My First 16mm Short

M Joel W · April 23, 2007

This is the first narrative film I shot; the only thing before this was a single daylight spool for exposure tests.

Anyhow, we were meant to have just 100' of Tri-X 200D, a bolex with an angeniuex zoom, a light meter, and a tripod, but I got my hands on two 300w fresnels and an inky or two. I screwed up some of the titles so I redid them digitally; otherwise it's all unmodified 16mm except that I pushed one or two shots digitally.

Edited on a Steinbeck. Enjoy!

http://homepage.mac.com/mwauhkonen/handsomeman.mov (1 minute)

Jan Weis · April 23, 2007

This is the first narrative film I shot; the only thing before this was a single daylight spool for exposure tests.

Anyhow, we were meant to have just 100' of Tri-X 200D, a bolex with an angeniuex zoom, a light meter, and a tripod, but I got my hands on two 300w fresnels and an inky or two. I screwed up some of the titles so I redid them digitally; otherwise it's all unmodified 16mm except that I pushed one or two shots digitally.

Edited on a Steinbeck. Enjoy!

http://homepage.mac.com/mwauhkonen/handsomeman.mov (1 minute)

You call this a narritive film, but where's the story?

I think the first movie I ever made, at age 14 had more story to it

than your short.

You did however do a good job filming it (with the exception of the kitchen

scene which is way to grainy), the picture was steady and creative lighting

and angles were used...However thats not good enough to make a movie

work.

Did you actually write a screenplay?

Or was this just an experimental art film that no one is suppose to understand?

I know my thoughts are rather harsh, but damn it, you will only benifit

from criticism!

/Jan

M Joel W · April 23, 2007

You call this a narritive film, but where's the story?

I think the first movie I ever made, at age 14 had more story to it

than your short.

You did however do a good job filming it (with the exception of the kitchen

scene which is way to grainy), the picture was steady and creative lighting

and angles were used...However thats not good enough to make a movie

work.

Did you actually write a screenplay?

Or was this just an experimental art film that no one is suppose to understand?

I know my thoughts are rather harsh, but damn it, you will only benifit

from criticism!

/Jan

I'll adress the problems first: we had very little light (there may have only been one 300w fresnel and an inky at that point; I blew a bulb during the shoot) and I wanted to use soft (bounced) light for that scene. My light meter told me it was an acceptable exposure but slightly under; Tri-X's poor exposure lattitude and chunky grain structure didn't render the scene well, though. That was a beginner's mistake and I will take the blame! I now rate Tri-X at ISO 125 under tungsten light.

I did write a screenplay, which you can read here: http://homepage.mac.com/mwauhkonen/handsomeman.pdf

Between mistakes on set, limits of only having a minute and a half of film, and my professor's distate for certain jokes which he made me cut in editing, a lot of the film was lost. I think if Jim's hand had not functioned in the last scene it would have made for a better story; this was a continuity error since a crew member quit and my actor and I were tired.

No problem about the criticism; it's along the same lines as what others have told me so I suppose it must be right. (Although I did post it here primarily for critiques in cinematography rather than direction, but I suppose I should appreciate both.)

-Matt

ryan_bennett · April 23, 2007

My two cents,

First I think it started out interesting, the toasting scene was good but the second he gets burned/electrocuted is when things get really wonky. You see him pull his hands out in the wide shot then cuts to a close up shot of him that gives you the feeling his hands are still in the toaster.I would've rather had continuity in there, just seems sloppy and not inventive editing. Why do I suggest this? Well the flashing of the light is motivated by the "shocks" and the way you have it you have him pull his hands out and lean against the wall, taking out this motivation for the close up of him with the shocks.

Hated the shower scene. It looks and starts alright but it's too much. I think we can tell he's screwed and his hand hurts, we can see it but this goes over board with it and you have unneeded titles. You should've thought more how you can tell the story visually.

The cemetary scene is interesting, feels more like a music video then he gets ran over. Not quite sure how that goes, made me laugh. I like the use of slow motion and almost feel like it has no real connection from the rest of the movie. Also, he's clearly sitting in the middle of the stones on grass then he's on the road. Why couldn't you guys shoot on more than one roll of film? That's a bit odd I mean you could always just gone out and bought more film on your own. Also 100 feet of 16mm is 2 minutes 46 seconds, unless you're compensating for the slow motion shots.

You can always go back, shoot some more and re-edit.