheers,

Peter

 

[thisisapocalypse]

Technically, I think it's well shot and well lit - although it's fairly high-key given the subject matter. Story feels derivative, dialogue is cliche and I don't buy any of the relationships to be honest - especially the mother/son relationship. Developing/shooting a story in 48 hours is a massive challenge, no doubt about that, but with any project, there's more to it than just reaching the finish line and I sort of think of the 48hr film projects as more of a training ground/exercise than something that is likely to produce work that would find an audience outside of the festival itself. The dolly shots look good technically but I think in this film they actually take away more than they add - in the scene where the young-version of the mother is packing her bag, I think the scene would have been more powerful if you had just started and stayed longer on the close up of the alien. In the opening shot given the lack of a clear bond between the actors, I think the dolly shot further removes us from the scene and that relationship. I don't see anything in this short that would have benefited from a dolly shot. I would have put the camera closer to the subjects - I almost always felt removed and as if I was watching this from a distance. There's more to composition and shot design than just how an image fills the frame - there's an immediacy that comes from using wides up close that I think is missing here given that this is a character-driven piece. Seems like the ultra-wides were used for establishing shots and then you were at a focal length greater than 50-80mm for many of these shots that might have been better had you been closer and wider. And while exposure is generally very good, as is overall lighting, there are scenes where there is no catchlight on the actors eyes, and that's something that can really help. What was the lighting kit like on this shoot? When I do see catchlight I'm only seeing it from a single point - in narrative stuff you'll often see multiple points from multiple lights and it adds dimension.

 

[Peter Reynolds]

Thanks for the feedback. Your right that the 48-Hour "experience" is more of a training ground then anything else.
It's also a good opportunity to work with new people, to see what their like in a high pressure environment.

I do tend to avoid a lot of close-up shots - it's a good note. Developing a sense of intimacy quickly, especially with
a short film, would have gone a long way to connecting the audience with the characters. I'll keep that in mind.

Lighting was done with a Lowel light kit (2 Tota w/umbrellas, Omni, Prolight & Rifa 44 Soft Box. Given the tight
time frame I mostly lit each scene very evenly (umbrellas pointed at the ceiling) and then used the soft box or
Prolight where needed for fill or a kicker.

Interesting you should mention the term "catch light" (the little circle in the actors eye). I hadn't even heard that
term until yesterday when a friend was talking about getting a ring light for his camera. I never knew having
multiple points added dimension. More food for thought.

Again, thanks for take the time to critique my film. I can't guarantee the next one will have any better dialog, but
it sure will be more intimate

Cheers,

Peter

 

[thisisapocalypse]

You're very welcome! Catch-light is an interesting thing since it's artificial by its nature (i.e. reflections of the lights you are using - catch-lights only really occur in real life due to happenstance) and yet, without it on film - something seems to be missing. Multiple points inherently don't add dimension, but when you can see multiple points in the eyes of the talent it's an indicator that multiple lights in different places were used within the view of the talent, which then tends to mean that somewhat dynamic lighting is being implemented...which then tends to mean that you are expressing an intentional mood/feeling with the lighting design - i.e. more than just getting even exposure across the entire frame. All of this must be taken in context, however - if I were in your position and doing an entire short in 48 hours, there's a good chance I would have approached the lighting similarly - under that sort of time constraint I can understand just trying to achieve good exposure...this does raise questions about the value of a 48 hour film project...but on the other hand, there's something to be said about being able to quickly do multiple setups and just get good solid exposure and lighting - hell, half the people on these forums can't seem to do that no matter how much time they have to work it out.

Theoretically you could create multiple catch-lights on actor's eyes using an array of tiny pen-lights, but the point isn't just having multiple points - it's just that you can tell from the number of easily visible points of catch-light roughly how the lights were set up and if something about the scene doesn't feel quite right, the first thing I look at is the nature of the catch-light...but I'm an eyes guy, others may feel differently.

All of the above said - I think creating such a clean project within 48 hours is extremely impressive - in fact, doing a short in 48 hours, it's really a triumph to not be showing strong visual flaws - it's one thing to be splitting hairs over lighting which is obviously thought out, my comments only refer to to its nature from a stylistic perspective, not a competency one - the fact that all of the shots were well exposed, framed, had good focus, and none of them looked like they'd been "phoned in" (i.e. you were exhausted and just had to get something in the can) is a real achievement. I know what it's like to be on set at 2-3am and you've still got one last setup to do...it's brutally hard. In fact, the fact that we can have an artistic discussion at all about a film that was executed in its entirety over a span of 48 hours is damned impressive - I've never tried a 48 hour film challenge - I intend to next year when it comes to Boston - but ultimately I think delivering anything of real quality (which you have) in that span is impressive and you ought be commended - and I'm sure you learned a lot and your next project will be even better...what more could one want?