SHORT FILM w/ Zeiss Compact Primes

S

SplitFieldDiopter

Active member
It's a bit longer than your average short on here at 17:03
Just posting it here on DVXUSER with a password because we're hoping to get it into some festivals....

The password is: goodtimesbadtimes

(The title at the top of the vimeo page (FOREVER DREAMS) is not the actual title)

http://vimeo.com/27311703
 
Last edited:
Lovely overture- is it original?

Your casting was very good- performances and delivery were quite natural, but the shot composition made me realize how much I dislike reliance on dirty-overs. Very nice transitional sequence in the middle though.
 
Nicely shot and acted- with a sense of regret or melancholy throughout. Good luck with the film!

What's a dirty-over?
 
Dirty-over is an over-the-shoulder shot framing in a portion of shoulder of the character that is closer to camera.
 
Ah, I was going to guess that.
In a location with limited angles such as a bar, there's not many alternatives, are there?
 
That's where blocking, keeping to the point scriptwise and directing come into play. I hate writing or shooting things that re too dialogue driven, more so if it's more than 5 pages because it just starts to drag. Introducing new characters, moving them around, making sure the majority of things we hear are important and pertinent because otherwise it turns into TV.
 
That's all true, Papa, and even with the limited angles/locations, I found the story and characters compelling.

It was refreshing to have characters older than 25- the range of life experiences and plot possibilities are different, and can set a very different tone to things.
 
dcarstens-

I prefer the dirty over because it gives you a sense of geography. If you just go from a 2 shot to a one shot, I find that you don't really get a sense of who they are talking to.

I will agree with you though that maybe loosening up on the over the shoulder would have been better, but it was a limited space.

The waltz wasn't original.

GroveChuck -

Thanks for the kind words. This movie really started as a camera test, but turned into something a little bit more serious, so I'm glad it worked for you!

Papa-

I think the whole TV vs. film comparison is a little out of date. TV is now MUCH less static than films typically are. Watch an episode of CSI. The camera is moving all over the place. The pacing is ridiculously quick. And the editing is nauseatingly fast. This doesn't make it any less boring though.

I think the way to differ from TV is trying to make films with substance. I tried to add a bit of cinematic flair here and there, with the jump cuts, and dollies, but on the whole, I wanted it to be about the characters. Mostly because the last movie we did was much more frantic.
 
Last edited:
Really interesting short. I wish you the best of luck on the festival road. It's clear that you spent lots of time developing your characters, very nice. The whole time I was watching I kept thinking... This guy must have just watched a tarantino film or something haha. The only reason I thought that is because he spends a lot of time in a scene with just dialogue... it's cool, I like it.

And what finally sold my thought, "yup, for sure tarantino" was when you added the split focus shot of the woman on the bed and the man on the phone. reminded me of the shot in Res. Dogs. I actually really hate that effect, nothing against you at all, but I just can't think of a time that I would ever find it necessary. It's completely unnatural. Of course there are always times and places for everything, but that is one effect that I just can't grow to like. Again, nothing against you at all.

Anyway, my only criticism is this, the lighting seemed very flat the majority of the time, the faces seemed very 2D and didn't seem to have any contrast on them at all. It's not necessarily a bad thing I guess, but I think it would have helped make the film look more natural.

Also, some of the editing was a bit off. I'm not an editor, so I don't quite know how to explain myself, but there were a few times that the cuts really called attention to themselves.

Overall, I think what you have is pretty cool... Nice work.
 
Ah yes, one other critique. When you're doing reverses, whether they be clean or dirty, Try to match the framing as much as possible. Use a tape measure. It's possible that dcarstens wouldn't have noticed the dirty ots quite as much if they had matched better. Making those two frames match are very important to making a cut look invisible.

Remember, our job as filmmakers is to make the audience forget that they're watching a movie. once they start to notice cuts, they'll instantly remember. It's not all in the editing room, the DP needs to be able to match those angles so when they get cut together they aren't so jarring.
 
Kenwilx-

I love Tarantino but he was not on my mind very much while writing/shooting this short. It all started as a mere camera test but kinda snowballed into something more substantial. With a short, you can either go action or character. I tried to make this like a short story. There are no major events here. Nothing Earth shaking like the world coming to an end or a zombie apocalypse. It's just two people meeting in a bar after 30 years.

The split field shot is used in 100's of movies. In all of Tarantino's films. But in a majority of others as well (Scorsese, Spielberg, Coppola, DePalma (ESPECIALLY DePALMA)...) and the list goes on. I love the effect. Also, it's extremely practical. The only other way I could have gotten that shot was if I were to flood that room with light and stop down to t16-t22. They were a good 10 ft. apart.

I think the main difference in tastes between us says everything. Those jarring cuts are there on purpose. I want to call attention to them. I don't care if the audience knows they are watching a movie because ultimately, THEY KNOW THEY ARE WATCHING A MOVIE. If they didn't work for you it's a different story. Perhaps they weren't implemented well? I for one like the jump cuts and cuts ins we used, but of course I do, I made it!

The lighting was pretty flat in comparison to other films I agree. I don't know why I light that way. Perhaps it's inexperience? Maybe I just prefer it? I have no idea!

Good call on the OTS shots. I suppose they could have been matched more properly.

Thanks for the well thought out critique!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top