Edited by SSJR, 13 November 2005 - 12:09 PM.
Jump to content
Please critque my work.
10 replies to this topic
Posted 13 November 2005 - 12:00 PM
I am at Emerson in Boston. Please give me feedback on my work. Shot a SAG short film in LA. That is link 1 . Tell me what you think. I also have some photos witch are there to critique and feedback as well.
Edited by SSJR, 13 November 2005 - 12:09 PM.
Posted 13 November 2005 - 04:56 PM
Your stills portfolio is tremendous. If I were your agent, there are about a dozen shots I'd suggest you remove for various reasons. At the least, I'd make two seperate ports. One for "portraits and candids" and
one for "other". I think the "other" is where you are money. That's not to say the portraits are not nice, they are. They're just not in the same league with some of the other stuff.
I'll take a look at the films when I get some more time.
Posted 13 November 2005 - 05:26 PM
Please let me know which ones you don't think belong guys ... Thanks for your feedback!
Posted 13 November 2005 - 06:45 PM
The still photography work is really great, although you could probably trim it and organize it better.
The shorts are just OK -- I liked the grainy color one (Super-8?) of the woman collecting flowers, and it was an interesting decision to light the white kitchen so flatly and blown-out, although that approach could have been done better.
But to have the same white kitchen in another b&w short with similarly flat lighting was a bit repetitive, and b&w needs a little more modelling than that.
Truth is that it all looked a little "student filmy" in approach and subject matter. You needed stronger compositions, cutting, and storylines. It lacked the graphic precision of your still photography. Your inserts in the kitchen looked like you just zoomed in on some bit of action rather than composed and lit the inserts to be interesting in themselves. Obviously from your still work, I know you can do better.
Posted 13 November 2005 - 09:00 PM
I tried to watch "film 1" and it looked REALLY blocky and lost synch almost immediately. I'm trying to watch it on my iBook so that may be the culprit.
Posted 13 November 2005 - 09:05 PM
Thanks for looking please look film 1 and film 4 on http://www.eveanlane.com, Those are the more advanced films I have shot and directed. I am shooting my first 35-mm short Dec 10th. Thats why I have been asking you guys so many questions. I am trying to get my Filming as close to my photography aesthetic as possible. I am going to have 2x 1.2k HMIs some 1ks tungsten 2ks tungsten, tons 650s tungsten, china balls and a 4x kino bank daylight and tungsten balanced. Do you think that is enough?
Posted 13 November 2005 - 09:22 PM
You mistyped the link...
Film #1 looks great I'm guessing, trying to see beyond the horrible pixellated blockiness. The lighting and colors are nice; it has good contrast and range.
Film #4 has some nice shots, especially the snowy landscape framed in the windows -- although some of the lighting is a bit flat when the windows aren't in the shot, though natural for the classroom. But I think you could have done more with the costuming and art direction so you didn't have so many shots framed against an empty wooden cabinet. Those were also the somewhat flat-looking shots.
Your lighting package is probably fine, depending on what you're trying to do.
Posted 13 November 2005 - 11:48 PM
They are all Student films i made that last film for less then 1,000. I agree about things being flat in my last film as well. Thanks for your feedback
This 35-mm one hopefully will be better. I have put tons of thought and reading a into it. Our Art director is awesome. Im trying to go for soft motivated natural light. My school is funding the film and our budget is much more decent.
Edited by SSJR, 13 November 2005 - 11:53 PM.
Posted 14 November 2005 - 04:51 AM
Sorry about the length of this. I kinda got carried away. Sorry. My comments are with wholly good intentions though.
Well, obviously you know how to put a film together, but my criticism of your film, for what it's worth, is as follows;-
Very unoriginal dialogue in the beginning to the point that it feels like 'stock'
When they're having a dialogue in the park, why do we wait so long to get any close-up face shot? Why of him only? Feels selfish. Afterall, he only said "hey" (+ "are you hungry")...is that so important that we need a close-up? I would of thought that since you were making a tease-each-other dialogue, that we might of had closer-ups throughout. Speaking of close-ups....why a close-up of Doritos, but when they have supposedly 'bonded', nothing close-up?
*How* did they bond when he wasn't at all charming to her? He didn't even humble himself. In fact, he was quite insulting. I didn't feel any charm. This feels one-sided Evan....and, by the way, do you smoke? You subtly suggest that regardless of insults, a cigarette can be enough to bond??? Neeway.
You should find a woman to work on your films with, one who you can bounce/balance ideas with.
When we get the close-up of them sitting down, *she* asks him, "how did you end up in Hollywood anyway?" Is this *him* chatting her up? or *her character* being 'forced' to interview him? And he's reluctant at that, to say much....(can you see that?)
Let's rewind here. He 'jogged' after her in the beginning into the park...so why did he go 'dead' afterwards? Then he....tried to poke her eye out... nope, he re-adjusted a hair, no... he was pointing at the moon.. no..he *did* readjust a hair that was on her forehead infact.
You know what? I feel like you know what you're showing but not what you're saying.
I'd cut out the shot of the hotel and then the roach. What for?
Also, I don't see how the music fits with this scene by the way (Eg, lyrics: yada yada..."with your man"...yada). There's hardly anything between them is there? but yet the music suggests otherwise.
Later, after the guy offers her "$100 cash to finish the job" and she runs off, he gives her a hug in the car park. I don't want to go on about it, but I don't accept that they initially bonded anyway. Damn...that would have been the good part too! But lucky for him that she offers him *a shower* (?) Well ok....call me a prude.
I don't like they way he says "shut up" to her.....this really isn't working for me. But she says "ok" (?) Hmmm....she isn't beat up enough/ugly enough/weird enough to have such a low self-esteem, and that's even considering her job.
The scene where the old guy says "get in the f'ing car" is dramatic and good. The following wideshots of Hollyweird should of been combined with her walking away tearfully perhaps... What do you think? A bit of smudged mascara too....and a runny nose...
I think you are good with your pics but story telling...mmmmm...
Also, is she really going to lay down in the street? I don't buy that. No woman would do this for fear of rape and other reasons too. Eg, getting clothes dirty. Then he finds her in *his* spot??? Is the bitch paying him rent on that? C'mon....that's quite a co-incidence.
The shot of the coffee doesn't work for me. A close-up of that coffee precedes her waking up from the street? Nah.
By the way, why is she's *so* upset? Surely strippers are used to comments like that anyway? She seems to be waiting/expecting *her* coffee too... ...and in the street? Hmmm... This feels like he's dragged her down even further. I don't like him as a character because he feels kinda destructive, selfish and....whatever..
The end was on the right track, but I feel you could of made more of it... he should of said more than his name and where he was from though.
Generally, you have good ideas and you're shots are fine, but the story-telling is absolutely awful. You need to find a damn good writer. A female co-writer might have worked here.
I meant all of the above sincerely, so all best!
Posted 14 November 2005 - 10:39 AM
Thanks so much for the critique!
HAHA I have to laugh. I hated the script but i needed something to shoot. Dude the actress ( a woman) of this movie wrote this and wouldn't let me do rewrites with her. She was too Pre Madonna. Don't worry about the writing. This movie was an exercise in conveying the mood of the environment. Which I think you seemed to get. "Hollywierd". Lack of Close-ups were due to a pre madonna cinematographer who threw a table at my producer. Please consider, this is the first movie I ever made. This was completely a learning experience. I don't agree with you about the music or the roach and the motel scene, they are the establishing shoots of her living environment. Anyway thanks for your thoughts and opinions they are refreshing. Like I said next one will be better.
Posted 14 November 2005 - 03:38 PM
just finished watching the first film. i agree with london concerning their "relationship" - i'm just not convinced by either of the characters and their respective situations, which has a huge impact on everything that occurs between them. london has already noted some of these unrealistic moments between them such as the hug in the car park, the touching of her hair (love the joke about poking her in the eye), the offering of a shower and so on.
now its all well and good saying the writer (and actress) refused rewrites, but for gods sake not only are you the director you're the bloody editor. you should of worked out how to cut out all the unnecessary crap without ruining the "atmosphere" film - she couldn't of done much about it then and just imagine the look on her face when it first screened. (somewhat evil i know)
films can be saved in the edit - remember that.
now i could be wrong, but it feels like you somewhat over looked the issue of performance - which relates back to my first point - because i think the relationship could of between more convincing with more directorial attention.
two major things really stood out - his peformance is inconsistent, one minute he's arrogant and dismissive and the next he's caring and sensitive. he chops and changes. and the girl needs more range. tonally she stays monotone and flat.
I also have to agree with london on the whole music issue - three or four completely disparate songs which, if we're talking about atmosphere, confuses things. and I suppose this is where all this is leading to - i was just confused, i didn't get it or at least i got it but i didn't feel it - most of the time.
because there were moments where i did feel it and for that i'm glad i watched it. so for a first effort i think you did well.