• READ BEFORE POSTING!
    • If posting a video, please post HERE, unless it is a video as part of an advertisement and then post it in this section.
    • If replying to threads please remember this is the Promotion area and the person posting may not be open to feedback.

watch "The Brothers"

...okay,...

First, never underestimate the power of cut away shots Use them. The scene at her front door, just 3 people standing around with their arms crossed. Show some faces, some expressions; The lead tells the girl he loves her and we don't see his face or hers.

Second, To bring your viewers into a scene, you have to let them see faces so use some closer shots to draw in your audience. If there is nothing on the walls, why show so much of them? A tighter shot creates intimacy.

Third, vary your shots. 3 people standing outside, girl in middle to 3 people standing inside, girl in the middle. Somebody sit down... shoot from different angles.

the girls yellow hair against the yellow walls, she almost disappears, but I know you have to shoot where you have access...

I liked very much your opening drive shots, I liked your ending sitting on the sofa shots. The story was good. Hey, if it was easy, everyone would do it, and you are further along than most. Good for you!

--spinner :cool:
 
Thank you for the feedback. I totally agree with you on your points. I was just trying a now unconventional way of movie making by using the KISS(Keep It Simple Stupid) philosophy by keeping the camera stationary and letting the actors tell the story; only moving the camera when it was needed. I was also trying to show sharper contrast between reality and fantasy by keeping the camera stationary during the reality scenes and moving it more during the fantasy scenes.

All in all I rushed this short because I was moving and had about a month to shoot all of it which equaled like 3 actual shoot days, so that also comes through. This isn't my best(I've yet to produce that yet), and learned that a rushed production most likely then not shows poorly in the end.

Thanks again for the feedback! :)
 
Yeah, I'm with spinner on this one, looks like you have actors moving for the camera when it should be the complete opposite. Most un-natural, almost like a stage play.

You'll have to forgive me if this next question sounds nieve (I never went to film school) but how/where did you hear about the KISS philosophy of film making? I've heard KISS applied to writing but this one is new for me.

Opening sequence was wonderful but I'm not sure what it had to do with the movie theme? Love that guitar work too.
 
I'm not sure if it's been applied to film before or not, but its something I've been applying for a little bit now. I use it because I feel that directors of films and short films now a days(especially student filmmakers like myself) feel that they need to make extremely over complicated and overly symbolic pieces to make it or be "unique", when the truth of the matter is the most classic and memorable movies are the ones with the simplest stories and simplest style. Now I'm not saying that the camera should never move; it has to. I'm just saying that steadicam is not always needed and that it should be used wisely. I just think directors run the risk of over doing themselves and that a lot of newer hollywood movies would be a lot better if they followed the KISS philosophy. But thats just my opinion....

Now before you say "look at your short, if that's the KISS philosophy I don't want it", I myself take full responsibily because I was following the rush philosophy. If I took a little more time and blocked it out better it could have looked more realistic while still using the same fixed camera position.

And it's funny you said that it was almost like stage acting, because I used theater students. :lol:
 
Well aside from your actors entering the scene with their downstage foot first, did you give them any direction at all or is that part of your KISS philosophy too?

Is there a thematic reason for this steady cam? Just wondering.
 
Not too sure if the first question is just you being a smart ass. If it is I'd work on that, if not then I took it the wrong way. But to answer the obvious, ofcourse I gave them direction.

As far as the stedicam goes, I'm talking about actually showing what you're shooting instead of using the steadicam create chaos and show nothing(ex. blair witch style). The audience needs to know what they're looking at, and when I see very heavy use of a steadicam to make "highly stylized" movements I'm not thinking "brilliant!", I'm thinking "what are they trying to hide?" because it takes more skill to actually show something and convey it then mask it over with heavy movement.
 
Last edited:
...well, maybe he means that which I mentioned. You had two scenes of the same set up: 3 people standing around, girl in middle, with their arms crossed.

I don't know if anything is being 'hidden' when the camera is moving. I think that Blair Witch was to give the impression of a documentary. Since you were doing a narrative, you would be trying to show emotion and movement that you create for your characters.

The idea of having a steady cam is fine, but someone or something has to move to give the viewer something to look at, right? Not that I speak for Boz....

--spinner :cool:
 
I'm with you on that point too spinner.

And I'm being quite serious. I've heard of directing methods where you just let the actors go, just wondering if this was one of them. No offense intended.

Thematically speaking, Blair Witch was trying to get you to buy into the movie being real. Kids in the woods, a bizzare situation, the camera hits the ground still running and someone finds all the footage and releases it. It was all a movie yeah, but they did it that way so carry on the meta-plot (if you will) that this actually happend. So back to my original question, is there a thematic reason for doing it this way?

Back to being a smart-ass, honestly, I'm only asking because I love new directions and experimental things. I'm not trying to be a pain, I don't know so I ask. :)
 
Last edited:
ah well then my apologies. I'm not knocking the steadicam, it is a great tool. I'm not knocking camera movement either, it's very essential to movie making. I'm just saying that there are those movies(and you see it alot in student films) where there is TOO much movement. Like something a highschool kid would do because it looked "cool" and went well with heavy metal. Basically I've seen films where the director shot a narrative like it was a music video. Again it's only my opinion and to each their own.

Back to Boz's question: Basically it's at the discretion of the director. He/She may feel it will add something to the story or better convey their vision. Some directors love it, some hate it terribly. Every director has their own style and will use it to their own liking.

That's the best way I can answer it. Maybe spinner can go into it a little deeper. And that's great you're really taking a pro-active stance on learning this stuff. :) Sorry about thinking you were being a smart-ass, it's late and I just took it the wrong way. :lol:
 
Last edited:
No worries Jack.

I remember when NYPD Blue came out with their 'witness' camera (bouncing around a lot) I couldn't watch it without getting nausiated. Same thing for Blair Witch in places.

Keep 'em rolling bud. ;)
 
I'm just saying that there are those movies(and you see it alot in student films) where there is TOO much movement. Like something a highschool kid would do because it looked "cool" and went well with heavy metal.
Click to expand...
...I kind of think that is inexperience showing. And it doesn't always look cool and tends to make the people watching seasick. All that movement was used well on a tv show called 'Homicide', a personal favorite...

I've only done a few small projects so I am in no way an expert. I just try to observe and use my common sense. Hopefully I am effective at telling a story creatively...

...a little smart-assery never killed anybody....and easy on the Heavy Metal stuff. That's my next big project! :D No kidding...

--spinner :cool:
 
Director21 said:
I'm just saying that there are those movies(and you see it alot in student films) where there is TOO much movement. Like something a highschool kid would do because it looked "cool" and went well with heavy metal. Basically I've seen films where the director shot a narrative like it was a music video. Again it's only my opinion and to each their own.
Click to expand...
Actually I tend to notice the opposite. Most amateur films I see contain very little cam movement and poorly thought-out on screen movement (if there is any at all).

As for your film, I think you are off to a good start. A few cuts here and there can be a good thing.
Look out for continuity problems, nothing removes an audience from a scene faster than poor continuity. It ruins the "illusion" of cinema, so to speak.
The one that really slapped me in the face was the cut after the first hug at the front door. It takes place at 3:54.

But like I said, great start. keep at it.
 
Ya, with the door being opened and then the next scene the door was closed. I caught that after editing it and was like "shit...". Live and learn.
 
If you are going to rely solely on your actors to get your point across, then you had better have some damn strong actors. I don't see camera movement as a tool to "hide" anything, I see it as a tool to visually enhance the performance that is being given.

There were a few continuity problems and some cuts taht needed to be tightend up. You mentioned the door, which is one taht I was referring to and when they pull up in the car and walk our of frame, in the next cut you can see your lead standing still for a split second before he approaches the door. It doesn't take much to take your viewer out of the scene, small things distract them a ton.

Not bad for your first shot.
Keep it up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top