here's a little film

[Brad Skiles]

As far as acting is concerned I would say that the main character wasn't bad, but when we see the group of guys for the first time it seemed like they were conscious of the camera.

 

I liked the location.

 

To me the movie felt like an in-camera edit project.

[Morgan Peline]

Sorry but i'm going to have to wade in now and be rude. Please forgive me.

 

i'm a perfecty knowledgable and adroit person when it comes to any sort of compositional standards.

 

No you're not! Your film shows very blatently that you are not adroit when it comes to composition. Even if you were doing a serious art house film that wasn't like an American style continuity film (e.g. like La Nina Santa or The Ratcatcher which both have very distinctive alternative compostional styles) to my eyes your film lacks craft. It looks crude in terms of technique.

 

As my teachers would say; you haven't told (or indeed shown) the story. If one watched your film without sound no one would be able to understand what is going on.

 

i don't care if the people on this board think there's something wrong with my composition.

 

I find this statement crazy. Maybe I've been brainwashed at film school but as far as I am concerned film is visual medium therefore to a certqin degree film is composition. It works mainly by images then after by dialogue and sound. If you can't even control your images precisely to tell the story (without aid of sound or dialogue) even when are trying to achieve a unique visulal style then what's the point?

 

As far as acting - apart from your lead who has an interesting look about him, the rest of your actors were just playing golf - there was very little acting at all. And also because you didn't use your camera to emphasize whatever acting did occur, your film just leaves the audience confused.

 

people enter and exit the frame. that's a choice i make over having the camera slightly adjusted to pan or tilt with the subject. i do not do this for one reason. it annoys me.

 

Fine. No problem with the intention. But the result still looks crude and shows your inexperience in operating a camera. The same shots could have been accomplished much more proficiently.

 

how presumptuous and calculating of me to expect someone to give me honest feedback(positive or negative) that doesn't sound like it was taken from the cinematography 101 book. furthermore, i apologize for my last post. i was frustrated. reading it now i realize how a**ho** it would be perceived. anyways, not a litmus test.

 

Yes, this is cinematography.com...As far as I am concerned film is about images. If you can't communicate your story effectively using those images then it's your problem not ours. No matter what your artisitic pretensions, the result wasn't well executed. And if you did pay more attenion to 'mundane' matters more often maybe your film would be perceived as much more artistic.

 

not just mundane problems the hollywood people might have.

 

This is another ridiculous statement. Whatever people think about Hollywood films, at least audiences tend to understand the narratives clearly for the most part - Hollywood films manage to tell a story. Your film fails to do so in parts. Maybe you should pay more attention to 'mundane' Hollywood matters - maybe your films would improve.

 

Let's face it, no matter what you say about your artistic pretentions etc. etc, and be honest now, you are inexperienced (like all of us) and I think all the criticisms levelled at your film were justified.

 

You can't make art without knowing craft.

 

One of the books on painting that I'm reading at the moment states: 'All works of art consist of an idea given form'. Well to me that means if you don't pay special attention to form, then no one will recognize the idea you are trying to convey.

 

Now that's honest criticism...

[Brian Woods]

"aesthetics / po-mo etc... ugh.. I personally want to learn how to make those 'beautiful - oooh ahhh' shots well before I start making 'pretty' ugly ones."

 

- not so much post-anything. more so of what my environment was like growing up. to me, these are the beautiful - oooh ahhh shots.

 

thanks brad. it was almost completely chronologically shot.

[gordon liron]

i just don't understand. do you think my images aren't driving the story because it's not like other films you've seen or perhaps because there's no sound?

 

Not to be mean but your movie is like many films I've seen...more specifically, entry level student films. I love many styles of photography but my favorite filmmakers are those that can jump from any style whether it looks commercial or artsy. They understand their medium and can control it however they choose.

 

i'm a perfecty knowledgable and adroit person when it comes to any sort of compositional standards.

 

If this is true than maybe you should post something else for us to see. You mentioned that you know what we want to see. If you can demonstrate that you fully know your craft as you say you do....I will post a sincere apology to you for underestimating your skill and knowledge on this subject.

 

 

gordon

Edited February 15, 2007 by gordon liron

[kristian andersen]

hugo.rodas@gmail.com (E-mail Address Not Verified) says:

ok

hugo.rodas@gmail.com (E-mail Address Not Verified) says:

the war movie

hugo.rodas@gmail.com (E-mail Address Not Verified) says:

was shot on hd

hugo.rodas@gmail.com (E-mail Address Not Verified) says:

its too light in the forest

Kristian says:

no

Kristian says:

it wasnt

hugo.rodas@gmail.com (E-mail Address Not Verified) says:

my only complaint

hugo.rodas@gmail.com (E-mail Address Not Verified) says:

otherwise, it looks like a lowbudget war movie

hugo.rodas@gmail.com (E-mail Address Not Verified) says:

thats all

Kristian says:

yes

Kristian says:

but what is it

Kristian says:

that doesnt make it look strong

hugo.rodas@gmail.com (E-mail Address Not Verified) says:

well

Kristian says:

i have some concerns

Kristian says:

hear me out

hugo.rodas@gmail.com (E-mail Address Not Verified) says:

first of all, the lighting is not in tune with hte mood

Kristian says:

VERY TRUE

Kristian says:

i find it too green

Kristian says:

however

hugo.rodas@gmail.com (E-mail Address Not Verified) says:

there is no sense of danger

Kristian says:

first shot in slow mo

Kristian says:

works great

Kristian says:

as a hand held shot

Kristian says:

however

Kristian says:

notice the 3rd shot

Kristian says:

its a static close up

Kristian says:

of some leaves

Kristian says:

and some people passing behind

Kristian says:

that is a bad shot

Kristian says:

that is one of the reasons it looks amateurish

Kristian says:

the shot with the military car

Kristian says:

that comes into the picture

Kristian says:

he should have it start inside the picture more

Kristian says:

its like the camera is watiting for it

Kristian says:

instead of just capturing it

hugo.rodas@gmail.com (E-mail Address Not Verified) says:

the 3rd shot is bad because its not continuous with the other medium shots

hugo.rodas@gmail.com (E-mail Address Not Verified) says:

its not a closeup, and its not a medium shot

Kristian says:

right

hugo.rodas@gmail.com (E-mail Address Not Verified) says:

its in between

Kristian says:

its just bad

hugo.rodas@gmail.com (E-mail Address Not Verified) says:

its an ungly shot

Kristian says:

yes

Kristian says:

do u agree

Kristian says:

abotu the car

hugo.rodas@gmail.com (E-mail Address Not Verified) says:

yes

hugo.rodas@gmail.com (E-mail Address Not Verified) says:

but thats being anal

hugo.rodas@gmail.com (E-mail Address Not Verified) says:

(the car)

Kristian says:

ok lets move on

hugo.rodas@gmail.com (E-mail Address Not Verified) says:

its just afew seconds

Kristian says:

2 shots after the car

Kristian says:

theres a close up of a solider

Kristian says:

which utilizes low key lighting

Kristian says:

it is a great shot

Kristian says:

but all the other shots should have been low key too

Kristian says:

well not necessarily

Kristian says:

melick is high key

Kristian says:

but they are too light in an ugly way

Kristian says:

for ths trailer

hugo.rodas@gmail.com (E-mail Address Not Verified) says:

malick is high key

Kristian says:

the tilt of the picture of the soilder

Kristian says:

bothers me

Kristian says:

im not sure why

Kristian says:

its prolly just cos we have signs of amateurishness preivously

Kristian says:

so this one seems corny

Kristian says:

altho there is really nothing wrong with it

hugo.rodas@gmail.com (E-mail Address Not Verified) says:

which one

Kristian says:

its a tilt up

Kristian says:

of a static soldier

Kristian says:

i pressume it is a picture of a solider

Kristian says:

then u have the music kick in

Kristian says:

the camera lying int he grass

Kristian says:

the second shot in that sequence

Kristian says:

is a hand that lies in the grass

Kristian says:

the shot lasts too long

Kristian says:

it should be faster

Kristian says:

and the green is really ugly

Kristian says:

plus

Kristian says:

he has just punched up the music

Kristian says:

to be really dramatic

Kristian says:

and then he still uses a dissolve

Kristian says:

from shot to shot

Kristian says:

dissolve is soft and nice

Kristian says:

it doesnt work with the drama of the music

Kristian says:

from there on

Kristian says:

its very good

Kristian says:

all teh shots

Kristian says:

look great