shot my first narrative shortfilm - would like some feedback :)

T

TimTom

Member
Hey peepz,

I hope this is allowed here.

after testing and trying things in my studio for the last 2 years I finally shot my first short.
We were a dp tag team. I lit, exposed and graded everything. My co dp Julia composed the shots.

I like were I have come, too. But please please help me becoming better.
https://youtu.be/9fSCB2FSkV0

Shot on BMPCC and Nikon Nikkor AI lenses and Tokina 28-70 2.6
My main light was a Falcon Eyes 18TD and a 4x4 frame.

Would love your opinion on the visual side of things.
Thank you very much,
Tim
 
Nice work! I particularly liked the wall shot in the bathroom and the high angle on the staircase.

It did start to get a little slow in the pacing; some additional angles to cut to in the conversation scene might have helped.
 
Shots look solid lighting and composition wise. Couldn't really find anything to comment on. The only 'less good' things here are down to the directing, like how the bathroom scene and the shot of the guy walking up to the bar and getting the drinks added nothing to the story. Would have rather just stayed with the girl and built on her character.
 
I did not turn on notifications. Sorry for that. I forgot about this topic.

Tolin said:
Shots look solid lighting and composition wise. Couldn't really find anything to comment on. The only 'less good' things here are down to the directing, like how the bathroom scene and the shot of the guy walking up to the bar and getting the drinks added nothing to the story. Would have rather just stayed with the girl and built on her character.
Click to expand...

I am totally with you. The director/editor and me, where just yesterday talking about exactly that. The reason he didnt focus on the girl actually was that our footage was very flawed, so a lot of decisions are actually damage control. - Still learning, we learned the lesson, continuity is important. And you are right, I got hung up in the "oh that bar shot looks pretty" - in prep or on the day I never questioned its relevance.

Justin Kuhn said:
Nice work! I particularly liked the wall shot in the bathroom and the high angle on the staircase.
It did start to get a little slow in the pacing; some additional angles to cut to in the conversation scene might have helped.
Click to expand...
Thanks. Watching the cut, that's so true. It's gets really old after a while. Can't watch it anymore actually. :D
 
I liked the look, mostly. In the bar the guy seemed a bit heavy on the green. I thought it might just be a strange colored shirt but the bar behind looks almost radioactive with the green so I think there is a strangeness in the color. Bathroom scene needs a flush. Bottle opens need a little fizt, as it is it seems really obvious that the bottles contain a non carbonated liquid, no sound no bubbles etc. The sound would probably get the audience to overlook the lack of bubbles. And while we are on the bottles, labels? I'm not a local so maybe bars bottle their own beer and don't put labels on the bottles but it looks really "no-budget prop" with out labels to a US watcher anyway. You can't use commercial ones probably but ask some home brewer for some of their labels. They will be thrilled to have their "beer" in your film.

The mix was not bad. I found the very low music in the bathroom distracting. I could see a logic of it being the bar music drifting up but it sounded like score and not something a bar would play and it was just loud enough that I took off headsets to see if it was actually in the film or not. So I would either use it or loseit, the too low part distracts your audience because they are trying to figure out what they are hearing. If you want it and need it that low at that point then establish it earlier and you can bring it down and we all know what it is so it won't be distracting. The ambient hums in the bathroom and the stairwell are OK but they are not very interesting. When you have a time like that where there is no dialog the sound should be advancing the story and setting up what is coming. I'm not actually sure what the scene is specifically about since I don't speak the language so exactly what those sounds might be that would help the story along are? But in a shot like the stairwell you should be building to the reveal of the guy and finding out what the story is. So bathroom to stairs to reveal ought to build our curiosity and give us hints about what might be coming. It generally should not be up front specific but more metaphorical. Is she dumping him? then the flush is a hint. Maybe the door creaks, has a strange close? The noises of the club ought to be increasing as she gets closer to the bottom etc.

I don't necessarily think the scenes you talking about cutting or shortening need either. I think what is missing people got right, that it's not advancing the story, but it could with the right sounds, maybe.

As you probably have gathered I'm a sound editor more than a cameraman. Visually I liked the darkness and general moodynes. Image wise it looked very clean and profesional. I have seen and worked on a lot of films from small to huge and a lot of small films have sloppy camera work, too much is in focus, or too little. Lighting tends to be spotty and any given moment, if you pulled a still, nobody would mistake it for a film shot on a budget. I think you did a lot better than that. It looked like well thought out shots.

My limited time shooting and being on sets has drilled into me that you just can't have enough coverage. A lot of folks do a ton of takes as "coverage" but that is not coverage thats just a nightmare of "options" in post. You need things to cut to, things that tell the audience something about the characters or the locations. That is just a general agreement with something you said. I'm not sure what or where it would have made life easier for you or enhanced this film. Just driving the point since it seems a hard one to really embrace for a lot of people (myself included) that the B roll is really important.
 
I watched it without any sound, and visually it looked good. When asking for feedback take everyone's opinion with a grain of salt because they're usually speaking from their own cinematic voice. If you haven't already, you have to find your cinematic voice and then hone in on it and perfect it; and if you're pleased with the way you've lit, shot, and sound designed it already, then so be it. There are ppl that hate every great director or cinematographers movie aesthetics, stories, the over blown highlights, not enough details in the shadows, the compositions, score, etc...but then there are ppl who look up to everything they do and try to mimic it. Ppl will ALWAYS find something wrong in art and tell you "the right way to do it", but there are no rules in art, do it your way, find your own voice and be great at it! Keep up the good work.
 
Reggie has a point. Some one I used to work for loved to say "Opinions are like rectums (though he used a more colorful term), everybody has one".

Personally I love to hear peoples opinions on stuff I do. I grew up with blunt opinions and have learned to listen with out taking it too to heart. Pretty much every criticism is valid, at least for the person making it. The two big mistakes I see people make is to either jump to "fix" every criticism or ignore it all with a "they don't get it". They are both over reactions. If nobody is "getting it" you probably have a problem, if 1 in 100 doesn't get it you probably don't. What this kind of stuff is really useful for is that you know too much about your film and read things into it that no viewer is going to get. So having cold viewers can give you a reality check of whether you are accomplishing what you are aiming at with the audience. I have worked on major budget films where story changes happened after the first previews because the "bad" guy was too bad and the audience hated him right off the bat which really screwed up the story arc. So they cut a few things and changed some edits so he was just a bit more likable at the start and it made a big difference.

But it is your story and other than the odd time when a suggestion turns out to inform you of the "better" story that was there and you missed it mostly what you get is to see whether you are manipulating the audience the way you want. Part of that is distractions. So for me the lack of labels was a distraction, but if nobody else mentions it then it's probably not an issue. It's not practically fixable at this point anyway so it would be more of a "future" note, but again not if nobody else noticed.

The "no rules in art" mantra is fairly misleading. As long as you don't care if anyone ever sits through one of your films yes, no rules. If on the other hand you want to make watchable films then there are at least guidelines if not actual rules that come into play. You will confuse the hell out of your audience if you ignore the 180 rule for instance. There are tons of time that has been spent over the years working out ways to manipulate your audience and while you shouldn't be a slave to formulas you should stand on the shoulders of those that came before. Most things that are not done, are not done for a reason. The reason may not apply to your film but you should know why others avoid it so you can make an informed decision.
 
On the 8th day, bored with his creation, God put together a few rules for filmmakers.
Early in our career we tend to break those rules but it's good to revisit these from time to time.

God's rule for filmmaking: Thou shall not light the subjects but rather environment - sometimes the subjects ends up lit, sometimes not.
God's rule for filmmaking: Thou shall not stage the scene at the table - unless you really, really, really have to because it restricts the actors making their performance stiff and staging boring.

There are a few more rules but those are the two you've broken in your short film.
 
I think the lighting rule is conditional...if a subject is static for a time, speaking, etc. it’s weird not to have them at least partially lit unless the lack of light is supposed to say something about their character or the story etc. If they’re moving through an environment that’s a different story.
 
It is also very film dependant. I can think of any number of scenes in good films where the lighting is more about the character than the environment. As a guideline it makes a fair amount of sense.
 
Patryk_Rebisz said:
On the 8th day, bored with his creation, God put together a few rules for filmmakers.
Early in our career we tend to break those rules but it's good to revisit these from time to time.

God's rule for filmmaking: Thou shall not light the subjects but rather environment - sometimes the subjects ends up lit, sometimes not.
God's rule for filmmaking: Thou shall not stage the scene at the table - unless you really, really, really have to because it restricts the actors making their performance stiff and staging boring.

There are a few more rules but those are the two you've broken in your short film.
Click to expand...

I like the first one... it makes sense and enables a subtle use of light as a character. The second one is not so rigid I think... but makes sense in this case. Would have been interesting to see the two make use of the environment along the conversation. A few cases where it works would be Heat... Prisoners... Hudsucker Proxy. But yeah, it's hard to recall situations where it works, especially when the entirity of the movie is that sole table conversation. The same principal goes for any locked and seated setup doesn't it? I would almost say that that Tom Hardy in a car movie didn't work for me.
 
I wouldn't say there are "no rules", rather, there is the Supreme Law, which I never tire of promulgating: ENGAGE THE AUDIENCE. Now, there are any number of ways to do that, and there are all sorts of "rules" that may help, but if you need to break a rule in order to engage the audience, it's always in that service. So obey or break rules, doesn't matter, as long as you keep the ultimate priority in mind: engage the audience. Sometimes a conversation in a small setting with people sitting around can be nonetheless riveting and extremely effective... why? Because it engages the audience! Example:

https://youtu.be/xO60RohuARY?t=2m12s

It's the famous Indianapolis speech from Jaws. One man talking, siting at a table. Absolutely riveting. Iconic, epic, movie history. And yet, he's sitting in a tiny space at a table. And so very powerful. Why? It ENGAGES THE AUDIENCE. So what of the "not sitting around a table" rule? It's a good rule. But it can be broken. Because in the end, there is only one rule: Engage the audience.

Young man - or old man. Do whatever you wish, in whatever way you wish, but don't bore us. ENGAGE THE AUDIENCE by any means necessary. That's the only law and all the law. Or to put it in biblical terms, Galatians 5:14 "For the whole law can be summed up in this one command: "Love your neighbor as yourself." Or for us filmmakes: "There is only one rule, and that is to engage the audience". Now go in peace son, and never bore us.
 
There are many good things about what you've done, especially just getting out there and DOING it. I know you learned a ton just having to shoot and edit it. Other people have made some good suggestions. I know I am old school, but the shot composition of the man and woman at the table bothers me. The wide shot is pretty good, but there is more room on the right side of the woman than on the left side of the man. The medium close up of the man has him almost dead center of the screen. I would rather see him more to the left (rule of thirds). And the medium close up of the woman has her to the left of the screen, when she should be on the right. Not only would the individual shots look better, but when cutting from the wide shot you want to keep the continuity of "man-left" "woman-right" to make the shots flow.

Just my opinion of course. Die Hauptsache ist mehr Filme zu machen. Viel Spass!
 
Oh? Well I can do you one better: a *whole movie* of a guy sitting at a table talking - Swimming To Cambodia: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0094089/

Certainly riveting and a big critical and audience hit that was showing for years and years. That's a pretty extreme demonstration that you can do anything you want, break any rule, as long as it is in the service of the ultimate prime directive: ENGAGE THE AUDIENCE. Ask yourself why scenes around a table are often avoided - because they lessen audience engagement, or as you put it "static scenes that are boring as it gets" - but the problem is not that they are static, but that they are boring. You can have a static scene, or indeed a whole movie, and if you make it engaging, then it is not boring, and no reason to avoid it.

Another example - My Dinner With Andre: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082783/ the majority of which is two guys sitting at a table in a restaurant, with a waiter occasionally swinging by. Utterly riveting. The conversation is not even linear, and yet it works brilliantly.

All so-called rules, are at bottom rules of thumb, useful in most situations, but completely subject to change at a drop of a hat if you know what you are doing, because they all lead, to the one true principle, like all roads leading to Rome: "ENGAGE THE AUDIENCE".

The thing about scenes that take place around a table, though, it this simple fact - scenes don't happen in a vacuum. A scene is a sequence in a film, and the scenes that happened *before* the table scene can give it a completely different meaning and emotional impact, so a scene that may seem passive and not much happening, can suddenly be invested with tremendous tension, just because of what happened in previous scenes, or because of what we anticipate is going to happen later. It's context. No rules - just engage the audience!
 
Lets not confuse facts - just because a scene has a table in the frame doesn't make it a "table scene." The above two examples from "Jaws" and "Equus" are NOT table scenes.

1. Context matters. You can have a guy sitting at a table AFTER you see a horse hugged by a naked man in a dark space because the scene introduces enough weirdness that the viewer wants context - the simplicity of the guy talking at the table is that enlightening context - through its simplicity it explains complex events.

2. Not to mention that the staging makes both scenes about the actor and the VIEWER not actor and other actors. In "Equus" the actor is talking directly to the camera and in "Jaws" he's talking almost to the camera. As such we don't listen via the other actor (s) but rather listen directly - the scenes become monologues which operated on VASTLY different level.

3. I can't believe you guys don't notice the extends the filmmakers go to enhance visually those otherwise boring by themselves scenes: lighting changes and dolly in "Equus" and constantly moving horizon and the swinging table light in "Jaws." In lieu of exciting staging they still try to excite the eye somehow (with proper context - showmanship for sake of nothing is just showmanship).

4. This is gonna sound as if i'm an ***hole, but the rules are specifically written because vast majority if people making films simply are not profound enough to see things in a larger context - they can't see how a scene is influenced by what comes before and after. They also don't see even seemingly obvious details so how can they hope to "engage" on any other level than just follow the rules of good filmmaking with what to do and not to do? Of course ego tells every single one of us that we are better then the mediocre filmmaker who has to follow the rules, but then an honest observer has to say (with face twisted as if just having bitten a lemon): no you are not.
 
Yes, context matters, as I said in my previous post. But that's why throwing out any rule, like "avoid table scenes" is always subject to all the artistic variables, so then you start qualifying "after you see a horse hugged", or whatnot. So that rule is kinda simplistic, isn't it? If you have to keep qualifiying it. "Sure, avoid table scenes, unless you have a moving horizon and swinging light" and on, and on, and on. It's silly. It's silly because then what is the meaning of "avoid table scenes"? You can keep qualifying, and I can always come up with examples that go outside of that qualification, and then you have to qualify AGAIN! For example there are tons of table scenes that don't care about the qualifications, horses, swinging lights and whatnot and still work brilliantly - especially in comedies, including many early Woody Allen. It's meaningless. Really what the rule says is "avoid table scenes" because they can be boring and static - but like I said, the problem is not that they are static, but they are boring. I can make that rule much more real, just by saying "avoid BORING scenes", doesn't matter around a table or not. It's content. Content is king. *Good content* in a static table scene is still *good content*. Just engage the audience.

And 100% agreed - rules are made because they are shortcuts. You don't have time - or talent - to think through every aspect of a scene, just "follow the rules" and you'll end up at least with something competent. To break rules, demands you understand them, and a be master of them. It demands a lot of thought and understanding of artistic effect, so you know when to break a rule to benefit the whole. Directing, like any art form is all about judgment. As a director - or DP, or actor, or any artist - you are always making decisions and choosing one element over another. It calls for judgment. Great artists have great judgment. It can't always be taught. Because you either have good taste, or not. You can follow rules, and come up with a decent product. But for greatness, you need to be the master of the rules, not let rules master you. And that means, you follow rules, or you break rules, because you have great judgment - for such people there are no "rules", only judgment.
 
Patryk,

You didn't put an asterisk on your rule, you just said "don't stage a scene at a table". It's not that the rule is "wrong" so much as it misses the point. The rule should be more like "Don't stage a static scene if at all possible", or something like that. We get your point, and I think agree, but the way you phrased it makes it too specific.
The reason you give
because it restricts the actors making their performance stiff and staging boring
Click to expand...
is really what you are trying to avoid and not necessarily caused by the staging. In Equus the actor really doesn't move at all, you can't get much more restricted than that. But being restricted does not necessarily lead to stiff and boring performance. And while the camera moves and evolving lighting help it's the performance and script that holds the Equus scene together. the "action" is going on in Burtons head and that is what is captivating.

As a guidance I think it's good advice, as arule it has too many exceptions.

For a low budget filmmaker the odds of getting a performance that can demand your attention in an otherwise static shot is not great, so it is probably a good idea to try and keep it animated.

BTW it's not ego on my part. I would never assume I could pull off a sequence like that and not put everyone in a coma. But rules for filmmaking should not be based on my limitation. That would kill the industry fast.
 
Thanks for all the feedback. I am a bit overwhelmed but I made mental notes of all of it! I was just the DP so I was not involved in the mix and sound design. But I could certainly made better coverage. When it comes to the light, Iam happy with his single but hers is just boring. I tried sneaking in something when I saw it on the day and hustled to light the bg and to give her a hairlight, but I failed and now it looks very boring. BUT for my taste it is not too dark. I like it that way. But I am a little extreme at the moment and have no agencys telling me to light up on set, which is why I always end up with dark stuff.
Thanks again to all !
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top