• 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 Sophie

Impressive job: Good story, acting, cinematography, make-up etc., and the editing provided generally good pacing which resulted in an engaging short. Well done.

I hope you don't mind deeper observation and some constructive criticism though? The sound was reasonably good compared to many indie shorts but is still by far the weakest link in your short, compared to the attention to detail and quality of the other aspects of filmmaking you have evidenced. With a few exceptions, the aircraft for example, the sound FX are generally quite good. The mixing is less good, the Foley is generally too over hyped and in general the mix sounds more two dimensional than it should. While there are some relatively minor weaknesses in the actual sound, it's the sound design which is the real weak point.

For example: The CU breathing/gasping of the main character is so over used that it eventually looses it's dramatic impact, becomes annoying and if anything pulls us out of the scene. The opposite result to what was intended. Changing to the aural POV of the main character dragging himself through the trench was a good idea but was poorly executed and therefore again fails to achieve it's full dramatic potential. The music at this point anticipates the flashback, which softens the contrast between the horrific war scenes and the happy memory scenes and greatly reduces their dramatic impact. The sci-fi style sound design elements which take us to and from the flashback scenes are completely inappropriate in my opinion. The sound design at the very end of the film is particularly weak, reducing the climax of the film (the main character's execution) to just another event.

It's not that the sound is particularly bad and destroys your film (which is often the case with indie shorts), just that it doesn't enhance the pacing, character development, dramatic impact and audience involvement anywhere near as much as it should. IMHO, as the sound design is the weakest aspect of your film, this is perhaps the area of your filmmaking which would most benefit from some further study/development.

G
 
AudioPostExpert said:
Impressive job: Good story, acting, cinematography, make-up etc., and the editing provided generally good pacing which resulted in an engaging short. Well done.

I hope you don't mind deeper observation and some constructive criticism though? The sound was reasonably good compared to many indie shorts but is still by far the weakest link in your short, compared to the attention to detail and quality of the other aspects of filmmaking you have evidenced. With a few exceptions, the aircraft for example, the sound FX are generally quite good. The mixing is less good, the Foley is generally too over hyped and in general the mix sounds more two dimensional than it should. While there are some relatively minor weaknesses in the actual sound, it's the sound design which is the real weak point.

For example: The CU breathing/gasping of the main character is so over used that it eventually looses it's dramatic impact, becomes annoying and if anything pulls us out of the scene. The opposite result to what was intended. Changing to the aural POV of the main character dragging himself through the trench was a good idea but was poorly executed and therefore again fails to achieve it's full dramatic potential. The music at this point anticipates the flashback, which softens the contrast between the horrific war scenes and the happy memory scenes and greatly reduces their dramatic impact. The sci-fi style sound design elements which take us to and from the flashback scenes are completely inappropriate in my opinion. The sound design at the very end of the film is particularly weak, reducing the climax of the film (the main character's execution) to just another event.

It's not that the sound is particularly bad and destroys your film (which is often the case with indie shorts), just that it doesn't enhance the pacing, character development, dramatic impact and audience involvement anywhere near as much as it should. IMHO, as the sound design is the weakest aspect of your film, this is perhaps the area of your filmmaking which would most benefit from some further study/development.

G
Click to expand...

Hey,

I really appreciate the feedback! Thanks for that, it helps me become a better filmmaker.
I didn't do the audio, I directed it and DOP'ed it and handed the audio off to other people.

I wasn't particularly happy with how the audio was recorded, however this was fixed in post. I can't comment much on the audio post production but I am not an expert. I think it's pretty good, but then again, there is always room for improvement. I am by no means an expert in that field and that's why I didn't do audio at all!

Phil
 
Very nice, everyone.



What's the plan at this point for this short? Film festival submission route?

I was surprised to see how many people were involved in this production. What was it like managing everyone on set?

Would you try this as a three man crew being just yourself as DP + audio guy + assistant? Why/Why not?

As director what elements did you put the most effort into planning, and did it pay off?

What equipment seemed to be worth the hassle and what was essentially useless?

What were some of the things the producers seemed most and least interested in being concerned about?

If you had to make this same short over again how would the planning and execution go differently?

What are some of the principles you learned with this that you'll be able to apply to your next short? (Spent too much time on X, not enough on Y, Z was a complete waste of time, etc.)



AudioPostExpert said:
... I wouldn't have gone into such detail if I didn't see the potential for you to achieve an even higher level of filmmaking.
Click to expand...
FWIW, this point is so valid, Phil.
AP's point here is 100% spot on.
Some people's work is only worth token effort to assist. Your work has definite potential.
 
Last edited:
Phil_UK said:
I didn't do the audio, I directed it and DOP'ed it and handed the audio off to other people.
... I am by no means an expert in that field and that's why I didn't do audio at all!
Click to expand...

The audio post on films is always handed over to others, I'm not suggesting that you actually learn how to do sound design. However as the Director, the story telling, the dramatic impact, character development and how involved the audience feel in the various scenes of your film is your responsibility and sound design significantly affects these filmmaking requisites. So while you don't need to know how to do sound design, you do need to know how to employ it. In other words, as Director you need to direct the sound design, just as you directed the other aspects of the filmmaking process and this means you need a good understanding of how sound design can be used as a story telling tool. For example, you don't need to be an actor in your films or know how to act but you do need to be able to direct the actors to get the performance you want, same is true with the sound design.

Phil_UK said:
I think it's pretty good, but then again, there is always room for improvement.
Click to expand...

I also said the sound was pretty good (compared with other indie shorts), it's the sound design which was the weak point, not so much the sound itself. I'm not talking about what your short sounds like, how high a fidelity the sound quality is or even how realistic it sounds, what I'm talking about is how the sound design could have enhanced your story but didn't. So my comments about sound design were for you as Director, rather than for the audio post people. Let's say you were in charge of designing a car, the engine design team have done a great job as have the body, chassis and interior teams and you've ended up with a good car. However, although the transmission is OK, it's not well enough designed to allow the full potential of the engine, chassis and handling capabilities of the car to be used. The average driver is just going to see a good car and not be able to imagine how much better it could have been, but as the Director of Design you do, if ever you want to make a great car instead of a good car.

Let me elaborate the example I gave previously: Did the POV scene (at about 2:39) really make you feel like you were inside the head of the character? Did it really aid the dramatic impact and make the audience feel more involved or, did it make the scene feel surreal and less involving and is this what you really wanted? It seems to me that the person doing the sound design was essentially trying to "shoe horn" some POV sound design into a scene which was never designed for it. It desperately needed the aid of the Director and not just in audio post! Think of a similar situation in Saving Private Ryan, in the battle scene at the beginning, where for a while we experience the world through the ears of the Tom Hanks character, think of what was achieved: The change of pace, the dramatic impact when switching back to the camera's POV and most importantly, the audience involvement and the enhancement of the story telling. Now obviously you didn't have Gary Rydstrom and a world class audio post team but even so, the reason that aural POV change in Saving Private Ryan was so effective was in part because Spielberg planned for it and filmed it that way!

So there's two points to consider as the Director: 1. Did you plan and set up the shot for this scene to make the most of sound design as a story telling tool and 2. Did you direct the audio team and tell them the scene sounded surreal, wasn't really drawing the audience into the character's head and reduced the dramatic impact? If the answer to either of these questions is "no", then as I said before, IMHO a little study/development in this area would help elevate you to an even higher level of filmmaking. IMO, film is a medium which combines the arts of visual and aural manipulation to tell stories. In other words, to maximise your skills as a story teller (through film), you need to be thinking about sound design at all stages of the filmmaking process, just as you do with the images. This is what separates the great Directors and filmmakers from the masses.

I don't intend for any of this to sound overly harsh or critical. You're already very accomplished and I wouldn't have gone into such detail if I didn't see the potential for you to achieve an even higher level of filmmaking. I've only gone into detail through the example of the aural POV scene, obviously this same philosophy needs to be applied to all the scenes. Overall you've done really well and I hope you find what I've said useful.

G
 
AudioPostExpert said:
The audio post on films is always handed over to others, I'm not suggesting that you actually learn how to do sound design. However as the Director, the story telling, the dramatic impact, character development and how involved the audience feel in the various scenes of your film is your responsibility and sound design significantly affects these filmmaking requisites. So while you don't need to know how to do sound design, you do need to know how to employ it. In other words, as Director you need to direct the sound design, just as you directed the other aspects of the filmmaking process and this means you need a good understanding of how sound design can be used as a story telling tool. For example, you don't need to be an actor in your films or know how to act but you do need to be able to direct the actors to get the performance you want, same is true with the sound design.



I also said the sound was pretty good (compared with other indie shorts), it's the sound design which was the weak point, not so much the sound itself. I'm not talking about what your short sounds like, how high a fidelity the sound quality is or even how realistic it sounds, what I'm talking about is how the sound design could have enhanced your story but didn't. So my comments about sound design were for you as Director, rather than for the audio post people. Let's say you were in charge of designing a car, the engine design team have done a great job as have the body, chassis and interior teams and you've ended up with a good car. However, although the transmission is OK, it's not well enough designed to allow the full potential of the engine, chassis and handling capabilities of the car to be used. The average driver is just going to see a good car and not be able to imagine how much better it could have been, but as the Director of Design you do, if ever you want to make a great car instead of a good car.

Let me elaborate the example I gave previously: Did the POV scene (at about 2:39) really make you feel like you were inside the head of the character? Did it really aid the dramatic impact and make the audience feel more involved or, did it make the scene feel surreal and less involving and is this what you really wanted? It seems to me that the person doing the sound design was essentially trying to "shoe horn" some POV sound design into a scene which was never designed for it. It desperately needed the aid of the Director and not just in audio post! Think of a similar situation in Saving Private Ryan, in the battle scene at the beginning, where for a while we experience the world through the ears of the Tom Hanks character, think of what was achieved: The change of pace, the dramatic impact when switching back to the camera's POV and most importantly, the audience involvement and the enhancement of the story telling. Now obviously you didn't have Gary Rydstrom and a world class audio post team but even so, the reason that aural POV change in Saving Private Ryan was so effective was in part because Spielberg planned for it and filmed it that way!

So there's two points to consider as the Director: 1. Did you plan and set up the shot for this scene to make the most of sound design as a story telling tool and 2. Did you direct the audio team and tell them the scene sounded surreal, wasn't really drawing the audience into the character's head and reduced the dramatic impact? If the answer to either of these questions is "no", then as I said before, IMHO a little study/development in this area would help elevate you to an even higher level of filmmaking. IMO, film is a medium which combines the arts of visual and aural manipulation to tell stories. In other words, to maximise your skills as a story teller (through film), you need to be thinking about sound design at all stages of the filmmaking process, just as you do with the images. This is what separates the great Directors and filmmakers from the masses.

I don't intend for any of this to sound overly harsh or critical. You're already very accomplished and I wouldn't have gone into such detail if I didn't see the potential for you to achieve an even higher level of filmmaking. I've only gone into detail through the example of the aural POV scene, obviously this same philosophy needs to be applied to all the scenes. Overall you've done really well and I hope you find what I've said useful.

G
Click to expand...

Those are all very very valid points! Thanks so much for taking the time to even analyse it that much and give me the feedback on it. It really helps me on the audio point of view mostly, because I will be shooting another film in march (very different topic) and will definitely employ and think of everything you said! Thanks so so much! Really appreciate it!
 
rayw said:
Very nice, everyone.



What's the plan at this point for this short? Film festival submission route?

I was surprised to see how many people were involved in this production. What was it like managing everyone on set?

Would you try this as a three man crew being just yourself as DP + audio guy + assistant? Why/Why not?

As director what elements did you put the most effort into planning, and did it pay off?

What equipment seemed to be worth the hassle and what was essentially useless?

What were some of the things the producers seemed most and least interested in being concerned about?

If you had to make this same short over again how would the planning and execution go differently?

What are some of the principles you learned with this that you'll be able to apply to your next short? (Spent too much time on X, not enough on Y, Z was a complete waste of time, etc.)




FWIW, this point is so valid, Phil.
AP's point here is 100% spot on.
Some people's work is only worth token effort to assist. Your work has definite potential.
Click to expand...


What's the plan at this point for this short? - Film festival submission route? Showing it on the internet for people to see and gain interest in us as filmmakers. It went to a few film festivals, but this is not our main aim for the film.

I was surprised to see how many people were involved in this production. What was it like managing everyone on set? - It was pretty easy to work with everyone. I had a superb 1st AD who helped with a lot of those tasks and really took a lot of weight off my shoulders.

Would you try this as a three man crew being just yourself as DP + audio guy + assistant? Why/Why not? - I would definitely not try it as a three man crew. It sounds like there are loads of people involved on the day, but on the day there were about 10-15 people. That was for day 1 and 2. We desperately needed make-up, hair and costume. The costume girl decided to bring a military supervisor for example, this bumped up credits and crew. Everyone in the crew served a purpose and everyone did an absolutely fantastic job! I wouldn't do it with just 3 people.

As director what elements did you put the most effort into planning, and did it pay off? - I put a lot of effort into getting my main actor ready for the role. We met up before the shooting plenty of times and got comfortable with each other. We went out for drinks, played through the scenes, got him into the costume and a lot more. I wanted my actor to be able to connect with the character. Having him watch the whole of band of brothers in a few days helped too :)

What equipment seemed to be worth the hassle and what was essentially useless? - Tough question, really. We had a shoulder mounted setup for Day 1. Sony FS100 with CP.2 lenses. All on a Tilta/Zacuto Frankenstein rig. If there is anything on Day 1 that I would have found useless, it's the tripod :) I own a beautiful Sachtler, however the film called for handheld shooting :) What was really worth the hassle was the Steadicam rickshaw we used for Day 1 combined with me operating the shoulder mounted setup for the 1st shot and a few inbetween and on Day 2 for the running scenes with the boys!

What were some of the things the producers seemed most and least interested in being concerned about? - Wellbeing of the crew, costume, makeup, props. those were all priorities!

If you had to make this same short over again how would the planning and execution go differently? - I would start pre-production a lot earlier. Bare in mind that from idea to shooting, this only took 1 1/2 - 2 weeks. Not a lot of time for something this scale. I would also shoot a few things differently, but this is a given one.

What are some of the principles you learned with this that you'll be able to apply to your next short? (Spent too much time on X, not enough on Y, Z was a complete waste of time, etc.) - What I learned is, that a period drama is extremely hard to pull off! Another thing is to schedule more days into the production. The war stuff is all filmed in a day and the flashbacks in another. Schedule in makeup, hair, costume, lunch break and a few other pauses/issues and you don't have a lot of time left for filming! Lunch break is probably the most important part of the day for the cast and crew! Don't rush em on their lunchbreak. Let em finish and eat as much as they can. Otherwise they will be pissed off :)
 
Phil_UK said:
Those are all very very valid points! Thanks so much for taking the time to even analyse it that much and give me the feedback on it. It really helps me on the audio point of view mostly, because I will be shooting another film in march (very different topic) and will definitely employ and think of everything you said! Thanks so so much! Really appreciate it!
Click to expand...

You're welcome and I'm glad it was useful. It might have seemed like an in-depth analysis but that's nothing compared to the attention to detail which would have been required to actually do the sound design on your film well.

As you seemed to appreciate it, here's just a little more advice before I get too boring: Thinking from "the audio point of view mostly" would be useful for practise purposes but remember, there is another leap beyond this. Thinking from a sound design point of view is just as limiting as thinking from a mostly visual point of view! The great filmmakers don't really think in terms of a "visual point of view" and an "audio point of view" but from the point of view of telling a story through film, which is a single combined point of view. The best scenes in the greatest films are ones where the sound and picture work seamlessly together, where the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts (visuals and audio).

One way to study this is to take a great film and pick a famous scene, listen to the sound on it's own (without the picture), then watch it again with the picture. You'll be surprised at how unrealistic some of the mix is and even some of the sound FX. None of this was a mistake(!), the goal isn't perfect sound or perfect reality but a powerful and involving scene and a great film! Try to analyse what they've done (which may sound wrong when heard without the picture) both in terms of the sound design and the visual design which enabled it and what they accomplished in manipulating the audience's (your) focus, perception of pace and emotional response.

Good luck and I'd certainly be interested to hear about your development and next project.

G
 
Last edited:
AudioPostExpert said:
The music at this point anticipates the flashback, which softens the contrast between the horrific war scenes and the happy memory scenes and greatly reduces their dramatic impact. The sci-fi style sound design elements which take us to and from the flashback scenes are completely inappropriate in my opinion. The sound design at the very end of the film is particularly weak, reducing the climax of the film (the main character's execution) to just another event.
Click to expand...
The music throughout the film is mixed from two different large scale pieces- one is quite harsh and wide, whilst the other is more soft and intimate.

I actually planned the music to blur the lines between the flashbacks and the trenches, thinking that the music would give a little more continuity to what is quite a jolting change of aesthetic. The sounds that accompany the white-out into the flashbacks is a tape delay, a technique that was being used in acousmatic music during the second world war. Not that I expect anyone to 'get' this, it's simply my own efforts to keep the 'period' instrumentation. I'm not sure how happy I am with it now I watch the piece- I personally don't have a massive issue with it, but I would probably find something else if I did it again. I just feel that there has to be some sort of audio cue.

One thing that I think has put an immediate damper on the music we created is its volume in mix, and this is something I'm going to learn from for the future- the music may have to be more exaggerated for it to be effective, irrespective of how clever it makes me feel to add such subtleties to the score! :P
 
harpsichoid said:
I actually planned the music to blur the lines between the flashbacks and the trenches, thinking that the music would give a little more continuity to what is quite a jolting change of aesthetic.
Click to expand...

A jolting change of aesthetic is only bad/wrong if it fails to communicate the story or intention. This is true of both filmmaking and of music composition. Think of the detailed build-ups to climaxes of Hayden and Mozart and compare with the total silence and then the immediately loud 4 notes of the opening of Beethoven's 5th. The piece has lost much of it's impact today through familiarity but to audiences of the time it must have sounded utterly shocking, even apocalyptic. In the case of this particular scene, there can hardly be a more dramatic emotional difference between the terror of battle and the "perfect moment" of a lovely summer day and connecting with a beautiful woman. In the sound/music department it's our job to involve the audience, to identify with what the character is thinking/feeling and help the audience to experience the story, not to disassociate them from the emotional impact by blurring and softening it.

harpsichoid said:
The sounds that accompany the white-out into the flashbacks is a tape delay, a technique that was being used in acousmatic music during the second world war. Not that I expect anyone to 'get' this, it's simply my own efforts to keep the 'period' instrumentation.
Click to expand...

I have a bit of a problem with this. Even though Varese, Scheaffer and others had dabbled, acousmatic music didn't start to become a musical genre until after the war and wasn't taken really seriously until the 50's and 60's due to the involvement of Cage, Stockhausen, Messiaen and others. Even according to the historical facts you're pushing the limits to describe tape based effects as WWII "period instrumentation". Regardless of the actual facts though, audience perception trumps all in film and hardly any average audience member would associate this type of sound with WWII, more likely somewhere between the 1960's and the present day.

An audio bridge over the white-screens may have been useful, not only to aid the transition itself but to anchor the start and end scenes. But this type of acousmatic or really aleatoric music is by definition almost totally abstract and therefore unsuitable on it's own to anchor anything. Maybe the whistle of an artillery round passing overhead morphing into birdsong would have provided a good transition as well as the two anchor points. It could then be reversed (the order of the sound FX or played backwards) and even possibly with a layered sotto voce scream, to transition us back to the horrific battle scene. This is obviously just an example, various other audio anchor points could have been chosen instead.

harpsichoid said:
One thing that I think has put an immediate damper on the music we created is its volume in mix, and this is something I'm going to learn from for the future- the music may have to be more exaggerated for it to be effective, irrespective of how clever it makes me feel to add such subtleties to the score! :P
Click to expand...

There are a couple of good lessons from this experience: 1. Creating a great and/or clever composition is irrelevant as far as incidental music is concerned. The primary consideration is ALWAYS helping to tell the story and involve the audience, other considerations such as nice, good, catchy or clever are at best secondary to this requirement. 2. Unless you've been absolutely assured by the director that your music cue is going to be the only audio playing at that point in the film, always assume it's going to be behind the dialogue, all the Foley and hard FX and probably not far off the level of a background ambiance. Also be prepared for your music cue to be quite severely EQ'ed, chopped up or even dumped entirely! If it's any consolation, I learnt these truths the hard way myself. In fact, on a feature not dissimilar to your short (set in the trenches of WWI), no one bothered to tell me until I was already at the final mix that for all but about 3 minutes of the film there was a constant background artillery barrage. Any hint of subtlety in the music was quite literally blown away!

G
 
Just watched it and it's pretty good. But it's not great. I wasn't a fan of it like the others were. Sorry but I guess I'll be playing the devil's advocate here. :D

Here are some of my notes. They might be a little bit disorganized so bear with me. haha.

- The cinematography looks great, but it might just be overly graded? Also, I know you already know about the out of focus shots (I read the vimeo comments).
- The special effects looked funky to me (unrealistic)... especially the explosions in the beginning and the smoke stuff. Now I know they are SFX but I really think that you should really achieve into making them look as real as possible. Hate to say, but they did look very amateurish to me. I did love the plane and the practical FX (smoke and dirt) though! I thought they were the best ones.
- I don't know why, but the environment from the opening scenes in the field didn't really do it for me. Maybe showing less of the background could've helped a little? The trenches looked great though.
- Great acting from the lead (might've overacted in some parts). That being said, I liked his performances in the trenches and not really in the flashback scenes. The kids and the girl were alright too.
- I feel like there should be a purpose/motivation on why he should get the picture from his coat pocket. Him just getting it all of a sudden doesn't work for me. Just a random question, didn't he have 2 kids? Why is it in the picture, he only has his wife and one kid?
- Wasn't a big fan of the flashback transitions really.
- Great score. Love the music when the kids were running. BTW, what happened to the music @ 2:32-2:33 when you cut from him screaming to him crawling?
- I think you could've done more with the kids, performance wise. It really looked like they were just going out for a jog. ;)
- I think a single shot of Stephen sneaking up on them would be good. Sophie's single of just laughing looked a bit awkward.
- The german soldiers looked like their action/blocking was over rehearsed. They looked like robots. I'm talking about when they come in and they "cheesily" point the gun at Stephen. Audio there was a bit iffy too.
- The story works great for a short but I thought it could've been so much better. I mean, this could've been handled much better which would've resulted in a more emotional film. It didn't really move me because of the way you executed it. It had potential, but unfortunately, it was a miss for me.
- Lastly, I thought this short could've been so much shorter. It dragged on a bit especially in the beginning.

Overall, I'm pretty disappointed of how it came out but be assured that it's definitely better than most shorts up on the interwebzzz. And being able to pull everything off at your age is really cool. I hope you can appreciate my constructive criticism. It can only make us better right? :D Sorry for being a dick. :P

Great effort and I can't wait to see what your next project is! Definitely keep us updated!
 
Heres the thing I didn't liked with the visual effects.
At the begning of the film the explosions were very sharp in my opinion when there is a lot of motion blur in the shot.

You could've mesh warped them or something in order to make them just a bit different than the usual action essentials shot.

But what do I know,the short looked great!Awesome job!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top