SHORT: The saint

C

Chris Neal

New member
I recently shot, edited, and scored this passion project with a couple of non-actor friends.

It’s about a priest motorcyclist. It shows what can be done with a DSLR (this was shot on 1 camera - a GH4 with 1 lens).

And it also shows you can use non-actor friends to create beautiful art.

Check it out THE SAINT:

https://vimeo.com/293627765

I’d love for you to take a look and give me any feedback!
 
I don't usually watch short films posted in this section that don't talk much about how it was made. But I watched yours for whatever reason and I really enjoyed it. It felt more like a trailer or experimental short, but it was captivating, and that's the most important part.

From a technical side, no issues with camera or audio, you did great. My only critique right off the bat was that it was "anamorphic" and yet you had the bars. Vimeo (and now YouTube) will display a movie at it's true aspect ration with no letterboxing. I personally would of liked to see it as just a 2.40 film and not 16:9 with the dreaded bars. The bars made it feel like they were just dropped on to make it look cool (as many newbs will do). So think about that in the future. That said, if that was my biggest complaint, then you have a pretty solid piece on your hands.
 
Chris, between this piece and "Weight" you are doing some very nice work. You excel at creating mood and at establishing / building tension. For having been shot on a GH4 with one lens, this is impressive. And yes, it evidences what can be accomplished on a budget-camera and using non-actors. More specifically, it establishes that one can produce highly cinematic work with a budget camera and lens. Had I been told that this was shot on an ARRI Alexa with Cooke anamorphic lenses I likely would not have doubted it. The visuals are so compelling that it really doesn't matter what camera or lens was used because I'm liking them regardless and they draw the viewer in so well as to not be thinking about what sort of camera was employed.

A bang-up job!
 
Chris Neal said:
I recently shot, edited, and scored this passion project with a couple of non-actor friends.

It’s about a priest motorcyclist. It shows what can be done with a DSLR (this was shot on 1 camera - a GH4 with 1 lens).

And it also shows you can use non-actor friends to create beautiful art.

Check it out THE SAINT:

https://vimeo.com/293627765

I’d love for you to take a look and give me any feedback!
Click to expand...

Beautiful work. Let me guess on the lens: Sigma 18-35?
 
I'm consistently impressed by the high technical level of work on these forums, and this short is certainly an outstanding example, all the more impressive because it was done with just a few tools - one cam, one lens etc.

Therefore, I am not going to nitpick any technical details. On to content - the big kahuna. Decent concept, and as El Director says, it feels like a trailer. As a short, for me it lacks resolution and purpose. I mean, a priest has a conflicted/dark soul he exorcises by riding a motorcycle at night, until the relief of dawn and his day life. That's cool and all, but at the end you're left with the question "and?" Priest, blah, blah, blah - "and?". As a trailer, it works great, because it says "AND now find out more in the movie!". A personality - a predicament - we want to find out more.

Artistic notes - the VO is the weakest part - (1) the quality of the voice actor is not matched to the material. Nothing wrong with the actor, just not matched. A work of art is like soup - all the spices need to be of the right kind and right proportion. You wouldn't put cayanne pepper into a rice soup, and you wouldn't put oregano into oatmeal - nothing wrong with cayanne pepper, oregano or the soups, just not a match. Same here - not the optimal quality of voice, diction and deliverance for the material. You need something darker, stranger, more interesting in the voice. It's too plain vanilla for the material. (2) VO works best when there is less of it. The more words you use and the longer it goes on, the more lost we become and the more our attention wonders. Pacing is important. If it's just a steady stream of words, we don't absorb it due to watching the images and trying to grok the words at the same time - there isn't enough time to absorb, because it keeps going on, like trying to drink from a forcefed hose - give it space for us to absorb - sentence, or word with adequate spaces. Less is more in VO. I know you probably think every word is essential or subtlety will be lost. You can cut at least 50% of the verbiage and lose NOTHING, only gain. For one, the quality of the narrator's voice will give a lot of the emotion and depth and meaning substituting for many of those words. For another, people provide their own feeling and meaning in the silences between the words and sentences - more effective than the words. Nothing, I repeat, nothing, will be lost in meaning if you cut out 50% of the text, just giving the highlights and employing the right voice, the right cadence and pacing. A steady stream of bland voiced narration is the least effective part of this.

Otherwise it's really well made piece with a decent premise crying out for more fleshing out, or if to be limited to a short, then in need of more to be delivered on the premise. Excellent piece of work - congratulations!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top