Road Kill - 48 Hour Film Project Entry

[tcindie]

Well kids, here's a link to the HD version of the film we made for the Minneapolis 48 hour film project...

Required Elements:
Character -- Mr. Perkinson (Substitute Teacher)
Line of Dialog -- "You look very familiar"
Prop -- A fish

Team genre: Road Movie

Shot with a naked HV20.

http://vimeo.com/1186238

[Ian-T]

Ha ha….that was very good…entertaining. It looks like you put a lot of work into it (48 hr film or not). I had to go back a couple of times and try to find the fish…when it was staring at me the whole time…..lol. “Darwin” came back to haunt them alright…. Was this done on a soundstage or outside? I hear sort of an echo like reverb on the audio (I was listening in my headphones). I thought the picture looked great…..cine mode I presume? Actors did a great job….the passenger reminded me of some folks that I know….paranoid…... but in this case….he was sort of justified…lol. What did you use for lights inside the vehicle? Thanks for the look.

[tcindie]

Hehe.. well I've addressed several of these questions on another forum, so I'll just paste all that here and try to preempt some of the potential questions that may arise here..

It was shot in a warehouse, and we hung two long bolts of a black polar fleece type material behind the car, so it would appear to be a super dark night outside.. There is a bit of echo, especially when they get loud, but there really wasn't much we could do about it, and in some ways I think that plays to our benefit, as a vacant roadway like that may very well have some degree of echoiness to it.

Anyhooo.. time for the cut & paste...

Friday night the five of us on the crew brainstormed the story, and then hammered out the rough script, then the director/writer sat up for several more hours that night doing a rewrite and putting in the dialog he had been writing while we sat around and talked the story out.

Basically, one writer wrote the general framework, the other wrote the dialog, and then when he put the dialog in he tightened up the story a bunch.

We did allow the actors to improv a little bit, but in that regard, Sasha (the passenger in the car) is hands down the best actor I've worked with in town... and Tim (the driver) is the guy I work with when I'm DJing, he's been an MC for many many years, and improv is a big part of his job. Ultimately though, the majority of the story -- including dialog -- was already written.

If you're interested... Here's the script we used on the shoot. Surprisingly enough, the entire 8 and a half pages fit within the 7 minute time limit.

I'd love to see diagrams of your lighting setup.

Well I didn't make any for the shoot, but here's a couple production stills that will give you some idea...





150w halogen's on either side of the car, for a little fill, a 500w halogen on the corner of the desk behind Carol (not visible in the photo) fluorescent shop lights on either side of the car, 3 500w halogen's on the right (hidden behind the pallet rack in this photo), another 250w visible on the right in front of the pallet rack. a 250 and a 500w on a short light stand for the "headlights", hooked to a dimmer pack, and 2 120watt red flood lights, along with a 500watt halogen behind a piece of red gel for the "tail lights" (visible in the second photo) also hooked to a dimmer pack

Additionally there is a 60w compact fluorescent scoop light between the two front seats of the car for car interior light. The flashlight that appears in the two shots by the tire was a practical light -- small LED flashlight.

There was also a very large overhead lamp off to the right that couldn't be shut off -- so I used it as the motivation for the light set up, playing it as the "moon" and adding the rest of the lights to bump the exposure level up, and fill in some of the shadows. That's basically it, the lights didn't get moved much, the fluorescents on either side were moved closer or further as needed for different shots, but otherwise everything stayed put.

I think there were some extra overhead lights on in the photos...

I shot 24p, with a shutter speed of 1/48. Every shot was somewhere between f2.8 and f4... we honestly could have used a lot more light, it would have been nice to have a 2k for the key, and maybe a 1k for a hair light, but we didn't have the lights, or the gear for rigging them where they should have ideally been placed.

Hope that helps some.

[tcindie]

I should also note... I spoke with the Minneapolis 48hr coordinator briefly at the premiere tonight, and he said that after watching it the first time, he'd thought we had gone out and shot Friday night, then gotten pick up shots on Saturday night... meaning, he was under the impression we had actually shot outside.

It wasn't until I had pointed out the poor framing evident in some of the shots of the version that was turned in for the competition that reveals the walls and such behind the black scrim that the illusion was ruined for him.

This version, I've tightened up those shots digitally so that isn't an issue anymore. I'm glad you liked it, and glad that you had to question whether it was done on a stage or outside.

[tcindie]

I thought the picture looked great…..cine mode I presume?

Almost forgot that one.. yes, cinemode. 24p, 1/48 shutter (cell phone trick, so I get full range of the exposure settings with no gain)

As far as the actors go, this was the first time I have ever worked with Carol, Sasha (the passenger) is hands down the BEST actor I've ever worked with... and this was the first film Tim (the driver) has ever been in, but he's been an entertainer for many years, and naturally has great comedic timing, and can improv with the best of 'em.

[KREEDMAN]

Great syuff!

What did you use for audio?

[tcindie]

I'm not sure what brand it was.. some cheap shotgun mic on a boom.. For the interior car shots there was a wireless lav stuck onto the drivers side sun visor in the middle near the rearview mirror

[cinemasteve87]

Great use of lighting!

[monkeyaone]

I thought it was great :-)

[laffordie]

WOW I really enjoyed that short it was great!!!!

[ddavidd20]

pretty decent work overall, but i have one piece of advice I feel I should mention.

if you shot that scene with that lady from a low-angle, straight on, actor looking slightly into the lens at an angle (see ozu and demme for examples of this technique) for both the coverage on the two guys and the lady, I think it would have had a great result because I didn't necessarily feel the undertone of foreboding which I think should have been apparent.

The scene's acting was fine but I don't think it went in the direction that it could have. She seems slightly over-obvious and the two guys buy into it pretty easily considering one is over-paranoid and the other is showing signs of it. That problem probably stems from the writing, but I don't know, I just couldn't really buy it that much.

[tcindie]

pretty decent work overall, but i have one piece of advice I feel I should mention.

if you shot that scene with that lady from a low-angle, straight on, actor looking slightly into the lens at an angle (see ozu and demme for examples of this technique) for both the coverage on the two guys and the lady, I think it would have had a great result because I didn't necessarily feel the undertone of foreboding which I think should have been apparent.

The scene's acting was fine but I don't think it went in the direction that it could have. She seems slightly over-obvious and the two guys buy into it pretty easily considering one is over-paranoid and the other is showing signs of it. That problem probably stems from the writing, but I don't know, I just couldn't really buy it that much.

I fully understand the technique you are referring to, and respectfully disagree. It was not necessary here. There isn't supposed to be a feeling of foreboding. Regardless of how paranoid you are, if an elderly woman approaches you, you're going to feel a sense of relief from your paranoid state -- because no one would expect such behavior from an older woman. Aside from that, it's a JOKE.

[Ian-T]

I fully understand the technique you are referring to, and respectfully disagree. It was not necessary here. There isn't supposed to be a feeling of foreboding. Regardless of how paranoid you are, if an elderly woman approaches you, you're going to feel a sense of relief from your paranoid state -- because no one would expect such behavior from an older woman. Aside from that, it's a JOKE.

I agree.....that would have made everything more obvious and ruined this piece. Instead of a comedy, like this is, it would have went more towards a dramatic horror story...which would have made it ho-hum. Once again I thought this was well done. It's funny....I would have never thought it was done on a sound stage.

[ddavidd20]

I fully understand the technique you are referring to, and respectfully disagree. It was not necessary here. There isn't supposed to be a feeling of foreboding. Regardless of how paranoid you are, if an elderly woman approaches you, you're going to feel a sense of relief from your paranoid state -- because no one would expect such behavior from an older woman. Aside from that, it's a JOKE.

well to be honest actually, i think it's moreso the acting and dialogue that make the framing of the scene less effective. your entire short film is shot with more naked sound effects, one of the characters is completely over-paranoid and the other only seems to get frustrated by his paranoia. with that being said, if you went into this project with the idea that the subcontext of the film is going to be humorous/a joke, then I think you approached the film in the wrong direction.
The things that encompass and ultimately drive the interest in the film are the undertone of fear (the main topic of conversation being brought up is serial killers), the creation of the situation that leads brings the characters into reality with that fear and how they ultimately react to the situation. honestly, i could see how you would have wanted to create a comedy, almost satirical when you think about the implications and what the film is about, but I don't think it was effective in that sense.

I agree.....that would have made everything more obvious and ruined this piece. Instead of a comedy, like this is, it would have went more towards a dramatic horror story...which would have made it ho-hum. Once again I thought this was well done. It's funny....I would have never thought it was done on a sound stage.

more obvious? i didn't know that was possible considering how predictable it was that the lady was the killer (having her say the exact opposite things of what a serial killer would say, in this case, only adds to that. The best portrayals of the mind of a killer, allow their characters to adapt into humanity, and still retain uneasiness, a sense of depth that has yet to be discovered).

I worked on a 48 hour film festival in Portland a couple years ago, as the director (I did re-writes and edited the film, but didn't write the original screenplay) and we did very well (2nd overall) considering we also had "road film" as our category. I shot it as a darker piece, with the comedic and satirical elements coming in naturally (screenplay, blocking, etc) and found it very, very effective. The main response I got from the film was that it was serious and scary but the humor juxtaposed the tone of the film and it definitely created some good results. so yeah, im just trying to give my input from 1st-hand experience (especially since it was the same prompt as mine)

also, if it would have been ho-hum as a drama (which the aesthetic and technical aspects used are better suited for), then the comedy version definitely does not rival it

[Ian-T]

more obvious? i didn't know that was possible considering how predictable it was that the lady was the killer (having her say the exact opposite things of what a serial killer would say, in this case, only adds to that. The best portrayals of the mind of a killer, allow their characters to adapt into humanity, and still retain uneasiness, a sense of depth that has yet to be discovered).

Fair enough. But still...I think the less obvious approach would be to leave her just a she comes off....like Leave It To Beaver's grandmother. If I were to change anything I would would have changed the title. It was more satirical with her looking innocent. I think the camera angles you were referring to is made to give a character more of a powerful look...someone with strength. That would have played more like ..well...a dark horror....than the slapstick comedy I took it as. With horror....I expect blood and guts...struggling....screaming...and music to suit...etc. In this...all you heard was "CLUNK"....and the next thing you see is Beavers grandma dragging the body. That was funny. Could easily fit into a Saturday Night Live skit (IMO).

[ddavidd20]

Fair enough. But still...I think the less obvious approach would be to leave her just a she comes off....like Leave It To Beaver's grandmother. If I were to change anything I would would have changed the title. It was more satirical with her looking innocent. I think the camera angles you were referring to is made to give a character more of a powerful look...someone with strength. That would have played more like ..well...a dark horror....than the slapstick comedy I took it as. With horror....I expect blood and guts...struggling....screaming...and music to suit...etc. In this...all you heard was "CLUNK"....and the next thing you see is Beavers grandma dragging the body. That was funny. Could easily fit into a Saturday Night Live skit (IMO).

alright, with your explanation i can better understand how people find it more comedic. the angle i described isn't really to make her seem powerful, it's to just show her completely in an unfiltered form. when using straight-ons, especially wider mediums, can be extremely effective if the dialogue and the nuances of the character are both effective and complement each other. With her character and the certain look of "uneasiness" that at least, I feel, she exhibits, it could have been a remarkably strong performance and I think that aesthetic technique would exemplify the performance.

and i dont know about SNL for something like this, if you breakdown the skits in SNL, you find that the audience (and/or yourself) are laughing (or at least being told a joke) every 15-30 seconds. I'm imagining this video in between kattan and ferrell, and iono, i think alot of people would be switching the channel

[tcindie]

*sigh* It's this kind of snobbery that makes me actually glad you didn't like it.

[ddavidd20]

*sigh* It's this kind of snobbery that makes me actually glad you didn't like it.

snobbery? haha, sounds like someone can't take some real criticism. i haven't really gotten started

[tcindie]

snobbery? haha, sounds like someone can't take some real criticism. i haven't really gotten started

Don't bother.

[movie-hack]

I enjoyed this short far more than most on this site so far and given the time restraint , think that it's a fine piece of work. I have to agree with you that the criticism seemed to turn to snobbery. Such a shame. I do hope you will not be put off from posting on this forum again.

[net]

tcindie...

I thought you did a really good job. It was convincing as a real situation. I liked the dark background, it gave focus to the characters.

Regarding the echo from the room on the audio; you can treat the audio with a filter, maybe a gate in your NLE... or you could manually crop out each echoed part from when the actors stop talking..although that might be a bit tedious.

Regarding criticism... I don't think there's anything wrong with constructive criticism... but there's a certain lack of tact that exists on the internet...

You see this on YouTube all the time: people trash other people's efforts... When you go to one of these trasher's profiles, 9 times out of 10 it will say number of Videos (uploaded/created by user) = 0.

I am not saying that this is necessarily the case in this thread, but there is a common practice on the internet of people who want to be entertained, but have no clue of the effort it takes to produce something.

I think, on some level, they feel it's part of their entertainment package that's included with the price of their monthly internet service. They fail to see that when siging up for a YouTube or Vimeo account, everyone is on an equal playing field -- it's not the traditional audience and movie studio.

[ForwardLooker]

snobbery? haha, sounds like someone can't take some real criticism. i haven't really gotten started

Wow!.... man, you need to relax...go find a relaxing outdoor hobby or something.

tcindie, well done!! i really enjoyed your work!!

[Philafront]

i do agree that the ending was a little overly predictable, and would have been nicer if the lady hadnt been quite so obvious, but overall i thought it was really good. I figured it was shot indoors, although when the drivers steps out of the vehicle i thought i had been wrong for a sec. good performances out of those actors though and i thought the lighting was really good. its certainly one of the better hv20 shorts ive seen out there.

[ddavidd20]

tcindie...

Regarding criticism... I don't think there's anything wrong with constructive criticism... but there's a certain lack of tact that exists on the internet...

You see this on YouTube all the time: people trash other people's efforts... When you go to one of these trasher's profiles, 9 times out of 10 it will say number of Videos (uploaded/created by user) = 0.

I am not saying that this is necessarily the case in this thread, but there is a common practice on the internet of people who want to be entertained, but have no clue of the effort it takes to produce something.

I think, on some level, they feel it's part of their entertainment package that's included with the price of their monthly internet service. They fail to see that when siging up for a YouTube or Vimeo account, everyone is on an equal playing field -- it's not the traditional audience and movie studio.

i guess this just shows the WEALTH of knowledge, the modern day internet-mongrel seems to possess. you couldn't be more wrong considering some of the things you seem think.

first off, you were insinuating because of the fact I haven't posted anything in the footage board on here that I haven't ever made "the effort it takes to produce something"? Any director who cares about his work could cite tons of reason for this (you don't want your work to be copied, diluted, and adapted). That's why film festivals/competitions exist. I for one, have never had any serious work posted on youtube or vimeo for tons of individual and logistic reasons. But in lieu of this, I'll probably drop a couple scenes down.

And it's funny you feel that I may be a person that watches these films to be entertained. I never youtube, vimeo, unless it's a short film from someone I know or a forum.
And to end, I would say that your claim that everyone is on an equal playing field is wrong. If anything, the playing field is comprised of the entire spectrum of film-makers. You have people shooting on Super8's, HV20/30's, high-end panavisions. Some have no accessories, some have just a mic, and some have full audio/lighting systems. You have people just throwing music together with pictures, people re-dubbing cartoons, everything. There are different expectations for every piece of work, and since the film-maker seemed to attest to its 'better' quality, I was judging it accordingly.

[ddavidd20]

Wow!.... man, you need to relax...go find a relaxing outdoor hobby or something.

tcindie, well done!! i really enjoyed your work!!

lol, i play basketball, soccer, ultimate pretty regularly. sorry but I can come off as overly critical.