First Short Film

[Policar]

 

 

A few years old but would like feedback. We worked hard on it. Thanks!

[Policar]

It's okay guys. I can take criticism.

I'm working on a second and third short film now so I just want some feedback before I dip my feet back in the water. Thanks so much.

[mercer]

I'm not gonna lie, I've only had time to watch part 1. But I found it as a whole... charismatic in a goofy kind of way. It reminds me of cheesy 80s movies that were cheesy on purpose. Maybe even an unseen film by Savage Steve Holland... Director of Better off Dead and One Crazy Summer. I'll give a more thorough review when I get a chance to watch both parts. But so far, so good. I know exactly the tone you're going for and appreciate that kind of film. Makes me feel like a kid again.

Just for context, did you write, direct, shoot and edit it?

[Policar]

Thanks, yeah that's what we were going for. 

I wrote, directed, shot, cut, etc. We had a boom pole operator some days but for the most part it was a one-man-band. I posted this when I made it (six years ago) and it got a negative reply, but people seem to like it more now. Thanks! The second part gets weird but a lot more visual.

We shot it on a t2i and mostly the 18-55mm and 55-250mm plastic lenses, a few scenes with Nikkor lenses.

[mercer]

3 hours ago, Policar said:

Thanks, yeah that's what we were going for. 

I wrote, directed, shot, cut, etc. We had a boom pole operator some days but for the most part it was a one-man-band. I posted this when I made it (six years ago) and it got a negative reply, but people seem to like it more now. Thanks! The second part gets weird but a lot more visual.

We shot it on a t2i and mostly the 18-55mm and 55-250mm plastic lenses, a few scenes with Nikkor lenses.

Some people don't get the stupid on purpose concept. When in actuality, if someone told you it was kinda dumb, it would kinda be a compliment. I thought the acting was pretty decent too. Of course the main character is annoying, but again that's the point. Napoleon Dymamite was annoying too and that movie made a ton.

I'll tell you what, everybody rags on Canon, but the t2i's image still holds up. I actually thought you used something higher end, like an af100 or something. Of course, I just picked up an XC10, and am drooling over a c100 I saw on eBay, so I have a rekindled love for Canon right now. 

[Policar]

Thanks, yeah it was pretty surprising, even the festival that accepted Napoleon Dynamite (the short) called and said they thought it was too edgy for any festival, which it really isn't. On Cinema5D we got an even much more negative response, I think the most negative in the site's history (1/5 stars for every vote) and I thought the technical aspects at the very least were good, which is what that site was about. Remember, this was 5 years ago and the t2i had just recently come out. I can't say I thought as much about the acting lol. Maybe I'll resubmit it; five years later I've gotten a better response.

The t2i has a great looking image but it is technically just bad and soft and you're not going to get nice wide shots. I was used to the dvx and 16mm tri-x then so at the time it felt like a miracle, though. I still get why filmmakers on youtube love these camera, people and places look good with them with basic settings, mixed light is not so bad, easy to use without having to rig anything else up. But I spent a long time in post reducing rolling shutter and aliasing. I personally think the AF100 would have been harder to use with just one person, but the image is much much sharper with the camera.

[mercer]

I didn't know much about the af100 until recently. I know it gets a bad rap around here, but some of the videos I've seen with it look great and they can be had for 800 bucks or less now. 

The whole festival game is so hit and miss. My friend is a festival director at a small fest and he has told me they will accept lesser shorts due to their shorter run time before they will take better longer shorts. A lot of politics and scheduling. 

[Policar]

I was given the same advice from a festival programmer who recommended I cut my stuff down. But festivals are just one route. There are lots of online venues. You're right, but it's also the filmmaker's job to do research into the festival. 

Eh, forget the AF100. Get an XC10 or a C100.

Also, get a book on the aesthetics of color grading. Most of the grades I see here are hideous.

[mercer]

6 hours ago, Policar said:

I was given the same advice from a festival programmer who recommended I cut my stuff down. But festivals are just one route. There are lots of online venues. You're right, but it's also the filmmaker's job to do research into the festival. 

Eh, forget the AF100. Get an XC10 or a C100.

Also, get a book on the aesthetics of color grading. Most of the grades I see here are hideous.

Actually, I just bought the XC10, love it. And I was saying that I need to sit down and really learn color grading the correct way, because my attempts thus far has been just dabbling and poking at it. Some people are naturals at it, I am not one of those people.

 

And here is my first attempts at grading c-log.

I don't love either of them but I can tell I really like c-log. 

Anyway, I should have a few minutes to watch the rest of your short today... Am looking forward to it. 

[mercer]

Okay, I watched the second part and I still can't believe that was the t2i... it's so clean. What lens(es) did you use for the exterior woods scenes... because Part 2, after the camcorder footage interview of Scary Boy, looks really good... was that the NIkkor lens, or did you grade it slightly different?

As a whole I enjoyed it. It's goofy and silly and ridiculous, but kinda in a good way. I think it's shot very well. The cabin scene was great... the look, the shots, the editing... good stuff. The acting was fine, some actors were better than others, but this is a hard piece to judge acting because the material is intended to be goofy, so that goofiness is built into the performances as well.

It's really kind of a hard short to critique due to the subject matter and intended tone. It's like we discussed earlier... If I were to say it is kinda dumb... which it is... the response would be or could be... "It's supposed to be." So there's an excuse built into the framework of the movie if anyone dislikes it... Well Played!

Seriously though, I was definitely entertained!!!

I could go on and say that I didn't like that Scary Boy talked, it took away from the mystery that is Scary Boy, especially since you used his character as the Sage and Antagonist. If I was part of your inner circle, I would have suggested that maybe it was a tad long and some of the set up scenes could have been condensed or cut from the short altogether.

I think you skated a thin line, pretty successfully, between cheesy good and cheesy bad and on occasion it dipped to either side and sometimes it dipped to both sides at the same time.

Honestly, if anyone gave a critique that it is weird, it is probably their way of saying they didn't like it. But I think it's also an indicator of what types of movies those people like because this short lives or dies within the viewer's subjectivity.

[Policar]

Thanks, that's really thoughtful. This short is a lot better (and a lot different, stronger performances), but I think it's sort of a similar idea just done professionally:

https://vimeo.com/98601226

I did get the note that it as too long.

For the woods exteriors, we just had nice light. We actually added grain. The grade was really simple. Shot neutral and then just warmed it up a bit. The snow and overcast light give you a pretty flat image to capture if you just let the skies blow out. I shot in the same area later without snow and in direct sunlight and it was a challenge to expose well. I think the lenses were the 18-55mm II and 55-250mm II for that sequence. We just had good luck on light and when we didn't we waited on better light. It's mostly close ups of people and that camera makes people look good.

[mercer]

"Well, if it's like before, then I'll need to use them." HAHAHAHA!!!!

[mercer]

Did you work on "Catherine?" 

[Policar]

1 hour ago, mercer said:

Did you work on "Catherine?" 

I wish, I just like the tone.

It's a pretty accomplished short. Played to acclaim at Sundance and other major festivals, great cast and crew. Apparently the lead actress is reading Chris Evans (Captain America) now, so that's pretty crazy but pretty irrelevant. 

[mercer]

Okay, gotcha. Yeah it was a pretty good. That lead actress is in a show called Married on FX.

If you want to feel really good about your first short, you can always take a look at my first attempt...