• 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 Small Talk - Short Film

I enjoyed that- couple of techy bits (IMO anyway)

I found the jerky camera distracting, I would think a tripod would have helped smooth is out.

The lighting seemed good- and the continuity of the shoulder shots was good(again the shaking camera a bit distracting)

Acting was good, the characters seemed to be well into their roles! That was good to see

Camera aside (and that might be personal :)) I thought other aspects were done well-good editing as far as timing :)
 
Thanks a lot for the constructive feedback! :) I agree about the camera...we didn't get to do as many takes as I would have liked and unfortunately the best ones happened to be the ones where my camera work wasn't up to par. Other than that, though, I'm glad you liked it. Thanks again for the feedback.
 
I liked it a lot!

One point about sound, though:

Cutting between the over-the-shoulder shots I think the sound could have been a bit more consistent. It also sounds like you used a stereo mic at times. And sometimes the mic went a bit too far off-axis. In this case, record wilds from the person who's back is to the camera on mic in the same position when he's doing his part facing the camera so the sound stays consistent.

Other than that I thought the acting was great. Some great repeatable lines in there, too: "You should see the war we're having on facebook" lol.
 
Thanks, Euphony! In regards to the sound, I think what happened was the mic came partially unplugged from the audio device causing it to record half from the internal mics and the shotgun mic. Unfortunately I had to have actors run the sound because my normal guy wasn't available. Glad you liked it overall, thanks! :)
 
Comments and criticisms are more than welcome!
Click to expand...

From one filmmaker to another (putting on a slightly sarcastic tone here): They have these things called tripods... they've been around for a long, long time... they steady the camera so it doesn't look like you're filming during an earthquake... and they help frame more consistent shots... they cost twenty bucks.

So, that said, I found it difficult to enjoy the content because the erratic camera work.

I think the cast could shine in another production that felt and looked more polished. Was this improvised? Scripted? Both?

Well, that's my take on it. Sorry I'm not gushing over it.
 
I found the camera work to be inconsistent. At times, the handheld was good, and at other times it was way too squishy and wobbly--as if the camera man was shifting his hands on the camera for a better grip...but the shot was kept.

I thought the dialog and acting was stilted and forced. The script was way too forced and unatural...this can work in skit comedy, but I'm not sure what style you guys were going for, so it was just out of place.

The lighting was pretty good, as was the sound. There were a few times the sound was used from either the wrong channel, or when the boom was pointed at the other actor.

Some of the choices the actors made were really funny...but it's hard to pull a consistent performance from a surreal script which seems disconnected from reality.

Kudos regardless my gripes. Just my two cents.
 
Thanks for the honest feedback everyone! As I said, in relation to the camera and sound problems there were issues with shooting that forced me to use the takes I had and we couldn't shoot again. It sucks, but sometimes you have to use what you've got even if it's not the best.
 
Yep, tripod would be good. Even without a tripod, a relatively steady shot can be achieved if you shoot wide and aren't on crack.

I'm surprised nobody has pointed out that you butchered the 180-rule.

I've watched a lot of your guys' videos. You seem to have fun with it, and that's awesome. I think you need to spend a little more time on the technical filmmaking aspect. Cheers!
 
I actually didn't mind the shaky handheld video much, even though shaky handheld video like that, I suppose, would usually be reserved for intense, supsense-thriller or action material like on a battlefield. It would probably get to me after repeated viewings, but my initial response was more positive towards it than it was for the others. I guess it made me feel like we the audience were, like, one of these people's peers just hanging out and listening in over their shoulders.

The video was fairly pleasant to look at. A GH-1 and a FD lense. Interesting and cool to learn.

I felt pretty much the same way about the drama as M1chae1 did. It felt forced, overwrought, and over the top, especially the falling over bit and the woman kicking a complete stranger in the gut over a little hearsay. I guess I would have preferred it to remain closer to a slice of life bit, and less over the top. Then again, maybe that's exactly how it's supposed to be...like an SNL skit. But it sorta does start out as a slice of life bit, and then seems to go somewhere else, not to try to say that there's some rule against that...if that's what you want to do.

I'm glad CF pointed out the 180 violation. I felt uncomfortable about something while I watched the two guys small talk on, but wasn't able to recognize the issue. Maybe it can be forgiven a bit here because at least the other guy's shoulder or head is always in frame, so I don't think there's ever really a time when we don't know who's speaking to whom. Thankfully, there doesn't seem to be any time when it looks like either Leon or Drew is speaking to empty space or to some unidentified someone off camera. It's still discomforting, though.

Nice work. Enjoyable viewing.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the thoughts, guys. But I really am surprised to see that pretty much no one here seems to understand satire. The film is not supposed to be taken dramatically at all. Leon is not actually sick at the end, he's faking sickness to get out of the conversation. The whole point of the film is that it IS overplayed and ridiculous. The problem is that people are looking at it like it's supposed to be some dramatic Tarantino film filled with intense and gut-wrenching dialogue, and it's definitely not.

Also, docu-style camera shake is certainly not reserved for battlefield films. It's used to imply a more voyeuristic take on the scene, like you really are right there listening in on these people's conversation and small talk. I agree the camera shake may have been too intense in some parts, but the shaking was intentional for a reason. And I'd just like to point out that the conversation is supposed to be somewhat awkward and uncomfortable, so if you felt that, kudos to me!

Also, Cracker Funk, thanks for watching my other stuff. I agree it isn't perfect yet, but I'm still learning and I think with every film it gets better. It's just a matter of taking each thing as a learning process and getting feedback from places like this. :)
 
Thanks for the thoughts, guys. But I really am surprised to see that pretty much no one here seems to understand satire. The film is not supposed to be taken dramatically at all. Leon is not actually sick at the end, he's faking sickness to get out of the conversation. The whole point of the film is that it IS overplayed and ridiculous. The problem is that people are looking at it like it's supposed to be some dramatic Tarantino film filled with intense and gut-wrenching dialogue, and it's definitely not.

Also, docu-style camera shake is certainly not reserved for battlefield films. It's used to imply a more voyeuristic take on the scene, like you really are right there listening in on these people's conversation and small talk. I agree the camera shake may have been too intense in some parts, but the shaking was intentional for a reason. And I'd just like to point out that the conversation is supposed to be somewhat awkward and uncomfortable, so if you felt that, kudos to me!
Click to expand...

Yeah, man, hey, I didn't mean to suggest it's only for the battlefield, not at all. That's why I gave a more or less positive assessment of your use of it.

I do feel a little bit bad for commenting on the dramatic content of your film. I, and I'll bet the other posters too, get that it's supposed to be goofy. I often wonder when I view people's films here in the Screening Room if I should just watch them, keep my foolish mouth shut, and then move on. What the hell do I know, afterall? But then, many people who publish on this forum, or direct us to where they have published their films, specifically ask for comments and critiques...just as you have above. Also, I rather think that when someone has taken the time (out of their short little life on this little rock in this vast, indifferent universe) and effort to view and think about a poster's film, they have purchased something of a right to reply (unless management says otherwise). Maybe we, or at least I, took the analysis of the dramatic content of this film too seriously. When asked to give a critique, I think it's entirely natural to do so. Of course, I'm only speaking for myself. The other posters have certainly not nominated me to be their apologist. :P

Here's the thing, though. Five out of seven posters (I count) mentioned that the camera shake bothered them. Of course it would be helpful to have a larger sample. Perhaps you already do on Youtube, or wherever. Maybe the majority of viewers there feels otherwise. But I'm thinking that it bears paying attention to when 80% (?) of your audience feels this way or that way about something you've written or filmed or whatever. I don't mean this to sound as ominous as it might, but I'm thinking that you ignore this in your future films at your own peril...unless you just don't care what your audience thinks, which in and of itself sounds perilous to me.

And I'd just like to point out that the conversation is supposed to be somewhat awkward and uncomfortable, so if you felt that, kudos to me!
Click to expand...

Maybe so. Maybe you should stick to your guns. But we have to disagree in that case. Just my opinion, but I think that thou ought not break the 180 degree rule. Seems to me that this has turned out to be a good lesson on that (for me, anyways). There are surely other, more artful or crafty ways of conveying awkwardness short of bad framing or poor camera positioning.

Of course, our posts and opinions are surely not always correct or best. Even so, I do hope that you remember that the people who have posted in response to your film are at least serious (even if sometimes "too" serious) about this enterprise of indie filmmaking and that they are also quite sincere in their communal effort to help each other learn about filmmaking...including figuring out what works well, as well as what does not work well. But, yeah, I'm thinking that that also means that posters of films in this forum should not exatly ask for critiques lightly...meaning, they just might get one...or several.

The bottom line is this. Absolutely one-hundred percent kudos to you and your collaborators for just getting the hell out there and making a damn film, already, having fun doing it, getting it made, and then publishing it for the world to see! That's pretty damn cool, and something to be proud of. Any pointing out of flaws or shortcomings does not change or lessen any of that, nor is it meant to discourage you. But you already knew that.
 
Last edited:
Richy, I'm glad you provided comments and criticisms, that is why I post here and on other forums. My only point of contention with bringing up the camera shake and "butchering" of the 180 degree rule is that I've said previously that I know of these issues and that it was not a good day for shooting and I wasn't able to re-shoot, so I had to run with it. Continuing to bring up these issues seems rather pointless to me, especially since so many people have commented on it. Telling me I'm on crack and patronizing me with line such as "you can get this thing called a tripod for 20 bucks" is a little bit ridiculous (I know you didn't say that).

In regards to the "dramatic content" of the film, there is none. But if you feel there is then it is of course your prerogative as you stated to comment on it. I'm simply trying to clarify my view of the film as I saw it when I made it. I welcome varying opinions on my films of course, but I feel like if you watch this expecting some sort of dramatic piece of Oscar-winning work, your opinion will not be good. So, critiquing within the boundaries of the film and it's genre would be nice.
 
dude, tommydwag, please reread what I wrote. From one filmmaker to another, imagining that we are peers doing this kinda thing because we enjoy it... putting on a slightly sarcastic tone... letting you know upfront that the comment was intended as a friendly jab, not a patronizing or personal dig.

As I noted, the cast looks competent and it would be nice to see them in something that is a bit more polished. I don't think I'm alone on this. Sorry if my reaction wasn't what you were looking for. Welcome to filmmaking! :)

BTW - Who said you were on crack?
 
Cracker Funk said:
Yep, tripod would be good. Even without a tripod, a relatively steady shot can be achieved if you shoot wide and aren't on crack.
Click to expand...

I'm not personally offended honestly. But no matter how you prefix your statement it is an incredibly patronizing thing to say, given that we're not friends or anything like that. I want honest opinions, I just wish people wouldn't categorize statements like that as trying to be constructive.
 
I honestly didn't think it was going to be taken to heart and so seriously. I'll be sure to avoid that form of reaction in future posts. All the best with your filmmaking. :)
 
tommygdawg said:
I'm not personally offended honestly. But no matter how you prefix your statement it is an incredibly patronizing thing to say, given that we're not friends or anything like that. I want honest opinions, I just wish people wouldn't categorize statements like that as trying to be constructive.
Click to expand...

My honest apology. I said that, intending it to be humorous, and I only said it because I figured your shakiness was acheived intentionally. If I had thought your shakiness was an accident, or that you were actually trying to keep it stable, I would've offered honest advice for handheld, like hold it with both hands, use a wide lens, keep your elbows locked by your side, and maybe find a sturdy object to prop yourself up against. I honestly thought that you were going for the shaky effect, which would mean that my "on crack" comment was not directed at you.

But, you were intentionally going for shaky, right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top