watch Quickly, Go. - short film shot on 7D in Korea

[deepseaengine]

Hello, all. I've been working on a short film for the past 6 months (filming from January to March, post-production and editing March to June), co-directing with a friend, and it has now been released!

You can watch it on my website, DeepSea Engine as well as read some extra info about it. Or, you can watch it on Vimeo (http://bit.ly/blx2bl). The film is also available on my friend (and co-director / actor)'s Vimeo page. Please, take a look. Heck, watch it twice! And please, if you like it, leave a comment or some feedback - we are anxious to hear what you think.

Also, (and excuse the blatant self-promotion here) please SPREAD the word to your chums. I've entered it into a a few things which take into account the number of views, 'likes', etc. So the more people who see it, the better! My goal is to hit the 1000 views mark in a week.

Hope you enjoy it! If you have a Vimeo account, add me as a contact (I'm also on YouTube so if you have a YouTube account, add me as a friend there too - http://www.youtube.com/user/uth3rdoul).

Thanks in advance for your support! Hope you enjoy it. There will be more to come.

~utherdoul (Myles)

NOTE: If you have trouble loading / watching it (choppy playback, etc), click the HD button to toggle high-definition off. Also, it's best hit the play button to start it buffering, then again to pause it and let it finish buffering.

 

[PositiveFuture]

Damn that was good. One of the best shorts I've seen recently. Awesome editing, great shooting, the 7D is a good cam. Real tension as well. All you needed to say was 'They're coming' to create an undercurrent of tension and paranoia.

I liked lots of shots, especially the way the camera was waiting for the guy as he ran round the corner, and the reflection of the runner in the black car... classy. The shots of the super white Korean train reminded me of 2001.

I know the 7D has issues with panning which forces some DPs to use a lot of static, tripod shots. Is it possible to add a bit of camera mocement in Post, by keyframing the whole shot?
It's what I'm planning on doing.

You also took your Foley seriously too, which is rare.

I thought the shot of the entry to the subway was a bit boring, no real magic. Last, if you take down the opacity/brightness on your titles and add a bit of gaussian blur you might make them look a bit better.

Really inspiring, I'm learning so much in the screening room.

 

[M1chae1]

Very nice indeed. Solid photography...a great setting/location...some nice shots (love the train interior, peering down the cars before he gets on)....


Him out of focus, and leaning into focus is too...DSLR...too kitch. This is what I was talking about in the other DSLR short FISH FOOD...not sure why people do it. I suppose it's because you have such shallow DOF, that you want to show it off. Or it's because you don't know how to follow focus. *shrugs* I think you can use that shot...just cut down on the time we see him out of focus.

The pacing was nice, as was the editing.

I think the ending, however, was lackluster...just like FISH FOOD. Actually the story wasn't even a story...it was a set piece to make a cool looking short using the 7D. More of a practice piece it seems.

Get a real script going and shoot a feature...with the skill you have in photography and editing...you should have a nice film.

Good luck.

 

[Papertwinproductions]

Congrats, no doubt the best short I've seen in a long time, I'd have worked the subway scene a little differently, the tension was great up until the 'Fleeing' scene, i thought it could have been cut a little tighther, yet the ambiance picked straight back up again, so i wasn't too displeased.

Also, to echo @Positive, it's great to see when Foley sound is attended to correctly.

The long winded nurturing of your work has paid off, so kudos to you man!

 

[PositiveFuture]

Him out of focus, and leaning into focus is too...DSLR...too kitch

I never noticed it in this one.

M1chael, what's the cheapest way you can get yourself set up with a decent focus on the
7D? I'm just getting into this.

*

I think the ending, however, was lackluster...just like FISH FOOD.

You know I was going to contrast this with Fish Food to show how the ending on this one worked for me. There was a resolution, and it was artfully done. I also really wanted to know what happened next, so IMO they suceeded.

Actually the story wasn't even a story...

I don't know, I think of a lot of shorts as opening scenes for potential features and in this case the thing worked.

Small points:

-It wasn't made clear enough that the guy was delivering a package.

- I don't even necesarily need a complete story when I watch a short. I just need an atmosphere. This, like The Raven, is a short that has me wishing that someone would pay them 200,000 to go make a feature. I was sucked into the world.

Get a real script going and shoot a feature...

What I really liked about this was the way they made a nearly dialogue free piece really work. Lots of shots on the guys face, we're left wondering what the hell he's thinking. Very understated, very Hitchcock, IMO.

Sure, later they need a writer, but the absence of explanation in this opener really worked for me. Let the viewer make it up. Reminded me of some Kafka stories too, where you dnt know what the hell's going on.

A lot of short filmmakers try to understate things and fail, but this time it worked.

with the skill you have in photography and editing...you should have a nice film.

Definitely.

 

[PositiveFuture]

too...DSLR...

The only 'DSLR signature' I saw on this one was the lack of panning and abundance of static shots. They just about made it work for them though.

The other cool thing with this film was the way a lot of Post was done on the net. The only real hassle to collaborating like this are large file sizes. I guess you just mail the master discs and everyone does their bit.

 

[M1chae1]

It's one thing to shoot an experimental short that doesn't need to make sense...and it's another to shoot a piece that seems like it should be a film, but doesn't follow through, or doesn't keep to any kind of formulaic movie arc...FISH FOOD worked for me as a functioning short, albeit the punchless ending...QUICKLY, GO worked for me, but did not stand up as a short...it was just a practice session for a filmmaker--it was like a clip taken from a movie at a random moment.

BITS AND PIECES succeeded most at creating a short...it had all the needed elements (including a successful twist ending).

 

[Cracker Funk]

Nice work! Terrific cinematography. Often times, I found myself hoping it would move forward a little faster. Many of those cuts could be made quicker. Just one I can think of, for example:

You have a stationary shot of a blue car. Then, in the reflection, we see the dude running down the street. Beautiful shot. I love it. But, man it sure lingers for a long time. Cut it down to the bare essentials -- shot begins when his reflection enters the frame, and ends when his reflection leaves the frame.

Throughout the entire movie, I found myself noticing many similar shots that were absolutely beautiful, but that could be cut in half, duration-wise.

But hey, in the end, you've shot and edited a piece of work that I think is gorgeous. You should feel encouraged by your success on this one.

 

[deepseaengine]

It's great to get such analytical feedback! Thank you! On to specifics:

Him out of focus, and leaning into focus is too...DSLR...too kitch. This is what I was talking about in the other DSLR short FISH FOOD...not sure why people do it. I suppose it's because you have such shallow DOF, that you want to show it off. Or it's because you don't know how to follow focus.

You can see from other shots in the film that we can and do follow focus, so it was a deliberate design decision. Why do you describe this as "too DSLR" though? I've seen this in plenty of feature-lengths; Hollywood and Independent.

-It wasn't made clear enough that the guy was delivering a package.

Yeah, there were other things package-related planned but were cut for various reasons. Now, the package aspect is subtle, perhaps too much so.

QUICKLY, GO worked for me, but did not stand up as a short...it was just a practice session for a filmmaker--it was like a clip taken from a movie at a random moment.

This is precisely the concept behind the film, as I mention on my website as does Ben on his blog. We'd planned to make a minute-long short film, containing some action / thriller conventions as if it was a snippet from a feature-length. The idea was so that the audience can (and would be forced to) invent their own events before and afterwards. You are also right, it was largely a test on many levels - testing a new camera, testing a concept, testing working together and testing a production workflow.

Often times, I found myself hoping it would move forward a little faster. Many of those cuts could be made quicker. Just one I can think of, for example:

You have a stationary shot of a blue car. Then, in the reflection, we see the dude running down the street. Beautiful shot. I love it. But, man it sure lingers for a long time. Cut it down to the bare essentials -- shot begins when his reflection enters the frame, and ends when his reflection leaves the frame.

We've had similar feedback elsewhere. While some shots were deliberately long (the one you mention ended late so it would make sense in terms of continuity with the following shot on the adjoining street). However, we see that our editing could use some trimming and refining.

Thanks for the encouraging feedback, everyone. We appreciate the praises as well as the criticism.

 

[M1chae1]

deepseaengine - When I say 'too DSLR'...I mean you see this all the time in current DSLR movies. So many people do the 'walk into focus'...'run into focus'...'lean into focus'...and I suppose it's because of how the camera is set up for one, and two there is shallow DOF that people want to show off, and three they don't have a capable follow focus(er). It's become a 'thing'...and I notice it all the time.

Whether it's a choice or not...it's still distracting, takes you out of the movie, and should be cut much shorter...my opinion.

Watch the great movies in cinema history...do you see them starting a shot un-focused...waiting 4 beats, and then focusing? Very very rarely. And rarely does an individual run into focus in a 35mm film. It's become a think with 'lensed' HD cameras and indie filmmakers. I personally don't like it, I'm sorry.

The shot with the guy in CU dropping into focus is a great shot...IF you cut the out of focus bit in half.

 

[deepseaengine]

No, no. Please don't apologise - your critical feedback is very useful. Besides, the whole point of film is for people to have different feelings and reactions.

It seems a common point is that a lot of our shots need some trimming. We will certainly take this on board for the next film.

 

[jrhmy]

I like the idea of having the viewer create the beginning and ending! And all the shots were done really nicely. I especially liked the following of his steps; I thought it was quite impressive.

Your actor looks a bit like Ben Affleck in some shots, haha.

Good job!

 

[wridingrlm]

Neat simple little chase film. I did have some issues......

- @ :22 the establish shot (?) is shaky and I wasn't crazy about that.

- At bus stop you have him in the left of the frame and then right which I'm not crazy about.

- Chase/running scene was all over the place and doesn't seem organized. Should have a good flow when people are running like that and it didn't seem like he was lost (which then unorganized would be fine).

- Lots of jump cuts and it kind of got annoying after awhile.

- I really like the shot how he hide the package under the seat.

- I would have reversed the blur shot, when his hands were rubbing his face/eyes I would have had it blurred. And once he stopped and stared, I would have move the camera up to him so it was clear again.


But for a chase sequence you folks did okay. I've seen worse and I've seen better but I think you guys did alright.

Other notes --

- Acting was fine

- Sound was simple but effective. Good job also with little dialogue.

- Again, I don't mind the washed out colors in this film. I think that it goes along with the story and a location which I've never visited. Adding some in wouldn't hurt but you really don't have too.

 

[PositiveFuture]

Yeah, there were other things package-related planned but were cut for various reasons. Now, the package aspect is subtle, perhaps too much so.

Yes. You have to know what the main character wants and (another thing you missed), what the stakes are (See David Mamet). A simple shot of him looking down at an address stamped onto a package would do. That could be shot anywhere with pretty much anyones hand.

 

[kgasser2]

i liked fish fod better. i didnt sense the tension everyone else seems to be raving about. i saw a man staring, a man running, a man staring. what was the motivation? where was the sense of character? i feel it lacked emotion and art- 2 very important elements.

however, the production qualities were outstanding. i've been planning on getting the t2i but i might have to save a few more pennies for the 7d. tough choice

 

[PositiveFuture]

however, the production qualities were outstanding.

I think this is their great strength. Although I wasn't so down on the other aspects of the film, after they get some rest and read all the feedback, it won't take more than a month to add the elements that would take it from 'promising practice short/opener' to full blown start of a feature.

- A couple of titles orienting things
- Reshoot some of the more boring opening scenes in more interesting locations
- Tell us what's at stake
- Make it clear there's a package being delivered
- Rethink a bit of the editing (though I think it's fine) I thought the slow cutting was great, a lot of modern films are too fast.
- Some cryptic fragment scenes showing what's going on behind the scenes (though not too overboard)

*

I think these guys used a golden rule of cinema. What the viewer imagines is 95 per cent of the time better than what we see on screen. Countless times I've watched the start of a horror or chiller and imagined something awesome. By the time I'm halfway through the film I'm laughing at how bad it is.

Could they make this work feature length? Dunno. They need a damn good scriptwriter. If I had any spare cash I'd pay them 5,000 Euros per episode to make a feature in installments.

 

[deepseaengine]

- Chase/running scene was all over the place and doesn't seem organized. Should have a good flow when people are running like that and it didn't seem like he was lost (which then unorganized would be fine).

- Lots of jump cuts and it kind of got annoying after awhile.

Thanks for your detailed breakdown. By 'all over the place' I assume you're referring to the many different shots for the chase sequence? The main reasons for these are that they were partially a stylistic decision, partially to accommodate our lack of equipment or budget. Having no steadicam or decent substitute, no tracks, no way to jury-rig any tracks and limited lenses, we had to avoid shots (which we had originally planned and hoped to use) such as tracking. Personally, I am happy with how the chase sequence flows and think it gives an essence of the character's clumsy haste.

Yes. You have to know what the main character wants and (another thing you missed), what the stakes are (See David Mamet). A simple shot of him looking down at an address stamped onto a package would do. That could be shot anywhere with pretty much anyones hand.

Although we should have made the package more obvious, we did still want it to be ambiguous as to what, where and why. That's for the audience to decide.

i liked fish fod better. i didnt sense the tension everyone else seems to be raving about. i saw a man staring, a man running, a man staring. what was the motivation? where was the sense of character? i feel it lacked emotion and art- 2 very important elements.

Can't please everyone. I think suggesting it 'lacked art' might be being a little harsh, but thanks for watching and commenting.

...after they get some rest and read all the feedback, it won't take more than a month to add the elements that would take it from 'promising practice short/opener' to full blown start of a feature.

- A couple of titles orienting things
- Reshoot some of the more boring opening scenes in more interesting locations
- Tell us what's at stake
- Make it clear there's a package being delivered
- Rethink a bit of the editing (though I think it's fine) I thought the slow cutting was great, a lot of modern films are too fast.
- Some cryptic fragment scenes showing what's going on behind the scenes (though not too overboard)

[...]

Could they make this work feature length? Dunno. They need a damn good scriptwriter. If I had any spare cash I'd pay them 5,000 Euros per episode to make a feature in installments.

Thank you for such motivating comments! We both have individual projects we are working on and plans for more collaborations in the future (including features), but this was largely a production workflow and concept test. We didn't and still don't have any plans of remaking this, or turning it into a feature.

(Unless of course we got 5000 Euros, natch!)

 

[kgasser2]

"I think suggesting it 'lacked art' might be being a little harsh"


so tell me, what was artful about this? if you dont think art is more than aesthetics then you can skip this question.

 

[wridingrlm]

Let me explain myself a bit more. Your character seemed comfortable and seemed to have knowledge of his surroundings. He was not a fish out of water. He stands at a bus stop waiting for a local bus (in Korea), He spoke and understood the language, He knew his way around in the subway, etc. I would say that he knew full well where the subway was and knew how to get there. With that said the shots which you folks captured and/or editing did not fit this. The way that it was shot and edited looked as if he was all over the place and confused, as if he was lost.

"I think suggesting it 'lacked art' might be being a little harsh"


so tell me, what was artful about this? if you dont think art is more than aesthetics then you can skip this question.

Of course this short is not like Till Death (also another short in this thread) which the filmmakers carefully crafted each shot with meaning behind it (using lighting, timing and diffusion (NOTE: after showing a friend this film he exposed WHY they used the diffused shots and it's history in film)). If you are looking for art in a story that film of course is something you will want to study from and understand what they are doing. Not saying there is no art behind this film because creating a selection of shots in a chase scene does have artistic value. Is this like Till Death? Of course not and you shouldn't compare the two. This is trying to be modern and slick where Till Death is trying to use conventions and meaning with in the frame. They are both from two different worlds. But art? Sure, in a modern sense (IMO).

 

[deepseaengine]

"I think suggesting it 'lacked art' might be being a little harsh"


so tell me, what was artful about this? if you dont think art is more than aesthetics then you can skip this question.

Your fairly aggressive tone hints that my response will perhaps make this descend into a flame-match which couldn't be further from what I want. However, I will express my opinion about film as art - I consider a majority of film, art. I studied it fairly extensively at University and continue to read a lot about it in journals, etc.

Personally, I feel that this film can be classed as a genre film; it certainly falls into a few categories and has a number of genre conventions. Works (whether film or otherwise) created within genre boundaries are uncontroversially considered works of art. Also, the fact that my co-director, Ben and I carefully planned this shot-by-shot, scripted, storyboarded, shot, edited this, in my opinion are activities characteristic of artistic practice. The aesthetics, too, and decisions behind them, in my opinion, qualify this to be considered 'art.'

You are probably referring to the fact that this perhaps has less, little, or even no high-brow or high-culture status. But, as Noel Carrol (a major writer in Film Art) suggests, "those who deny art status ... are simply confusing the art/non-art distinction for some evaluative distinction such as good-art/bad-art or high-art/low-art."

I do consider this artful, and not purely from an aesthetic standpoint, even if it isn't the next Un Chien Andalou.