ASK & DISCUSS INDEX

11 years ago - Franz von Habsburg FBKS MSc

I like it very much but do agree to a tripod for the opening interiors else the shots look subjective but otherwise camera angles have been well thought through and edited nicely. Wouldn't have known the plot though had I missed the title... OK so he's alone! And misses her... Only given away with the valentine card shot. Nice job overall. Buy a tripod.

10 years, 11 months ago - Chris Myers

Looks like I made it into the second round at SP Film of the month. Thanks so much for the invaluable feedback everyone! So empowered to make my next short :)

If anyone would like to throw some stars my way for round two that'd be sweet :)

https://shootingpeople.org/filmofthemonth

11 years ago - Marlom Tander

Handheld shaky cam is brilliant in TWO (count em) movies. Cloverfield and Blair Witch. Both of which set up the shakey cam as self taken footage.

The decision to use shakey cam is one that needs to have been given great thought, because it places so many demands on the viewer.

IMO as soon as I see unexplained shakey cam I think the cinematographer is telling me there's an unseen party in the scene, and this is their POV. Which is great, until I realise that there isn't one, and then it's starting to get in the way of the story.

Whereas a rock steady (even if moving) shot tells me that "this is narration" and I can focus on what is happening.

If you don't like static shots, watch Robert Altman's work. The camera is always doing something, even if very slowly.

11 years ago - Robin Forrest

I like this....a load better than my first effort!

11 years ago - Simon Dymond

This was great! The story was really economic and the performance was strong. Loved the pacing of the edit as well, really helped to sell the story. I didn't mind the mix of handheld/static shots at all. Keep up the good work.

10 years, 12 months ago - Chris Myers

Thanks Robin, that's super kind. Long way to go for me :)

11 years ago - Dawn Crumpler

I really liked this. I'm not sure about the story but the mood you created was wonderful. And it's your first attempt? Excellent work. Keep going!

11 years ago - Dan Selakovich

I see Marlom's point about Cloverfield and Blair Witch, but I can't agree (respectfully). I have only seen it used effectively once in "A single man." The reason it works well there, is that it shows the panic of the character. It came at a point when all we'd seen to that point was calm, beautifully composed, shots. It was jarring, and it needed to be. But it wouldn't have worked if the entire film was shot that way.

I've spent most of my career saving movies in trouble, so audience psychology is sort of my bread and butter. Put simply, you shouldn't use shaky-cam because human beings don't see that way. It pulls viewers out of the story and any sort of connection you've made with them. The audience becomes hyper aware that they are watching a movie. (I also don't want to confuse "hand-held" and "Shaky-cam". Hand-held can have its place).

People tend to point to the success of Paul Greengrass and the 2nd and 3rd Borne films in favor of shaky-cam. I argue that without the properly shot first Borne film, the next 2 by Greengrass wouldn't have been at all successful. In fact, I'd wager that if Greengrass had shot the first one, there wouldn't have been sequels. When a certain camera style is constant, it loses its effectiveness. Greengrass blows it. We know Borne is going to win, but we want to SEE HOW he wins. Think of it this way: if you have a film that is 99% static shots, then at one point you dolly in for a close up, that dolly move has impact. But if every shot in the film is a camera move, the move when you need it loses all meaning.

You started your film with a shaky-cam shot. Camera movement and placement need a reason. I have no idea what your reason was--especially for an opening shot. And since we humans don't see that way, ever, you made the audience completely aware of your presence as a director, and awkwardly so.

I'll leave you with this little experiment I've used on students (I sometimes lecture on directing). Hold up each index finger at arms length, about 2 feet apart. Just using your eyes (no head turn), try to look smoothly between your left index finger, moving to your right index finger. It's physically impossible to do this smoothly. Your eyes will stop and start. They will try to focus on things in the background, etc. Now try moving your left hand TO your right hand, following the left with your eyes. It's easy to watch your left hand in an absolutely smooth way. That's why dolly shots work: because that's the way our brains work.

Shaky-cam is an interruption to our visual sense, and is very dangerous to use. YOU will see a shaky-cam shot differently than your audience. You've seen it dozens, if not hundreds of times. Your eye will fill in shit that is not there to compensate for the wild shot. Depending on screen size, it takes the human eye 3 to 5 frames to recognize what it is seeing. But it does this based on past experience of seeing things (we don't see with our eyes, we see with our brains). Since we don't see in shaky-cam mode in real life, our brains have a hard time filling in with past visual reference.

Sorry for the long explanation. I hope it made sense.

11 years ago - Dan Selakovich

Project Green Light is still around?

My suggestions for the next one: put that damn camera on a tripod. Shaky-cam adds nothing in my opinion. Think about camera placement a little more. You're an actor, so emotion is your bread and butter. Where can you put the camera that conveys that emotion? For this short, ask yourself "what is loneliness and isolation?" and find shots and editing that convey that.

Keep going. Not a bad first effort at all.

11 years ago - Sam Seal

Everyone who watches will have an opinion...

For what it's worth, having only watched it once:

I'd agree with other posters that switching between the hand-held and the tripod for no apparent reason is a bit of a mistake. I disagree that not knowing what's going on is a bad thing. But you have to balance making people curious about what's going on and the length of time you take to satisfy their curiosity. I'd have cut out the hoovering shots and the card and the crying. It might be an accident, but it's a triumph to have the most beautiful shot be the one that reveals the story. When she appears and whispers in his ear in the dream is a great moment. It was worth it just for that "reveal".

10 years, 10 months ago - Elu Eboka

Really enjoyed this!!!!

11 years ago - D. James Newton

Nice job, Chris. I note you weren't the DoP so I've nothing to feedback to you on there.

I liked your performance and I think you hit all the notes quite subtly and it comes across as warm and leading towards the empathetic. So good job.

However - always that god-damn however! - the script lacked a small touch which would have propelled this into something extraordinary and touching.
For me, and this is only in my experience which you can take or leave, real emotional connection comes from a sequence of 3 key beats:
Synchronisation
Change
Witness

Skilled writers can can mix these up but it's easier to start them in order. Let me expand on what these definitions mean as I use them, as I recognise the vagaries of language and how some words will mean one thing to one person and something else to another.

Synchronisation
Getting in sync with a character to view and see their world. The audience sees where they exist and how they inhabit it and importantly how it reacts to them. We discover their intentions and what their general state is.

Change
This is the character metaphorically being hit side-on by something out of the blue. Their world no-longer exists as they know it and it causes them to react in a way they may not have done before.

Witness
This is the killer beat. As an audience we have to witness the Change and their acknowledgement of the change. How does that Change 'wash' over them. How do they react, what do they do, what do they learn or discover about themselves.

These 3 beats can happen in a few seconds or can take 2hrs to pan out. But unless the audience experiences the first 2 beats we don't connect with the 3rd and that is really the killer beat. In your script we didn't exactly Witness the change - we saw the aftermath of it. It's a very subtle difference. The only euphoria we saw was in flashback. Had some of that happiness and euphoria spilled out into your current world - only for your character to realise she's not there and be checked - then you would have struck gold in the empathy stakes. We would have had a strong emotional connection.

I offer this to you as feedback because I saw that you also co-wrote the piece, presumably as a vehicle to display your acting. I think, from what I saw, that you hit all the beats in the script spot-on. And I don't doubt, if you write a better script next time you will again hit all the beats. You're a good actor - find the right material to fly!

11 years ago - Chris Myers

Hi everyone -

Thanks so much for the responses, this has been so informative for me. Sam Seal - you're so right about opinions; as much as I'm learning about filmmaking I'm also learning how to parse feedback right now. I've posted this on another site and also shown it to a lot of friends (some in film, some not) and I've heard smart people directly contradict each other with specific criticisms.

I have one question since the handheld/tripod thing seems to be a common crit here. I get a lot of people didn't like it -- and I admittedly didn't think too deeply about it -- but the closest I got to why it detracts is from Franz, who said it makes it "look subjective". Does anyone care to breakdown the advantages/disadvantages from handheld & tripod, and switching between both?

D. James Newton - thanks for that, and I get ya on the power of 'Witness'. I actually did design most of the shots even though I have my partner DP credit, which is why I'll take any and all feedback :)

11 years ago - Chris Myers

^ Very helpful, thanks Marlom :)