Why do you think the festivals weren't into this?

These three are hand held and have all gone on to win advertising awards:

Those are some really good commercials. I'm a bit surprised your film turned out the way it did. Maybe it failed because of the points I made. Maybe it was a "short film" made a like a "commercial". That could be a problem. There's definitely no reason why you can't make corrections and come up with some good stuff. And it does also take some luck, as well. So, good luck. I hope my stuff turns out at least as good as your stuff has and will.
 
Last edited:
I have to agree with Popper666. The voice over let it down. First thing I was taught by my lecturers was to show and not tell.

For instance; When we are told about how he could not read until he was 10 and the teachers would try to help but be smirking thinking he doesn't see but he does, that is said while we see him in a swimming pool. It would have been a lot more powerful to show it happening rather than tell it.
 
Great film mate. Good to see great short films like that coming out of my home town. I know the struggle. I'd say internationally, it's mostly a case of people not wanting to see australian films. Especially one's that make them think. The only thing we seem to be able to export is the odd genre film here and there. Albeit, festivals are not the be-all end-all. Maybe some aggressive online self-promotion can get your film seen at the level it deserves to. At the end of the day there's thousands of films out there and only a handful of festivals. I think we need to start promoting our own avenues of distribution and exposure. Take the power out of their hands.

Anyway, Best of luck. Loved the film.
 
There are those who say that, any time you use, or have to use, voice over on a film, you have failed. And there is quite a bit of truth to that. It's not an absolute rule. But it is a very good rule of thumb. Ideally, you should never use voice over.

For the most part this is true. There are exceptions though.
Of course voice over is usually used pathetically, almost like a crutch.

But there are lots of exceptions and very good reasons why a storyteller would use voiceover.

1. Dishonest protagonist (intentionally or unintentionally)...say your narrative is from a single point of view, first person kind of film. You can create lots of conflict if what the protagonist tells the audience doesn't match up with what they see on film.

2. Someone telling a story within a story...there are lots of examples of this in film, and it's a good technique to dramatically slow down the pace of a film without stopping the pace. Depending on the storyteller's objective, if the camera follows another story within a story, of course it will usually include voiceover that is contained within the original narrative. (or in Forrest Gump, the opposite trick is used)

3. Conflict within the character's mind...this is very tricky to do right. Most films that would even attempt this will fail at it, even professionally. I'm just not sure it's possible to do if you have an omniscient narrator/protagonist; however, if the narrator is NOT omniscient, perhaps he/she voices over, but then the film jumps to real time, etc...perhaps it could work that way.

4. You might use it once or twice in the film only. Typically near the beginning and/or conclusion. A really talented writer might use it once or twice for a point of emphasis or for style or simply for the hell of it.

I'm sure there are other examples. But, for the most part, people use it as a crutch and it's bad storytelling.
It's like a flashback. 99% of the time it's not done well.

Simply, any voiceover should serve a very specific dramatic point (exception for point #4).
It should not be used to just "tell" a story. Even if someone thinks they have some clever twist or something, nobody will care.
Because someone just having a solo conversation is boring. It's not dramatic. It won't work.
 
Last edited:
Blade Runner works equally as well in my opinion whether you watch the director's cut or the theatrical release--voice over or not the presentation is just as strong and the tone of each version succeeds. This is a case in where VO is used properly.
 
I think VO is great. Think about the opening to No Country For Old Men, for example.

In the case of my short, i was trying to use it to tell a lot of story in a small amount of time and create a dichotomy between what we were seeing him do and what he was - forcing the question: Why is he doing this?

Also, someone made a point of saying they didn't like hearing about him at school but seeing him at the pool. What i was after there was seeing the outcome of the voice over rather than spoon feeding it again. Obviously didn't work for you.

Appreciating all the input guys. Cheers.
 
I enjoyed the short film. Excellent. Well executed. As for the narrative V/O...so what...it's a narrative. And...? The so-called 'experts' are narrow minded when they say never to use narratives. It would be like saying never to write a novel in the first person...instead rely on nothing but action and description...getting inside a persons head is awesome. In my opinion, it is much more effective at times, more intricate. I'm about to produce a feature that has narrative throughout. So. The writing 'snobs' need to get over themselves and quit professing to be the omniscient writing gods.
 
I watched it before I read the rest of the comments not to be influenced and had some of the same thoughts. WAY too much handheld (I am biased here, just shot a 30 minute short without a single handheld shot in the entire film, don't like them) , not crazy about the voiceover narration, and not... sharp enough to be filmed as dark as it was. IMO if a film is that dark it needs to have hard edges and be very contrasty. There are some really nice elements in it. As others said, well acted, good story, but technically, just eh... ok.
 
Just to voice my opinion on the hand-held issue...

...personally, I didn't mind it so much. Usually, I hate hand-held work, unless it's rare and uber-stable...I think far too many directors (especially indie) go hand-hand because they think it's cool, or because they are too lazy to carry their sticks around with them, or because they don't give a shit about composition...to me, most of the time it looks like crap and detracts from the image and piece as a whole.

However...all that being said. I did not find this particular hand-held to be as bothersome. I really didn't even think about it...which must be a good thing me thinks. I think the DP did a great job overall. Maybe it was the tone and lighting that matched the gritty hand-held affair?

Thanks.
 
Couple things, first, ANYTHING can become repititious (and thus look lazy). I had a 6' slider and a super fluid head on my last film, and we had to make decisions at one point like "ok, we can't shoot another master starting with a slide in, throw it on an apple box and sandbag and do it stationary". Also, on the dark look, it looks like mud too much of the time. Again (and I thought you said it was B&W, looked color on youtube), if you are going to light that low then IMO it needs to almost be noir. Stylized placement of light and crushed blacks.
 
Whats everyone's problem with hand-held? I think its great. I honestly can't see how that makes a film "technically" not good. Again, not being defensive, and i appreciate the comments, but seriously is it that bad?
 
Whats everyone's problem with hand-held? I think its great. I honestly can't see how that makes a film "technically" not good. Again, not being defensive, and i appreciate the comments, but seriously is it that bad?

No. Like I said, I didn't mind the hand-held in this picture. I typically hate it...and can't stand filmmakers that ignore their tripods and composition of shots...but in this case, I didn't dislike it at all. It added tension, and worked for me. And I thought the DP did a good job with the hand-held...

Oops...I just realized I already said all of that. Put the needle on the record put the needle on the record put the needle on the record...
 
Whats everyone's problem with hand-held? I think its great. I honestly can't see how that makes a film "technically" not good. Again, not being defensive, and i appreciate the comments, but seriously is it that bad?


Personally (and this is opinion, and taste, not a hard rule from on high). It looks cheap and amateurish. An OCCASIONAL handheld shot can be effective, and on a film like Bourne where we know it cost a gazillion dollars, it's obviously a "choice". Why did they use so much shaky handheld in 'Blair Witch'... so it would look like a crappy student film.
 
I know the struggle. I'd say internationally, it's mostly a case of people not wanting to see australian films. Especially one's that make them think. The only thing we seem to be able to export is the odd genre film here and there.

WTF, dude Aussie films are some of the best films out there!!!!

I had the pleasure of meeting Matthew Newton last year at TIFF... his film "Three Blind Mice" played... FANTASTIC character drama. And there were many others through the years from the land down under that were amazing as well... I don't get why Hollywood isn't mining Australia for talent... but rest assured, you have one fan up in the frigid Canadian tundra!
 
Sorry M1chea1, i was talking to Gonzo.

Gonzo do you think this film looks like a crappy student film because it was shot hand held?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYxs7Y7ulrM&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eaintitcool%2Ecom%2Fnode%2F40921&feature=player_embedded

To a degree, yes. Also, there are stationary shots mixed in (that or the most solid handheld I ever saw). The overall look isn't bad. Looks like "film" if it's not, but the colors are too muted and... blah (could be a stylistic choice), and I kept thinking "why is that freaking camera bobbing around. You went to the trouble to frame a shot then ruin it with seasick camera work? Put that thing on an apple box and a sandbag.
 
Let me just add that's MY aesthetic. It's not intended as the word from on high. I like old school cinematography. My current project looks like it could be Warner Bros circa 1948. Unless it's a dolly shot, or a perfectly fluid pan/follow the camera never moves. Plenty of people may trash my style as well.
 
I am no expert what so ever, but being a film lover and a beginning short film maker, I have to say that I loved the film. About the whole festival thing, maybe it was the mood that the critics were in as they watched the film or possibly the way it left them feeling. I mean that at the end of the film, I felt as though the film was greatly directed/produced and the story was terrific, but It left me feeling a bit uncomfortable and a bit depressed because I could fell what the actors were portraying. I love when I get emotion from film, but maybe others do not.
 
Back
Top