Ring! Ring! - DVX100 Short

Arman

Arman

Member
"Ring! Ring!" was shot on the DVX-100 and edited in After Effects. All the sound was dubbed in post. I have put it up on Sony's new video site crackle.com because I can't stand the quality of youtube. When youtube goes h.264, I'll go youtube.

Anyway, I had a two person crew - myself and my DP. I was the director/actor/writer/soundguy/composer/prop designer. It took four days to shoot.

We had three 650s to light awith and we shot it all at my apartment.

http://crackle.com/c/Shorts/Ring!_Ring!/1958671#ml=fi=&fu=2238526

I'm slow to get stuff out so it's only hit about four festivals so far.

Let me know what you think.
 
Last edited:
Thanks, I actually shot it three times. First, with a normal DV camera and a remote to get a rough idea of the shots. Then I set out to shoot it in super8. I've been shooting on film for years but couldn't manage this project in super8, so I rented to DVX. I storyboarded every shot so the whole thing took me about two years from start to finish with a lot of time off to think.

-arman
 
Excellent idea, very good execution overall. Attention to detail everywhere: props, costume, location dressing. Nice sound effects, good music. These are all A+.

What I didn't like, and what ruined it for me was: pace. This is one of the biggest mistakes beginning filmmakers make, and something that's rarely discussed - a pity, because so many filmmakers have no understanding of the subject.

Take an excellent short, and now shoot it with the wrong pace - and it goes from great to ambitious sh|t... just because of how the brain of the viewer processes the material. It has a huge impact on emotions.

The pace you picked is actually a testimony to a work long in the planning and making, heavy emphasis on details. Planning and attention to details are good - provided the audience doesn't feel the burden! You linger over every silly step or move as if it was made of gold and diamonds - because to you it is made of gold and diamonds... you put a ton of thought and planning and effort into it, and you see it totally differently, you can linger over every frame and get a huge charge from it. And that's just not the reaction of the audience. You lost your distance to the subject, and you can't evaluate it objectively. Understand this: mundane stuff remains mundane to the audience even if it's gold to you - and forcing the audience to treat your mundane stuff as if made of gold merely alienates, angers and bores them.

The problem is not with the content, the music or anything - just pacing, and it makes a huge difference.

Here's a tip for the future - and I think you have a future as an artist - next time, try this little experiment: shoot the same scene with different tempos - then, when you are editing, you can pick the pace that works best. Too often pace/tempo is something that filmmakers don't pay attention to - they either get lucky, or more often not, and can't understand why a scene works or doesn't.
 
I totally have to agree with OldCorpse here.... really great ideas and story, just the pacing was not effective. Keep up the good work though!
 
Thanks Corpse,

It's nice to see to comments with some meat on them.

All I can say is - you should have seen the stuff on the cutting room floor!:thumbsup:

It's interesting to see different reactions to pacing. To you, it seems to just get under your skin. I'm sure with your preface, viewers will be inclined to agree with you. The internet is a funny place. It took me a year to even post this anywhere because of the pacing. People online generally want to see 30 seconds of a squirrel riding a surfboard. The pacing of most modern films is so fast, they can't stay on one shot for longer than five seconds. Like it or not, this is what is dictating the next generations of filmakers.

With Ring! Ring! - my first attempt at a narative piece - I wanted to approach it with a slow pace in mind to side step the style that non linear editing kind of lends itself to - cuts and increased tempo as you call it.

Sure it feels slow to me too - I've seen it a hundred times. But I'm a person that doesn't mind slow movies or long shots. I just saw 2001 the other day on the big screen for the first time and it melted my brain - it was awesome. You could argue with your logic that 2001 was overplanned, mundane, and boring as well. I'm sure if 2001 came out today, reviewers and audiences would have a strongly adverse reaction to it's pacing.

And who's to say I lost my audience? If your talking about people wanting fast action, that wasn't the intention of the film. I tried to only shoot scenes that I felt furthered the story. Which ones do think should have been cut? I think maybe some of the meaning of the film has slipped past you Oldcorpse. The film's not intended to be as much about sight gags and quick cuts as it is about the creative process itself. For me it's a slow process, so the film itself needed to be slow and somewhat diliberate. But if your looking for some toe tapping, instant satisfaction it's probably not the film for you.

That being said, the point is well taken and although you believe I have no understanding of pace, I actually am making films to learn and experiment with the medium.

Sorry the pace ruined it for you Oldcorpse. I'm sure you might have to check your pulse after watching this next one: :grin:

It's my latest film and it's called Panet Earth: Our Response. I don't know how, but it's being spotlighted over at crackle.com right now.

http://crackle.com/c/Shorts/Planet_Earth%3A_Our_Response/1985028#ml=fi%3D%26fu%3D2238526
 
Last edited:
Well.

I think you are a bit fast with assumptions. I'm hardly a case of "kids these days" who are used to fast cutting and don't grok slower paced movies. I'm not going to drag out my "cred", but suffice it to say that I love non-American movies (which are often slower paced), and of American movies, I'm definitely oriented toward indies, art films and exotic stuff.

So my objection to the pacing of your short doesn't come from a lack of exposure, understanding, or liking of slower paced stuff. Rather, the pace has to serve the overall design of the film. In Stranger Than Paradise, the pace was very appropriate and fit perfectly with the overall design. That is not the case for your short - as far as I can see. Rather, you linger over sequences which don't reward the slower pace - there's no payoff, it just drags. Plus, pacing is a very sensitive thing. For example, sometimes you can make a slower pace work if you invest the scene with enough tension, even if the tension is purely subconcious. Example: once, I was watching a scene being shot which just didn't work due to the pace - the actor was just looking at another actor, and this had to go on for a few seconds... it felt draggy and dead. Then the director introduced one small change: he added a tiny pan in the beginning of the shot - and immediately the very same set up, the same angle and the same scene was invested with enough tension to carry the scene and it no longer felt draggy. My point is that there are many ways in which you can solve the problem - as usual in art, things are very complicated. In your film, the pacing felt unnecessarily draggy - probably for many reasons, perhaps not even necessarily because of the length of the scenes themselves... I'm thinking in particular about some instances of the guy opening the door, looking out, seeing the package, and then picking it up - especially the time it took from the moment he saw the package and the slooooow and delibbbbberate way in which he approached the package - that felt sooooooooo long, just horrible. There are other ways to convey his psychological state upon seeing the package - and you chose a way which says "I'm in love with every second of this, and I don't realize that the audience wants the guy to just get on with it". To me it screams "amateur hour". Now, maybe a different angle would have done something here to alleviate this, maybe asking the actor to approach the package differently - whatever - in other words, not even necessarily cutting it shorter.

Anyhow, look, this is an inexact science. Things are complicated. I'm just giving you my feedback. It's up to you to think this through (not necessarily to agree with me, obviously)... if you think that your critic is merely a rube who has never seen a slower paced movie or a kid who grew up with MTV editing, well, you might be missing a valuable opportunity to reconsider your art. Good luck!
 
John818 - No - I'm American - I just had parents from the sixties.

OldCorpse - I'm glad you love non-American movies. As far as assumptions go, if you would check back in my first post, I've been making films for about 10 years. I'm not a beggining filmmaker. I may not work for Michael Bay, but I'm not new to this. It's the tone of your post that makes me not take you seriously. I can understand that you didn't enjoy the pacing of the piece, but when you start grandstanding and making blanket comments about what films are or how movies should be made it's gets to be non productive. You seem to keep claiming that I am "so in love with every frame" and some other seemingly pointed remarks. I'm just a guy making films the way I like 'em. That's power I have right now. I can make a shot a bit too long a cut a sequence a certain way to see how it feels. It is an experiment.

I did shoot multiple takes of every shot in the film. There were at least eight takes of all the primary shots. Different styles of motion and reactions. Different pacing. This is how I chose to make the movie with the available time to shoot, and no crew. It didn't just "happen this way". I'll be the first to admit it's not perfect. If it was, I would quit making films right now.

The film was never meant to be watched on a computer on the internet. If you don't think that has an impact on your viewing experience, then your crazy. It's really to slow for people to handle watching without reaching for their mouse.

When I have sat in the theater and watched my film with audiences, they laugh and get interested in the story. They react when the boxes get opened up. They enjoy it. People come up to me and ask questions about it. They have different thoughts and theories on the meaning of the film. They actually get thinking about it, so in that sense, to me it's a success. I'm sure some people don't like it, don't get it or don't care.


If you don't like the movie, that's fine with me. I've spent the greater part of my life creating music and films that people either love or hate. Calling me amature, and calling my film ambitious sh|t - sorry man - you lost your "cred" on that.

User forums are filled with people that love to dive in and make the first stink. I had hoped that I could get just a few more peoples straight up opinions before this turned into "movies should be made my way" debate.

On to the next.
 
Last edited:
This reminded me a lot of Polanski's work. Not even necessarily the obvious comparision to the claustraphonic 'The Tenant', but more his quirky, idiosyncratic shorts, which he made earlier in his career. Was he an influence?

It was a beautiful, mysterious piece, which never took itself too seriously, and yet genuinely makes you think. In that sense it's a really unique blend.

I loved the props, the stillness, the oddness and the delicate nature of how it was all shot. Fantastic piece. And it's a tremendous accomplishment to have done most of the work for this yourself.
 
Arman said:
If you don't like the movie, that's fine with me. I've spent the greater part of my life creating music and films that people either love or hate. Calling me amature, and calling my film ambitious sh|t - sorry man - you lost your "cred" on that.

User forums are filled with people that love to dive in and make the first stink. I had hoped that I could get just a few more peoples straight up opinions before this turned into "movies should be made my way" debate.

On to the next.
Click to expand...

Actually, you picked some of my remarks, completely out of context - context which included a ton of praise, resulting in wrong conclusions about the import of those remarks. I took the time to give you a response that would benefit you, based on my experience, having been in a position of close participation in many careers launched and nurtured. You chose to respond with an attack on the ability and motives of the critic. You could have reacted to what I said in a way that would have taken advantage of the benefits of feedback. A creator, when faced with feedback, has a choice of reactions. You responded with ego. That is a psychological flaw, and it will limit you as an artist. I've seen it before - having worked as an agent at one of the big three, for over ten years - I've had the opportunity to witness and interact with a large number of filmmakers. After a while, you get to recognize patterns. It really is a numbers game, and sadly, winners are rare. A basic problem for you is that you cannot hear, including what I've written above. The result is a disappointment for both of us. Going any further will not be productive, so this will be my last post to you ever. Good luck.
 
Not bad, Arman. Very cute, and I absolutely loved that transition from the girl to the painting of the brickwall.

I think you took OldCorpse's comments out of context. He was just giving his opinion and that's all it is. Don't be offended... you'll probably face MUCH harsher critics in the future who don't even have a hint of advice or worthy feedback. Critiques should be ingested with betterment in mind :beer:

Cheers
 
Oldcorpse - like I said, it's your tone. I'm here to share my movies. You have an opinion, so do I. If you really want to help people make better films, you might try taking the rhetoric down a notch. You make quite a few absolute statements about me and my film in your posts, and it's to my fault that I even responded. I really should have said "thanks for watching" and left it at that. It's too bad really.

Can somebody open a window in here?

Richyding - I do like Polanski's work but I haven't seen any of his shorts. Is there a collection available? I had an old coworker who actually would call me Polanski, but that was because he thought I looked like him in The Tenant.

LloydC - That transition was hard to frame and I ended up having to use a digital still of the painting to dissolve from. A little bit of grain and a slight edge in on the digital still helped it blend in.


As far as Oldcorpse's comments being out of context ... it's in the subtext of his posts. If he would have come out of the gates asking me what I was thinking instead of telling me what I was thinking, we might have come up with something productive. I offered up a rebuttal to his oppinons with my own thoughts, and he didn't want to hear it. He fit me into a nice stereotype and bailed.

Sorry for offending you Oldcorpse, but you've made a fair amount of assumptions about my character and motivations from the start.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top