Saw this coming from your video on Set-Ups & Punchlines (which was excellent btw). You mentioned you didn't think this was a particularly good short film, and I think I know why you might feel that way: a) nondiegetic music detracts from the gravity of the situation. It's not that the music is bad, it's just not the place for it given the goal is something subtle, which leads me to b) subtleness in film is not just a function of form, but of its sublimation in the totality of its content. Consider NCFOM: Anton's character is built over his overarching personality and actions. It's the fact he is methodical in everything he does that leads us to get a true sense of him, which legitimizes the punchline from simply "character trope fulfilment" to "meaningful realization"- we've grown to learn about the world of the film and in a sense are "tricked" into seeing the characters as people. So to put that into something actionable, b) would be more easily expressed with a few more scenes that help give a sense of this character in that "show, don't tell" manner. Maybe they're having VPN stuff on their computer to show how paranoid they are about privacy, maybe there is diegetic music in the airpods and he constantly takes them out when he thinks someone is there, etc. But even more importantly, scenes without the character that gestures viewers towards paranoid thinking/uneasy feelings (e.g., a shot at night with something moving but innocuous, you already somewhat achieved that with the door but again it was on the nose as to the main character's behavior, think something along David Lynch's line where he's able to make the viewer uncomfortable by something completely mundane, etc.) Creating the punchline can be backed up by creating the world- the punchline will be subtle and hit that much harder as it will be grounded in a realism (or, a "film-centric realism". But yeah! Great stuff regardless! Just thought I'd share my 2 cents.
I feel like he made me a bit paranoid with the camera lingering after he entered the shed, gesturing that someone else was there, and then following that up with when the character goes to check if anyone is there, the camera is in that position it gestured towards before, almost as if that was the view of the person watching him
@@pauldakim1454 Sure Paul. We normally conceive of content as just "the stuff in the film" or more bluntly "the stuff exactly on the screen" but I'm taking it a step further: content is also the conceptual data we place into the film (good films /validate/ this content as the film goes on). So when I see Anton on screen, I start to process his actions and believe certain things about him in a very strong manner: I think he's ruthless, methodical, and paradoxically arbitrary in his elaborate system of rules in life or death matters. Good films guide us and therefore sublimate our thoughts into the film and builds a logic. Every time I am met with Anton, I believe exactly and anticipate exactly his actions. The best films will create motifs or patterns so we can begin to make connections. The film then rewards our mental activity by confirming them, this grounds our logic into the film and makes us part of the totality of the film. The viewer's sense of the world is expanded and integrated into the world of the film. I know Anton just as well as the directors do, or just as well as a character in the movie does. It's all equal footing, I'm not just an observer anymore. We sublimate on levels of the psychological (I think such-and-such about this person and how they will behave later, I "profile" this character) but also on the level of stories and morality (the bad guy is gunna get it in the end, there is a rise and a fall and a recovery, etc.). We can apply this idea of sublimation in a lot of places- and I suppose it being good or bad is up to your particular taste. But for example, we see the hero of a story and our internal logic dictates this hero will make it to their goal and do what they were destined to do. This might be super boring after a while (again, this part is just about taste), so sometimes the rejection of sublimation can shock the viewer and reject their own content, thus making them reinterpret everything (NCFOM has a perfect example of this with the protag's off-screen fate, or even Game of Thrones' S1 ending is another example of rejection playing out in a devastating manner). Sometimes rejected sublimation is purposeful and does a great job, but other times it falls flat. Bad films will neglect giving people the opportunity to sublimate, or will lead them astray in a very unsatisfying manner and reject any ideas you may have while seeing the film. I find films where unbelievable events occur because I disagree with the film's logic tend to suffer greatly (think actions films where the protagonist is very weak/inept, but they somehow avoid all enemy attacks from incredibly power foes who has killed dozens or hundreds- the amount I have to concede just outweighs what I really think would happen, and I am immediately distanced from the film). NCFOM surprised me, but it didn't exactly disappoint me or deceive in a cheap or ridiculous manner. So to sum up: the totality of a film's contents includes both the thoughts we as the viewer have, and the stuff that occurs on screen. Good films will sublimate our thoughts meaningfully, either by toying with them in a satisfying way, or confirming them and invites us into its world.
@@nicholastessier8504 Wow, this is such an extremely insightful response and it truly has helped me to understand this concept better. Your time will not go unappreciated, thank you!
Wow I really love it man!! That light in and of itself has so much wonder/threat. Great example of how in low budget filmaking less is more through ambiguity
I think the most obvious criticism that has probably been repeated ad nauseum by now is that the sound design could use some tweaking, the persistent tune that can be heard throughout does set the atmosphere somewhat but it also takes you out of it. One more thing to note on that might be that, keeping in mind you made these sounds yourself, that you shouldn't be afraid to cut something that you put a lot of effort into when it doesn't fit the final product.
A thought. Watch it with silence. Work out where you want a sound effect beat (the click of the outdoor light going on as an example). Work out how many times the beat happens and place the sound at those beats. Then structure the rest of the sound design around that. The music was a little too on/off and distracted from the visual stoy telling for me and in doing so i lost the visual "beat" of the end light coming on. Signal to noise ratio in communication. The signal is the light on by motion and he isnt the motion, the noise is everything else to make that distinct. Great idea and curious if you come back and re do later and work out what visual/audio language you have gained or lost along the way.
I would love a video of you explaining how you created tension in this film. I know the score goes along way but theres definitely alot more to it that i cant put my finger on.
I think the music was actually the weakest part. It never seemed to let me be in the moment, but insinuated itself into every shot. Literally no music at all, or some kind of low-key bells or something, sparsely used, may have been better.
It twas smee. He he he. Oscars for shorts go most often to visual stories. Pixar’s animated shorts rarely have words. Good to get into the science and language of film. Study Korea. Their technicals are amazing.
Saw this coming from your video on Set-Ups & Punchlines (which was excellent btw). You mentioned you didn't think this was a particularly good short film, and I think I know why you might feel that way:
a) nondiegetic music detracts from the gravity of the situation. It's not that the music is bad, it's just not the place for it given the goal is something subtle, which leads me to
b) subtleness in film is not just a function of form, but of its sublimation in the totality of its content. Consider NCFOM: Anton's character is built over his overarching personality and actions. It's the fact he is methodical in everything he does that leads us to get a true sense of him, which legitimizes the punchline from simply "character trope fulfilment" to "meaningful realization"- we've grown to learn about the world of the film and in a sense are "tricked" into seeing the characters as people.
So to put that into something actionable, b) would be more easily expressed with a few more scenes that help give a sense of this character in that "show, don't tell" manner. Maybe they're having VPN stuff on their computer to show how paranoid they are about privacy, maybe there is diegetic music in the airpods and he constantly takes them out when he thinks someone is there, etc. But even more importantly, scenes without the character that gestures viewers towards paranoid thinking/uneasy feelings (e.g., a shot at night with something moving but innocuous, you already somewhat achieved that with the door but again it was on the nose as to the main character's behavior, think something along David Lynch's line where he's able to make the viewer uncomfortable by something completely mundane, etc.) Creating the punchline can be backed up by creating the world- the punchline will be subtle and hit that much harder as it will be grounded in a realism (or, a "film-centric realism".
But yeah! Great stuff regardless! Just thought I'd share my 2 cents.
Really appreciate this comment.
I feel like he made me a bit paranoid with the camera lingering after he entered the shed, gesturing that someone else was there, and then following that up with when the character goes to check if anyone is there, the camera is in that position it gestured towards before, almost as if that was the view of the person watching him
Would you mind explaining what you mean by "sublimation in the totality of its content?"
@@pauldakim1454 Sure Paul. We normally conceive of content as just "the stuff in the film" or more bluntly "the stuff exactly on the screen" but I'm taking it a step further: content is also the conceptual data we place into the film (good films /validate/ this content as the film goes on). So when I see Anton on screen, I start to process his actions and believe certain things about him in a very strong manner: I think he's ruthless, methodical, and paradoxically arbitrary in his elaborate system of rules in life or death matters. Good films guide us and therefore sublimate our thoughts into the film and builds a logic. Every time I am met with Anton, I believe exactly and anticipate exactly his actions.
The best films will create motifs or patterns so we can begin to make connections. The film then rewards our mental activity by confirming them, this grounds our logic into the film and makes us part of the totality of the film. The viewer's sense of the world is expanded and integrated into the world of the film. I know Anton just as well as the directors do, or just as well as a character in the movie does. It's all equal footing, I'm not just an observer anymore.
We sublimate on levels of the psychological (I think such-and-such about this person and how they will behave later, I "profile" this character) but also on the level of stories and morality (the bad guy is gunna get it in the end, there is a rise and a fall and a recovery, etc.).
We can apply this idea of sublimation in a lot of places- and I suppose it being good or bad is up to your particular taste. But for example, we see the hero of a story and our internal logic dictates this hero will make it to their goal and do what they were destined to do. This might be super boring after a while (again, this part is just about taste), so sometimes the rejection of sublimation can shock the viewer and reject their own content, thus making them reinterpret everything (NCFOM has a perfect example of this with the protag's off-screen fate, or even Game of Thrones' S1 ending is another example of rejection playing out in a devastating manner). Sometimes rejected sublimation is purposeful and does a great job, but other times it falls flat.
Bad films will neglect giving people the opportunity to sublimate, or will lead them astray in a very unsatisfying manner and reject any ideas you may have while seeing the film. I find films where unbelievable events occur because I disagree with the film's logic tend to suffer greatly (think actions films where the protagonist is very weak/inept, but they somehow avoid all enemy attacks from incredibly power foes who has killed dozens or hundreds- the amount I have to concede just outweighs what I really think would happen, and I am immediately distanced from the film). NCFOM surprised me, but it didn't exactly disappoint me or deceive in a cheap or ridiculous manner.
So to sum up: the totality of a film's contents includes both the thoughts we as the viewer have, and the stuff that occurs on screen. Good films will sublimate our thoughts meaningfully, either by toying with them in a satisfying way, or confirming them and invites us into its world.
@@nicholastessier8504 Wow, this is such an extremely insightful response and it truly has helped me to understand this concept better. Your time will not go unappreciated, thank you!
Hell of a jumping off point. Keep it up... love the style.
Thanks man!!
Wow I really love it man!! That light in and of itself has so much wonder/threat. Great example of how in low budget filmaking less is more through ambiguity
Slick film...stumbled on Setups & Punchlines earlier and subscribed. nice job.
I think the most obvious criticism that has probably been repeated ad nauseum by now is that the sound design could use some tweaking, the persistent tune that can be heard throughout does set the atmosphere somewhat but it also takes you out of it. One more thing to note on that might be that, keeping in mind you made these sounds yourself, that you shouldn't be afraid to cut something that you put a lot of effort into when it doesn't fit the final product.
A thought.
Watch it with silence.
Work out where you want a sound effect beat (the click of the outdoor light going on as an example).
Work out how many times the beat happens and place the sound at those beats.
Then structure the rest of the sound design around that.
The music was a little too on/off and distracted from the visual stoy telling for me and in doing so i lost the visual "beat" of the end light coming on.
Signal to noise ratio in communication. The signal is the light on by motion and he isnt the motion, the noise is everything else to make that distinct.
Great idea and curious if you come back and re do later and work out what visual/audio language you have gained or lost along the way.
Love it man. Nice shots, cool style, keep going! Will be following your progress
Thank you!!
glad i found your channel, brilliant content all around :)
incredible pay off when that motion light turns on at the end. Well set up!
Thank you!
For as simple as it is, I thought it was really good. You make me want to do this.
Excited for this channel. Well done mate.
I would love a video of you explaining how you created tension in this film. I know the score goes along way but theres definitely alot more to it that i cant put my finger on.
Hahah he did
Very nicely done mate. Instantly subscribed! 👍 What's your next challenge / lesson?
great work!
oooh that rising dread!
Spooky scary 🙀
Awesome.
Go Off King. I liked it very much, coming this far on your own is something to be proud of
Great soundtrack where did you get it from
I think the music was actually the weakest part. It never seemed to let me be in the moment, but insinuated itself into every shot. Literally no music at all, or some kind of low-key bells or something, sparsely used, may have been better.
It twas smee. He he he.
Oscars for shorts go most often to visual stories. Pixar’s animated shorts rarely have words. Good to get into the science and language of film. Study Korea. Their technicals are amazing.
🍿🍿🍿🍿
This scares me more than half of “horror/thriller movies” that are out these days. Fantastic stuffs man!
hmm.. I see potential here
Sorry, don't understand it.
Someone set off the motion light at the end. He was being followed, or at least it's very likely
🍿🍿🍿🍿