Accidental Art, a short film

[Peter John Ross]

ACCIDENTAL ART
5 min

A married woman's affair with the repairman takes an odd twist with her art work.

http://www.openfilm.com/videos/accidental-art



Shot with the RED ONE by cinematographer Greg Sabo

starring Tamara Reynolds, Bryan Michael Block, and Jon Osbeck.

music by Bill Wandel, edited by Brant Jones

 

[DCC Erickson]

It looks kind of over-saturated, with lots of blow-out highlights. The audio is distorted (recorded too hot) and the dialogue track background noise changes with every cut. The music is cute, but seems a little disconnected from the story. The script is unremarkable and the acting adequate. Like of some of my stuff. We can all do better.

Go back and soft gate the dialogue, eq out the background as much as possible, put in some room tone. Back off the correction on the video. Turn down the music a tad.

Or don't. I'm nothing if not over-opinionated.

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

I thought the picture was too hot, frankly it looked overexposed and burned out and it was unpleasant. I am all for bright points, but there should be some detail.

I did not think it was over saturated. I thought the contrast was a bit much... but that is the style these days. Assuming the picture was not over exposed, you could pull the highlights back a bit and probably make the picture more pleasant.

I didn't hear that many audio issues. I don't think it was recorded too hot, but it may have been mixed too hot for some systems. There are some issue with background noise being uneven. I do think the music was mixed in too loudly. It should really be more subtle.

There were some odd cuts, especially once the husband was introduced. Particularly odd was when the "J Train" was prone in one shot then standing in the next shot. If you had coupled the business of him standing with one of his lines that would have helped. Another cut I would change is the cut where she realizes her husband is home. I'd cut during "wait, why are you asking" to J Train then move to J Train's POV on the husband while she asks. Alternatively, if you wanted more humor, you could have cut to the husbands reaction while she described him from J Train's POV.

I feel the story was obvious. I knew what was going to happen from the moment the husband re-entered the room. Sometimes that happens in short pieces. You could probably have shot things more to elicit surprise when he re-entered, and then amped up the pace of discussion after his reappearance. Don't give the audience time to think as husband and wife resolve their issue... then BAM,

Dropping the gun was a mistake. It should just have gun off while he held it during the hug. It makes more sense given the entry wound and shot location later. It could also make the accident more sudden and help with the pacing.

The acting was off too. I think the reactions were badly overplayed. I work on shows where actors are encouraged to "chew on the scenery" in a certain 1960's style... but this was too much. That says a lot in a short piece like this. A re-edit that cuts the reactions a bit more would probably help.

Now that I've torn it apart... it was a nice little piece. Good practice and fun. There were a lot of things that came off well, like the bullet wound.

I need to do more like this myself. I've been doing a lot of isolated tests and junk instead of making whole pieces with a story.

Keep it up and keep getting better!

 

[Paul Harding]

When members post shot on red, I wish they would include lens info,

 

[Peter John Ross]

When members post shot on red, I wish they would include lens info,

I wasn't the DP, so I didn't choose each lens for every shot. I directed this, but Greg Sabo of Sabostudios was the camera op, so he can speak to the lenses, etc. A lot of that is listed on his site www.sabostudios.com

We shot to the hard drive instead of CF cards and we did a lot of work in Post with Adobe Premiere CS4.2.1 for the RED plug ins to color correct.

The bullet wound was practical, but the blood effects were a mixture of CGI and practical effects.

thanks for watching!

 

[stats79]

Wow, Mr. Ming is one to talk. Can't even access his website because my browser reads it as an attack page.

As far as your film:

I thought the script was clever, the cinematography functional (though I have to agree, highlights are blown out) but I didn't find the footage over saturated. I thought the music was appropriate and effective. And I thought the acting was pretty good as well.

Little surprised at Mr. Ming's critique. So much shit is displayed on this site that never gets this kind of detailed negative critique.

Some how this film really pushed Mr. Ming's button.

 

[Peter John Ross]

Little surprised at Mr. Ming's critique. So much shit is displayed on this site that never gets this kind of detailed negative critique.

Some how this film really pushed Mr. Ming's button.

No worries from me. Everyone is entitled to their opinions. I can handle constructive criticism. He didn't cross a line into insults, just harsh criticism. I wasn't bothered by anything he wrote.

Thanks for watching.

 

[DCC Erickson]

Wow, Mr. Ming is one to talk. Can't even access his website because my browser reads it as an attack page.

As far as your film:

I thought the script was clever, the cinematography functional (though I have to agree, highlights are blown out) but I didn't find the footage over saturated. I thought the music was appropriate and effective. And I thought the acting was pretty good as well.

Little surprised at Mr. Ming's critique. So much shit is displayed on this site that never gets this kind of detailed negative critique.

Some how this film really pushed Mr. Ming's button.

I'm a fellow filmmaker and screenwriter (McKnight Fellowship awardee, 2010), not his mother. I greatly appreciate the effort such things take, and assumed he was welcoming a critical assessment, not just a bland "Gee, that's great!".
When Google stops their fascist "red-banding" of my website, I will be greatly relieved. Visiting it will not give your computer the syph, but suit yourself.

My current project outtakes, test shots and rough teaser can be seen here, far from my little alleged malware-factory:

http://www.youtube.com/user/tilliesallnightbean

Here's some more about it:
http://allnightbean.com/

Hopefully will be launching mid-July in 2-3 minute increments.
Shot on a Panasonic HMC150 with available light in a coffee shop at night. Yes, much noise. Critique away, I'm a big boy.

 

[Peter John Ross]

hmmmm

hmmmm

My current project outtakes, test shots and rough teaser can be seen here, far from my little alleged malware-factory:

http://www.youtube.com/user/tilliesallnightbean

The compositing is okay, as in there are a ton of free motion tracking that could solve that, plus it needs to be massaged into the shot better with pixel blending around the face of the wife.

The editing was also sub par in that a few L-cuts would have smoothed over the audio problems between each shot, which are as if they were filmed in two separate locations. Some kind of editing that shows the reaction shots WHILE someone is talking will be far more affective.

I would have no idea this was the ghost of his wife if I hadn't read it in the description. For a sampler piece, it makes no sense in and of itself.

 

[DCC Erickson]

The compositing is okay, as in there are a ton of free motion tracking that could solve that, plus it needs to be massaged into the shot better with pixel blending around the face of the wife.

The editing was also sub par in that a few L-cuts would have smoothed over the audio problems between each shot, which are as if they were filmed in two separate locations. Some kind of editing that shows the reaction shots WHILE someone is talking will be far more affective.

I would have no idea this was the ghost of his wife if I hadn't read it in the description. For a sampler piece, it makes no sense in and of itself.

Yeah, just throwin stuff out there 'till it's ready to go. I actually started cleaning up the audio today. Never L or J much, once in a while. She lays out the whole ghost thing at the start of the series, so people get the whole story. The ghost clip was a test to see if it made sense to refine it. It's much more blended and somewhat transparent lately - it's kinda freaky to see the actor's two faces scrambled together - in one shot Mrs. Ghost is talking over a picture of herself and for a few seconds has four eyes.

I hate reaction shots. I don't know why. Maybe knowing it was shot after the master spoils the effect for me. Some expert somewhere said you should never show the person talking, only the person reacting. Eh .....

 

[Peter John Ross]

check this out

check this out

Never L or J much, once in a while.

I hate reaction shots. I don't know why. Maybe knowing it was shot after the master spoils the effect for me. Some expert somewhere said you should never show the person talking, only the person reacting. Eh .....

That's HALF the story being thrown out! There's a very basic psychology for the viewer which is that if the camera is on someone talking, and while we still hear their voice finishing the sentence, then we cut visually to the other person listening, they can fill in the blank as to what they look like delivering the rest of their lines.

As it is, the editing is very staccato and not in a good way. It feels like a mistake, not an intention. It's just one person talking to another person talking and there is no natural rhythm to it, and it makes me feel like the audience is a punching bag, not being talked to.

This youtube video demonstrates this concept better.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hz28hwDgX14&feature=related

 

[DCC Erickson]

I don't have a narrative episode uploaded anywhere, just bloopers and stills - where are you seeing all this? The teaser was assembled before any episode was put together. It's a teaser. I don't believe a teaser necessarily has to make sense. And yes, it uses the audience as a punching bag. It says "LOOK AT ME" for a whole 23 seconds. With a beat.

 

[Peter John Ross]

It's a teaser. I don't believe a teaser necessarily has to make sense. And yes, it uses the audience as a punching bag. It says "LOOK AT ME" for a whole 23 seconds. With a beat.

To each his own, I guess.

 

[Fredrik Callinggard]

To each his own, I guess.

LOL

I have to say I agree with some of the things said, but I think it's wrong to throw them out there without mentioning positive critique first. It always helps when you mention the positive things first and afterwards critique the things that should be changed or maybe thought of. You'll find that the person your addressing it to will listen a lot more on you if you do so. Unfortunately I don't live by example lol, but I try to.

Anyway about your film. I like the story it's simple and eventually to the point. I love the end titles, they're great. Unfortunately you don't have as strong of a beginning. It be a lot better if you maybe reconsidered or re-shot the beginning. I'm not saying doing a long title sequence, but something that grabs you a little more. Instead of a pan over the room maybe have some drifting/ trackings over the house and then end up in a tracking straight forward to the painting when we find it? That way we get pulled into the story more as we approach it?

As for the acting and script. Dialogue is not bad but the acting is slightly over the top. I would maybe try to edit so I tone it down a notch. Some reaction shots are to much (hers when he says he would love to see her paintings for example - whatever that reaction is for... her just playing the role assigned to her, or her knowing she has no paintings, or if it's just her reacting to that he seem to care??? Whatever it is it doesn't come true, not for me at least and his acting is a little to much occasionally. If you can edit it down then do so.

As for colour correction it's an individual preference but I don't mind the contrast. Be careful with blowing things out though, since it can make it look like "video". Also make sure that cuts match as much as possible.

The one part that didn't make it was the end with all three of them. Unfortunately you didn't manage to establish the geographic of them and the room. Here a shot behind the husband would have been good for example. A dirty over shoulder to establish where they are (maybe there was one and I forgot. I saw the film a few days ago), but if I remember correctly there's no establishment of them in the room and even there is, it's not enough to get it.

I also agree that it would have been better with him holding the gun and it goes off and then maybe play it on the fact that we see their reaction of what happens and just cut to a bloody wall.

PS sound is crucial - 70% of the experience is sound so work on that - you'll find it will make the film so much better if you do. Ohh and I forgot... I would also re-shoot and add a few shots of the husband coming home - the car shot already implies that, but then nothing more. Just shoot some legs with same shoes and pants walking on porch, opening front door and then in the stairs and it's all good.

cheers

 

[Rob Ruffo]

I'd say too much camera movement in the beginning, movements that do not gracefully end, with an awkward first intro of the handyman guy. You have tons of cam movement, then almost no movement.

Not every shot has to be a crane or dolly. A film is not a gripping demo. cam movement should be motivated. It's not "production value" unless it helps the story.

 

[Peter Matthes]

First and foremost, I think it is commendable to have gone out and shot something. So many people have ideas, but rarely follow through.

There were definitely a few shots with blown out areas of the frame, but that might very well have been the look your DP was going for. Only he can say.

I have to agree with Bob that there was a little bit too much movement for movement's sake. In my opinion, some of the best stuff is found in the locked off shots with character interaction.

If I had to change only one thing, it would be the audio. Nothing takes away from a piece like uneven or badly mixed audio. This piece suffered from that somewhat. Having a good audio mixer on set, and in post, can be expensive sometimes. However, it really is worth it.

The ending was a bit telegraphed, but it can be hard in a short piece like this. I honestly thought the last scene was going to take place in an art gallery. Your "Creepshow" (1982) style ending was interesting.

Most of all, it's great that you are shooting stuff, Peter.

Best of luck to you. :thumbsup:

Perhaps you'll get some feedback from Roger Deakens on his blog. I saw the link there.

 

[Peter John Ross]

Ohh and I forgot... I would also re-shoot and add a few shots of the husband coming home - the car shot already implies that, but then nothing more. Just shoot some legs with same shoes and pants walking on porch, opening front door and then in the stairs and it's all good.

cheers

If you see the BEHIND THE SCENES VIDEO....

http://www.vimeo.com/9550107

You can clearly see we shot exactly that. In the edit though, I felt it was better to NOT see him getting out of the car. It was a lot more impactful, at least at all the live screenings I've been to, when the husband's first appearance is at the door in the room.

Thanks all, for watching! I appreciate the honest and genuine critiques.

 

[Peter John Ross]

I have entered ACCIDENTAL ART into the contest on OPENFILM.COM. For those not in the know, the advisory board for this contest is James Caan, Robert Duvall, Mark Rydell, and Scott Caan. It's an honor to have a film viewed by these greats of cinema.... and Scott Caan.

Please, take a look again and possibly vote for ACCIDENTAL ART
http://www.openfilm.com/videos/accidental-art

I am most pleased with the cinematography by Greg Sabo with his Red One on this piece.

 

[Peter John Ross]

HOLY COW, Accidental Art made the Top Ten finalists in the OPENFILM.COM GET IT MADE COMPETITION and will be viewed and judged by James Caan, Robert Duvall, and Mark Rydell!!!!!

THANKS TO ALL WHO VOTED AND HELPED!!!!

http://www.openfilm.com/studio/2/

- Peter John Ross