Girl A

[Andersens Tears]

A modern silent film, one of 4 that I toured with recently accompanied by a composer/musician who played specially scored music for each film live.

With this film I tried to keep it simple and keep a feeling for silent films from the early days of cinema.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twhrT2Nj ... e=youtu.be

Shot on Wittnerchrome Fuji Professional 64T with a Canon 814XL-S and a Nizo 6056.

Processing by Frank Bruinsma Super 8 Reversal Lab

Scanning by Uppsala Bildteknik AB

[Andersens Tears]

...don't forget to view with 720p resolution!

[grainy]

this contains some of the footage you posted earlier. It all looks very good I think.
I like the resolution of the film too.
One comment - maybe open with the title then the first image, then go to single explanatory title card after that?
But very nice, thanks for posting.
G

[Andersens Tears]

this contains some of the footage you posted earlier. It all looks very good I think.
I like the resolution of the film too.
One comment - maybe open with the title then the first image, then go to single explanatory title card after that?
But very nice, thanks for posting.
G

Hi Grainy! Thanks for watching and posting feedback! Much appreciated!
Yes, there is one whole sequence that I had posted earlier, which is now contained in full here.
I put the single explanitory title card up first as most silent films from the past did this.
Jamie.

[Lunar07]

I LOVE it! I am a fan of your work. Very nice!
Can you point out the shots with Nizo 6056? And I am just curious - why did you use 2 cameras?

[Andersens Tears]

I LOVE it! I am a fan of your work. Very nice!

Well, thank you sir! Glad that somebody is watching out there!

Can you point out the shots with Nizo 6056?

Sure - here you go:-

4:21 - 4:30 Girl running to the bus stop

4:40 - 5:15 Girl on the bus

Did you guess those shots?

And I am just curious - why did you use 2 cameras?

I always have a back up camera with me, but I used the Nizo 6056 in particular on the bus as quite simply it made less noise and drew less attention from the other passengers. The Canon 814XL-S is the better camera in my opinion, but it is nowhere near as quite as the Nizo 6056.

Hope that helps!

[gaugefilm]

The 6056 also has something I like to call "the armpit stabilizer" which comes in handy for shots on bumpy busses

I've been using the 6056 a lot lately and I love it!

And Jamie love the final version!

Kev

[Nigel]

Not bad.

I liked the shots of her on the phone. The lens flare was nice and the movement across her face seemed fitting. The color quality/palette overall was nice but feel like the there could be some contrast and midtone work.

Otherwise it felt kind of static. The shots seemed clunky at times. You said you wanted to use an esthetic of the silent era. There is nothing inherently wrong with that. But, the filmic grammar of 100+ years ago doesn't always mesh well with modern viewers. As a native English speaker it would be akin to reading something from 1600. Can I understand it? Of course. But, is it the best way to tell a story? That's the question. You don't have to make super fast cuts or anything like that.

The camera doesn't have to be set straight on. There didn't seem to be many oblique shots. I could be wrong on that and may see more on a second viewing.

Just some thoughts.

Good Luck

[Andersens Tears]

Not bad.

Thanks Nigel

I liked the shots of her on the phone. The lens flare was nice and the movement across her face seemed fitting.

You picked out the sequence that I was most happy with, and had time to be more creative with. Otherwise I had very little time to shoot ( The daylight hours of 1 day back in the late Autumn) I had the actress for one day and the Actor for 1 hour only. I had limited footage - 6 rolls and needed to achieve many things with it so I kept a lot of it very simple, with a 3:1 shooting ratio. Any big ideas about fancy shots or fancy moves were kept to a minimum. I was also cutting at first by hand with a splicer as the films were shown live from a projector. I had to keep the workload to a minimum.

The color quality/palette overall was nice but feel like the there could be some contrast and midtone work.

I only had the budget for a basic transfer and no time to work with grading.

Otherwise it felt kind of static.

Perhaps, yes, there are a lot of static shots, but these are mainly in the first half as these build up to the moment where the girl makes the decision to do what she does. The second half has a lot more camera movement.

The shots seemed clunky at times.

This is an interesting comment - could you let me know which shots you thought were clunky? I mean I am not taking offence, I really appreciate feedback. It would just be more helpful to me if you could explain which shots and why please.

You said you wanted to use an esthetic of the silent era. There is nothing inherently wrong with that. But, the filmic grammar of 100+ years ago doesn't always mesh well with modern viewers. As a native English speaker it would be akin to reading something from 1600.

Not quite. The English language of 1600 was very well developed and complex. The film language of the early silent era was underdeveloped to begin with, and progressed in leaps and bounds with montage. I would think a more suitable analogy would be that of a child telling the story with their limited vocabulary and inventive use of grammar. But I understand what you are saying. Film language in those early days was akin to theatre - the so called 'Fouth Wall' where the camera was simply set in front of the action and was indeed the 4th wall.

Can I understand it? Of course. But, is it the best way to tell a story? That's the question. You don't have to make super fast cuts or anything like that.

I think perhaps I should have explained a little better about why the films were made and who they were made for - This film was made for a tour, and in the context of the tour ‘The Sound of Silence - a modern silent movie presentation’ the idea of using the asthetic fitted. I was up on stage and was to explain more about the film making process. It was for schools in the county - they were given a 'live' film experience - films projected live from a super 8 projector and accompanied with live music.

The camera doesn't have to be set straight on. There didn't seem to be many oblique shots.

The camera does not always have to be set obliquely either. It depends on what you want to say. Sometimes straight on gives more energy to a shot that an oblique angle would simply loose. In some instances straight on shots are the only way to mask out unwanted items from the shot. It depends on what situations you find yourself in and what you have at your disposal.

The first 3 shots are straight on, but these are confrontational we (the audience) are looking at the girl drinking alcohol. She does not want to make eye contact and she is ashamed. We then cut to a tracking shot which begins with a side on view.

I could be wrong on that and may see more on a second viewing.

Nigel, please I invite you to do so.

Just some thoughts.

I really appreciate the feedback!

Good Luck

Thanks - good to have you back on the forum!

[Andersens Tears]

The 6056 also has something I like to call "the armpit stabilizer" which comes in handy for shots on bumpy busses

Indeed it did just that!

I've been using the 6056 a lot lately and I love it!

I hope you get more out of yours than I did. Mine died after just 10 rolls.

And Jamie love the final version!

Kev

Thanks Kev!

[Lunar07]

Can you point out the shots with Nizo 6056?

Sure - here you go:-

4:21 - 4:30 Girl running to the bus stop

4:40 - 5:15 Girl on the bus

Did you guess those shots?
[\quote]

I did but was not sure. Canon shots look better. You said the Nizo 6056 died after 10 rolls. What happened? Maybe the internal rubber belt that drives the 'thing' broke? The 6056 and 6080 do have a rubber belt and that is why they are super quiet. I personally use the 6056 with the Eumig S128XL and a Moviflex MS8 for backup. I also use the 6056 in public places because it is very quiet, Thus my question to you ;) These Eumig S125XL and S128XL are totally underestimated. They are super fast with F1.2 lenses and they hold up quiet nicely with the aperture fully opened at 1.2
One last question for you: How did you get the wide screen aspect? Did you crop the frame?

I personally did not think it is clunky. I think the clunky factor arises because of certain cuts with the music. Example: at 1:58 - you did not allow for good music transition, You cut with both music and shot which gives a slight effect of clunkiness. So it is more of a feeling than an actual problem with the shots.
All in all, nice and clear and smooth with some good acting from the actors.

As to silent cinema - I do not agree with Nigel about it being akin to some old language. Early into the development of silent cinema, and as you mention in passing, editing was developed into a full blown art by Griffith and later carried to its conclusion by Eisenstein. Both of them acknowledge the influence of Charles Dickens. In addition, Eisenstein acknoweldges the influence of Griffith and the Japanese Kabuki theater. Silent cinema is as sophisticated as cinema goes. One only has to see British silent films, G W Pabst, Chaplin, Keaton, Eisenstein films and other films to appreciate the power of silent films. How about German Expressionism in silent movies.
Silent cinema is MODERN cinema. Voice and dialog is an addition that does not create a radical distinction. This is my opinion on the subject. But my main point is that I believe that silent cinema is quite modern in its language as editing techniques took hold specially with the work of the Russians.

[Andersens Tears]

I did but was not sure. Canon shots look better. You said the Nizo 6056 died after 10 rolls. What happened? Maybe the internal rubber belt that drives the 'thing' broke?

I think actually it was an electronic issue - all of a sudden the camera started making some wierd noises and then the exposures were way out. The drive mechansim would also jam. 8O

How did you get the wide screen aspect? Did you crop the frame?

Yes I cropped in post.

I personally did not think it is clunky. I think the clunky factor arises because of certain cuts with the music. Example: at 1:58 - you did not allow for good music transition, You cut with both music and shot which gives a slight effect of clunkiness. So it is more of a feeling than an actual problem with the shots.
All in all, nice and clear and smooth with some good acting from the actors.

Ahh, I see. Well the music was recorded live at one of the shows and the musician took his cues from what he saw on the screen. I have not edited the music in any way, I have simply laid it on the visuals. I think there might be a problem with the difference in the speed of the projected image and the electronically captured one! I guess I could have corrected, but I thought that that would have been missing the point.

As to silent cinema - I do not agree with Nigel about it being akin to some old language. Early into the development of silent cinema, and as you mention in passing, editing was developed into a full blown art by Griffith and later carried to its conclusion by Eisenstein. Both of them acknowledge the influence of Charles Dickens. In addition, Eisenstein acknoweldges the influence of Griffith and the Japanese Kabuki theater. Silent cinema is as sophisticated as cinema goes. One only has to see British silent films, G W Pabst, Chaplin, Keaton, Eisenstein films and other films to appreciate the power of silent films. How about German Expressionism in silent movies.
Silent cinema is MODERN cinema. Voice and dialog is an addition that does not create a radical distinction. This is my opinion on the subject. But my main point is that I believe that silent cinema is quite modern in its language as editing techniques took hold specially with the work of the Russians.

Thanks for expending on what I mentioned in passing

Thanks for your feedback! Always appreciated!

[Nigel]

I think that the language comparison is applicable.

It has nothing to with how well developed English was in 1600. It is more about whether or not a modern reader/speaker would find it familiar.

Using filmic grammar from 100 years ago is just as odd as a 500 year old text.

The project wasn't bad but simply feel it would be better if you employed modern camera movement, angles and other aspects to an otherwise silent film. If a picture is worth a 1000 words then make pictures that speak with contemporary sensibilities.

Good Luck

[Andersens Tears]

I think that the language comparison is applicable.

It has nothing to with how well developed English was in 1600. It is more about whether or not a modern reader/speaker would find it familiar.

I have to disagree - the analogy is wrong, you are comparing written and spoken language to that of film language. 100 years ago film language was underdeveloped, that would seem strange to a modern viewer. A modern English speaker can read a text from 1600.

Using filmic grammar from 100 years ago is just as odd as a 500 year old text.

I wasn't using filmic grammar from 100 years ago.

The project wasn't bad but simply feel it would be better if you employed modern camera movement, angles and other aspects to an otherwise silent film. If a picture is worth a 1000 words then make pictures that speak with contemporary sensibilities.

That is fair enough, and you have to agree that a sizable amount of that is down to opinion. You feel that the project would have been better if I had employed more modern treatment, but better for whom? I agree that you can use all of these when making a modern silent film, this is not the issue. The point is that on this occasion I decided to make a film using more simple film language, but not primative. As I explained you have to tailor the film making style to the resources and time the time that you have. I had neither the time nor the resources to fanny about with lots of different angles. Most importantly you have to consider the audience and the context in which the film will be shown. You may argue that I am taking the film out of its context by putting it up on youtube, and I won't argue with that.

This film was one of four films that I made. The other three had a modern treatment. I chose to make one of those four films that had more of a resemblence to the films of the early silent era. And why not?

It is all about context as I explained.

Good Luck

Thank you, and again I appreciate your time to watch the film and give me feedback. I really do appreciate it!

Good luck to you too with your feature!

[Lunar07]

I did but was not sure. Canon shots look better. You said the Nizo 6056 died after 10 rolls. What happened? Maybe the internal rubber belt that drives the 'thing' broke?

I think actually it was an electronic issue - all of a sudden the camera started making some wierd noises and then the exposures were way out. The drive mechansim would also jam. 8O

I see. Your camera died with a bang. My cameras usually die with a whimper

Thanks for your feedback! Always appreciated!

It is my pleasure. I love seeing well done shorts shot in Super 8. They seem to be perfect for the format. Long ago there used to be two guys on this forum from Finland who did lots of productions like that in addition to some well done music super8 clips. In addition to Mattias from Sweden who worked with super8 in small film projects.