New short film with canon GL2

I actually enjoyed it quite a bit. I always wonder about films that aren't in my native tounge, though, you know? Like, "Is the writing and acting good, or am I just inferring it to be because I'm investing myself in subtitles?"

I mean, the writing in Amelie might not be nearly as witty and odd if it was written in English.

But ANYway, to specifics, I thought the focusing was an interesting...choice? Several times characters were out of focus. Sometimes they would step into focus (like when the army friend came through the door), but usually they wouldn't. I was watching it on my 43" HDTV, so if it was off at all it was pretty noticeable.

But again, that may have all been by choice -- creating some mood or interpretation of the character/scene. Hell, I remember when M. Night decided to put his camera behind a friggin curtain in Unbreakable at the most interesting part of the movie. I didn't agree with the choice, but it was his to make.

I thought some of the dialouge (or scenes) could have had more impact. Seems to me that if I'm taking the time to watch something narrative, however long it is, every single moment, every single line of dialouge, every single shot should be important. I felt like there were a couple of "fillers" in here. Some character introductions were there just to introduce the character -- and yet the character wasn't integral to the scene. Every scene should have a purpose to the STORY (characters having conflict, desires, motivation). If there are people in a scene, and especially if those people are speaking, I think the scene should have multiple layers while serving a purpose to the story.

Now, obviously, a lot of movies have a lot of scenes where they're ONLY either progressing the character OR progressing the story, but in these kind of "introduction" scenes it's always so painfully obvious that nothing you tell me about these characters is going to progress the STORY, it's only going to enlighten me as to the characters within the story -- which has nothing whatsoever to do with story.

A lot of people would argue that the progression of character IS the progression of story (especially in a character piece), but that is never true. Story is always separate and it is always paramount. Characters, regardless if they're friggin Spider-man or Batman are still SECONDARY to the story theyre residing in. The moment your character becomes bigger than your story you've created a brand, an archetype, a Fraiser or a Sherlock Holmes -- but even in a Sherlock Holmes story, Holmes is never what's most important or interesting. However, if you're filming/writing a sitcom, the point of these are to manipulate people into "befriending" the characters within the story. It is the objective of television producers to have you come back week after week not for story but for character -- because the brain doesn't know the difference between a real friend and a friend on television. The same wiring is activated in the brain when you see an episode of House or when you see your friends at the bar -- the brain identifies both of these as "friend".

Movies are quite different (and so are some rare exceptions on TV).

Every single time you shoot anything or anyone it has to be progressing the STORY, always. If you cannot definitively express how each and every shot progresses the STORY, it needs to be altered or cut. I felt that some of the character interactions could have involved more items that were relevant to the story.

I think in the reality-based media that we live there is a casual leaning towards allowing story to be more organic in order to give it a more "realistic" flavor. But that is a huge error. Because even when Brando picked up the glove and put it on, the scene was already integral to the story; so while that moment added something to his character the framework was already in place so that all Marlon the actor did was add more layers, more depth to the scene that existed for story.

In the end, it's like Mamet says -- don't just follow your characters around with the camera. That is the biggest error in American cinema. All filmmaking is are a series of shots that make up a story. There is a reason for each shot (whether its a crane, steady, whatever), each shot MUST be there for a specific reason pertaining to STORY. You can still capture authenticity without sacrificing story -- that's where creative set dressing, lighting, sound and actors come in.

If you're writing a novel it is vastly different than if you're writing a non-fiction book. Same goes for narrative flow in film. If you want your film to be real life, then you should shoot docus. All film should ever do is mimic real life for the benefit of a story the filmmaker has to tell.

That was a lot more theory stuff than specifics to your film. But it's what I thought when I saw it so there you are --
 
Wow, thanks a lot for that!
It was very enlighting.

Some of the stuff you wrote I can definatly relate to.
I'm not extremly proud of this film, for me it's just another film on the way to my "real film", hopefuly the next one...
Without doubt there were some fillers, I guess some were because lack of material and some because of a "not so great" script.
You do make me wonder though, on atmosphere shooting.
Some of the parts in the film were shot to create atmosphere, but maybe you're right, if something has nothing to do with the story than it's not suppose to be in the film, I have to think more carefuly about it on my next project.

Obviously you have much knowledge in film making theory.
I never went to any school or class to study film-making, I'm actually finishing my computer science degree this year.
Sometimes I feel like I'm missing stuff by not knowing theory, maybe I should go to film school.

Thanks for that anyway!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top