we(lee thorburn and i) shot it for school. we were given certain guidelines(2 mins time limit, among other things) and weren't allowed to use audio with the exception of non-copyrighted music(luckily my starring actor and i are both musical and were able to write all the music for the film). this is just a 30 sec teaser, the whole film will be up sometime in november. i'll let you know when, but until then, just enjoy this clip and try and guess what the story is. hah.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRrK8Lui2I8

-b

Nice job. A few problems I see...

In the shot of the actor and the church his nose is touching the steeple. This is a basic compostion no-no in all 2D art. Either give it some space or overlap. Don't have objects just touch each other or the edge of the frame unless an unsettling effect is what you are going for, but even then if you are going to break a rule, you'd better know what you are doing.

The blackouts might be more powerful if they were accompanied with a sound of some kind. See just about EVERY modern trailer around these days!

Most important problem I see is...I have no idea what it's about! A trailer needs to tease the story. This one is too obscure.

An an example, here's trailer from my recent documentary. Using only voices from the doc, with no voice over I attempted to draw the viewer into the story. See if you think I did the job well...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=r-tRhKKoIFQ

Agreed , the trailer needs to tease the STORY I have no idea what it's about?

The composition also needs some work on some of the shots.

I think you're on the right track though...Keep at it.

.....wow.....body building is digusting.....

..i just threw up in my mouth a little.


all i hear in every film class i've ever had are "the basic rules are... and you should never do..blah blah." but when i look at some of the most recognized filmmakers and movies out there, the ones that get the most praise, attention and reaction are the ones that break the rules! so not to undermine your attention to detail, but once you're aware of "the rules", i believe the best thing you can do is challenge them!

...though, the steeple was unintentional, that was just due to the fact that seeing through the view finder of the Bolex is near impossible,...not to mention that moving subjects tend to, well, move,..AND that 50$ gets you 2 mins and 45seconds of film! so no chance for retakes and and any errors, we had to live with!

and sorry mark, i wont say what it's about, and with only 2 mins of silent footy to cut, i couldnt put any more in the teaser without giving away the whole story.

thanks for the feedback!

.all i hear in every film class i've ever had are "the basic rules are... and you should never do..blah blah."

Well, they are just "basic rules." It just means they are basic, not restrictive. Robert McKee said it best: “they are not rules, they are principles that have worked for centuries.”

No one is asking you to copy what others have done, but there is a fundamental difference here you may not acknowledge. The basic structure of story telling is limited. The execution thereof is not. You can execute a murder mystery story a million ways, but the basic fundamental story line will remain the same, as in “whodunnit.”

There is also something to having “A” story, rather, what you have here, which is “NO” story in a trailer. I happened to agree with the others, it just seem to be random obscure images without any indication of what they are related to. Is that going to attract anyone? I doubt it, for maybe your friends and family and if that is what you are seeking (limited exposure) then who is to argue with you?

There is such thing as a basic structure, which you can as an individual choose to execute whichever way you want, but to throw out such structure will do yourself a disservice as a filmmaker. A 3-act story, beginning, middle, and end is just there to guide you through you telling your story. You can start with the end if you want, or the middle, BUT without a story you really have nothing but obscurity, which obviously there is a audience for, however, small.

Its like a joke without a punch line. It just feels unfulfilled. Can it be done? Of course, but will it succeed? Probably not. You wouldn’t just tell jokes with no punch lines just to be rebellious, would you? At least I wouldn’t see the point in that.

.but when i look at some of the most recognized filmmakers and movies out there, the ones that get the most praise, attention and reaction are the ones that break the rules! so not to undermine your attention to detail, but once you're aware of "the rules", i believe the best thing you can do is challenge them!

I’m not sure I agree with you. The filmmakers that break rules, don’t break the rules everyone here is talking about. Quentin Tarrentino may break rules, but they are rules in the way he tells the STORY, not story telling as a whole. Spike Jonez may break the rules in the WAY he is telling the story, but there is still a 3-act story there. Just to have random images would not be very entertaining.

A side note: Spike and Charlie kinda of made fun of this whole rebelious argument "not to follow the rules" in Adaptation, but realized that you would have nothing without it. Watch that movie if you haven't already seen it.

and sorry mark, i wont say what it's about, and with only 2 mins of silent footy to cut, i couldnt put any more in the teaser without giving away the whole story.

“The whole story”. Your trailer had no story. Even a hint would have been nice. Like they said, a teaser, something, to give us an idea of what is coming. I’m not sure why you are making a trailer for a 2 minute short. Just seems strange, but maybe it was part of your project. Anyway, good luck with it.

.....wow.....body building is digusting.....

..i just threw up in my mouth a little.

Maybe so, but can you tell what the story is about? I guarantee I did not give it away...not by a long shot.


...but once you're aware of "the rules", i believe the best thing you can do is challenge them!


Brian why did you post here? To get a pat on the back or constructive criticism? Do you realize that you rejected all the advice that Mark and I gave you? You've basically said "I'm going to do what I want to do" and "The cropping wasn't my fault".

Ahhh...youth! I remember when I was young and in my first band. Our band was going to be DIFFERENT! "F**K the 'rules', man! We're going to make music OUR way!" And we did. When I listen back to it now find that it has the same enthusiastic yet disjointed quality that your trailer has.

What you must come to realize is that what we call the "rules" aren't rules at all. They are tried and true methods of doing things that have proven to work time and time again. All of the filmmakers you admire don't break the rules, they master them and then bend them in one way or another. By stringing together somewhat unrelated images with no attempt at telling a story you will not produce something new...you'll produce boredom. The viewer won't care what happens next. That's just a fact of human nature that we as storytellers must learn to manipulate to our advantage.

You need to study the art of montage...how one image affects the perception of the image that follows. You need to look at more 2D art to refine your compostional skills. You need to watch a lot more trailers with the concept of teasing a story in mind. Teasing a story without giving it away...that's your challenge.


www.mikepulcinella.com
http://www.myspace.com/raisingthebar123

wow, umm..sorry? i didnt mean to reject your criticism, i've been stressed from midterms and papers so i apologize if my previous message came off negatively. i appreciate the comments even if i argue them, thats just my lack of sleep talking! haha

there was no real point to making a trailer, it was made as an inside joke amongst my friends, i just wanted to share it with you guys cause i was stoked about having shot my first 16mm project and since everyone here is always raving about achieving the "film look", i just wanted to post some actual FILM.

in regards to the whole basic rules thing and those mentioned directors, it deserves to be another thread entirely. anyone down for starting it??

It's cool. I know the effects of sleep deprivation, believe me! I also know how tone can be misconstrued on the internet.

Most of us on the forum are striving to push things to the next level so if you post something you'd better be prepared to have some very talented and knowledgable people dissect it! I've been doing this for a few years now and every time I put up one of my vids for scrutiny I learn something new.

On the plus side your "actual film look" does look good! I applaud you for taking the more difficult road. Still, one of the things that really makes any image come alive is good composition. Take a look at this excerpt I discovered from Brian Duke's feature film. Even though it's only four people talking in a room, each shot is expertly composed within the frame.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjKTgOSY9Ls

yeah, i agree, it's really easy to mis read msgs online, i'm in class right now and youtube doesnt load very fast so i'll watch it when i get home.

oh and i forgot to mention it earlier but your trailer is cut really well, how long is the whole video? if i had to guess i'd say half an hour? 40 mins?

oh and i forgot to mention it earlier but your trailer is cut really well, how long is the whole video? if i had to guess i'd say half an hour? 40 mins?

Thanks, I appreciate that. It took a lot of time and I watched a lot of trailers.

RAISING THE BAR 2 is 1 hour and 41 minutes, with 10 minutes of deleted scenes. It's a feature length documentary, the second in a series of three that I have been shooting since early 2004.

More clips can be found here...

http://youtube.com/profile?user=gatomjp

...and it can be purchased here...

http://www.mesomorphosis.com/store/videos/dave-pulcinella-raising-the-bar-2.html


Any time you want to discuss your work let me know...but be ready to really get into it, ya know what I mean? I love this s**t and I'm serious about it! :-)

I JUST got the body building comment from Bryan above. Yeah I can see how that would come off personal. Didn't realize that was work of Michael.

The bottom line is that most filmmakers, at least when they start out, suffer from tunnel vision. What they have in their mind will never end up onscreen, but they don't know that yet until they are humbled by the tedious experience of making a film. I was guilty of that myself and still is to some extend. I.e. you think you are "just going to do this and you'll have something great." Boy, are you in for a surprise. I have gotten much better and continue to do, but that only comes from being able to step back and take an objective point of view of my work AND also listen to what others have to say.

Lessons learned:

1. Exhaust every potential maximum idea and character writing the script.
2. Take your time to cast the right people.
3. Rehearse, rehearse, and rehearse. Study the characters and explore the material and discover new things and potential problems before you get on set.
4. Don’t be married to every detail. Learn to let go of the minor to archive the major.
5. Don’t sacrifice your art. Film is forever.
6. Don’t make excuses. Audiences don’t care about them.

I JUST got the body building comment from Bryan above. Yeah I can see how that would come off personal. Didn't realize that was work of Michael.

The bottom line is that most filmmaker, at least when they start out, suffer from tunnel vision. What they have in their mind will never end up onscreen, but they don't know that yet until they are humbled by the tedious experience of making a film. I was guilty of that myself and still is to some extend. I.e. you think you are "just going to do this and you'll have something great." Boy, are you in for a surprise. I have gotten much better and continue to do, but that only comes from being able to step back and take an objective point of view of my work AND also listen to what others have to say.

Lessons learned:

1. Exhaust every potential maximum idea and character writing the script.
2. Take your time to cast the right people.
3. Rehearse, rehearse, and rehearse. Study the characters and explore the material and discover new things and potential problems before you get on set.
4. Don’t be married to every detail. Learn to let go of the minor to archive the major.
5. Don’t sacrifice your art. Film is forever.
6. Don’t make excuses. Audiences don’t care about them.

Great advice.

There's also an excitement at seeing your first work on the screen that can blind you to how good or bad it is. It's a thrill finally putting it all together and seeing it come to life. But it sometimes takes many many attempts until that same exctement is sparked in a viewer who had nothing to do with the creation of the piece. The few times it all comes together in just the right way are so satisfying that we as artists will chase that high forever.

There's also an excitement at seeing your first work on the screen that can blind you to how good or bad it is.

Its kinda like seeing a your baby born for the first time, even though it may be ugly as hell, you don't see it. =) Reminds me of that Seinfeld episode with the Baaaaeeebieee...

Its kinda like seeing a your baby born for the first time, even though it may be ugly as hell, you don't see it. =) Reminds me of that Seinfeld episode with the Baaaaeeebieee...

LOL! "Have you SEEN the baby? You gotta SEE the baby!"

michael, i watched that clip you posted, the first thing i noticed was that the lighting was really nice, and the framing was generic (not necessarily in a bad way) but what i did notice was that ive been trained into cutting so that the subjects move from shot to shot, back and forth amongst the thirds of the frame, and in the clip it often cuts and your focus is left in the center of the frame, it wasnt a big deal really, but it was one of the only things that i could pick on! heh.

and out of curiosity i'd like to know what you think of these two trailers:

http://www.liberatedfilms.com/film-62841-The%20Brown%20Bunny%20-%20Trailer
and
http://www.cinemovies.fr/fiche_multimedia.php?IDfilm=1982

i dont know if you've seen that movie, if you havent, dont worry, most people didnt like it(lol). but i happen to be a fan of his and remember when the trailers came out that i watched them over and over, and i was totally fixated on the fact that i couldnt figure out what the hell it was about! i guess thats sort of how i'm justifying my trailer with the lack of story embedded in it! :)

here's another clip of the same flick,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96cYks-Z0EE

michael, i watched that clip you posted, the first thing i noticed was that the lighting was really nice, and the framing was generic (not necessarily in a bad way) but what i did notice was that ive been trained into cutting so that the subjects move from shot to shot, back and forth amongst the thirds of the frame, and in the clip it often cuts and your focus is left in the center of the frame, it wasnt a big deal really, but it was one of the only things that i could pick on! heh.

Are you referring to the clip he posted of my film, or his? If its mine I'll be very upset. I don't like negative feedback..... kidding of course.

heh, sorry brian, yes i was speaking of your film, but as i noted, it was difficult to pick out anything negative from what i saw! overall great work! again, the lighting really stood out, did you light it yourself or was that all on location lighting?

heh, sorry brian, yes i was speaking of your film, but as i noted, it was difficult to pick out anything negative from what i saw! overall great work! again, the lighting really stood out, did you light it yourself or was that all on location lighting?

I had a gaffer and a couple of grips to light it. We had a crew of about 15 people and yes it was on location. A lot of the work was done in camera and in post. Don't worry, you can pull my work apart and if you make a valid point I will probably make changes. Its just 45 sec out of a 85 mini feature film.

d

michael, i watched that clip you posted, the first thing i noticed was that the lighting was really nice, and the framing was generic (not necessarily in a bad way) but what i did notice was that ive been trained into cutting so that the subjects move from shot to shot, back and forth amongst the thirds of the frame, and in the clip it often cuts and your focus is left in the center of the frame, it wasnt a big deal really, but it was one of the only things that i could pick on! heh.

and out of curiosity i'd like to know what you think of these two trailers:

http://www.liberatedfilms.com/film-62841-The%20Brown%20Bunny%20-%20Trailer
and
http://www.cinemovies.fr/fiche_multimedia.php?IDfilm=1982

i dont know if you've seen that movie, if you havent, dont worry, most people didnt like it(lol). but i happen to be a fan of his and remember when the trailers came out that i watched them over and over, and i was totally fixated on the fact that i couldnt figure out what the hell it was about! i guess thats sort of how i'm justifying my trailer with the lack of story embedded in it! :)

Upon second viewing I see what you mean about Brian's clip. In his defense it does say that it is a rough cut so maybe some of those cutting problems will get fixed, although I didn't find myself too distracted by them. The main reason I wanted you to see it was for the framing and for you to realize that you had someone with some skill giving you advice. This was at the point that I thought that you were being dense and not listening. I know now that's not the case.

I have not see The Brown Bunny, but I have heard a lot about it. You are right, those trailers are not your run-of-the-mill trailer that tells almost all of the story. They are both quite obscure but I think they both still bend the rules rather than break them.

The first trailer is a "teaser" in the truest sense of the word. It doesn't show much of the film but instead capitalizes on the controversial publicity that TBB had gotten and teases us with the idea that "THEY don't want you to see this". The assumption is that the viewer already knows, or will be compelled to find out, what is so controversial about TBB and will go to see it based only on that. The "story" being teased in this case is the media's story about the film.

I was unable to play the second trailer from the French website but I believe that I found it on Google. The one I watched had a split screen with an endless road trip on one side and a drug party gone wrong on the other.

I see now what you were going for with your trailer and you weren't as far off the mark as I thought. And yet I still think yours is too vague. You don't think that the second TBB trailer tells a story?? It sure does! Not as much as most Hollywood trailers for sure, but there is certainly enough there for me to get a good idea what kind of a world I will be entering into if I watch this movie. I know that something tragic happens, drugs are involved and that someone is running away from or toward something. It's subtle, that is true, but brilliant and compelling as well. I can see why you were drawn to it.

i believe at one time i saw another trailer for BB that was again, only long takes of him driving, with jump cuts and shaky bad framing... i couldnt find it though...
anyways, the other trailer with the party scene doesnt really show much of the film at all, it tells you that something bad happens but not what, to who or why it's relevant, in other words it's extremely vague.

it's sort of ridiculous that we've debated so long about content and my trailer specifically, cause when you see the whole film you'll finally understand why i couldnt show more than i did, the story is uber simple and could easily have been given away in the teaser by showing one crucial shot, and without that one shot there is no story, it's just a guy walking and running around. hahahah.

(and i hope you didnt get the impression that i'm a newb to the whole filming thing, even though i'm young, i've been studying in film for the past 5 years and i've been filming for the past 6-7. so i'm well aware of what constitutes good and bad within the art of it all. this was just my first attempt with actual film and we were encouraged to be experimental when it came to framing shots, etc.. thats why we didnt double, triple and quadruple check our composition, etc... (and either way i appreciate your actions in terms of criticism and that you were just trying to help out))

and brian, what camera did you shoot that with? it sorta looks like the hvx?

i believe at one time i saw another trailer for BB that was again, only long takes of him driving, with jump cuts and shaky bad framing... i couldnt find it though...
anyways, the other trailer with the party scene doesnt really show much of the film at all, it tells you that something bad happens but not what, to who or why it's relevant, in other words it's extremely vague.

it's sort of ridiculous that we've debated so long about content and my trailer specifically, cause when you see the whole film you'll finally understand why i couldnt show more than i did, the story is uber simple and could easily have been given away in the teaser by showing one crucial shot, and without that one shot there is no story, it's just a guy walking and running around. hahahah.

(and i hope you didnt get the impression that i'm a newb to the whole filming thing, even though i'm young, i've been studying in film for the past 5 years and i've been filming for the past 6-7. so i'm well aware of what constitutes good and bad within the art of it all. this was just my first attempt with actual film and we were encouraged to be experimental when it came to framing shots, etc.. thats why we didnt double, triple and quadruple check our composition, etc... (and either way i appreciate your actions in terms of criticism and that you were just trying to help out))

and brian, what camera did you shoot that with? it sorta looks like the hvx?


I realize all those things now and I don't want to give the impression that I am still beating you up about your trailer. I think you've established what your limitations were and we can move on from there. But I also feel that this has morphed into an interesting and productive conversation about vague vs explicit trailers in general and I'm enjoying talking about it with you.

Upon second viewing I see what you mean about Brian's clip. In his defense it does say that it is a rough cut so maybe some of those cutting problems will get fixed, although I didn't find myself too distracted by them.

Hey Michael,

I was trying to understand what Bryan was talking about with the cutting, but i am not sure I understand what both of you are saying. Can you guys be a little more specific so i could poteentially fix any problems, if there are any.

Thanks

it's sort of ridiculous that we've debated so long about content and my trailer specifically

Bryan,

Please don’t take it as we were trying to beat you up. In fact you don’t have to take anything we say to heart, but I will say this; I have seen people post here without ANY feedback and complain, and people that when they get negative feedback complain too so its hard to win here LOL

Personally I would welcome it cause its hard to find honest people around, or even harder, people that can articulate how to improve the film.

and brian, what camera did you shoot that with? it sorta looks like the hvx?

I used the JVC HD-200 with the Mini35 adapter. But like I said, a lot of “in camera” and post work to get it look like it does.

heh, well to be honest, i think i'd rather get negative criticism, it's more amusing to talk about, as we can all see by this thread! you know, it's nice to get good feedback to but what can you say besides "thanks"? you know what i mean?


anyways, brian, basically what i meant was in regards to this:
visual the screen as being divided into three vertical rectangles, from left to right. you've got on the left part one, in the middle part 2 and the right part three. follow? good.
now hypothetically, if your opening shot has a subject in the middle of the frame (part 2). then you'd want your next shot to move the viewers attention to another third of the frame, either screen left(part 1) or screen right(part 2). and by doing so you keep your viewers attention by making their eyes bounce their attention from quadrant to quadrant. in simpler terms, make the viewers keep their eyes moving.
i happened to notice in your trailer you had a few cuts where my eyes stayed locked in the middle of the screen although the angle, person and shot had changed. (it's not necessarily an undesirable effect, and if you think about it, it's the essence of the jump cut, right? but when you're not jump cutting its visually appealing to jump back and forth across your frame.)
does that help?


on a side note, did you guys see that trailer for the bob dylan movie? i really liked it, i'm guessing the film will shift through his life and the actors change as he ages, though it would be cool if there was no correlation between actors and years, though that would be confusing..haha

by the way brian, that setup sounds amazing. i'm freakin' jealous! haha

heh, well to be honest, i think i'd rather get negative criticism, it's more amusing to talk about, as we can all see by this thread! you know, it's nice to get good feedback to but what can you say besides "thanks"? you know what i mean?

That’s what I have been telling everyone forever. How can you improve on ”great work”? I want people to point out every flaw there is so I can FIX THEM. Isn’t that the point of filmmaking; to improve your film and make it the best film possible? I think so. Of course its nice to hear that you succeeded, but I don’t want to hear it if it isn’t true. I sometimes post and get no feedback. There are only really a few on these threads that actually take the time out to watch the film and give some constructive criticism. That’s why I say you should welcome feedback, regardless of what it may be. Most don’t bother watching it, or even leaving feedback. Most times its because they don’t like it and are probably afraid to tell the person. Then again, how many people truly appreciate honesty about themselves or their work or art? Most people take it as a personal attack, which it is far from.


now hypothetically, if your opening shot has a subject in the middle of the frame (part 2). then you'd want your next shot to move the viewers attention to another third of the frame, either screen left(part 1) or screen right(part 2). and by doing so you keep your viewers attention by making their eyes bounce their attention from quadrant to quadrant. in simpler terms, make the viewers keep their eyes moving.

I think I understand you. You basically mean that you should keep subjects in different parts of the frame to keep the viewer more interested and engaged, correct? Never thought of it. I usually just frame and compose the shot how I feel, but it is certainly a valid point that I will keep in mind. Although I do think I have a lot of that already.


on a side note, did you guys see that trailer for the bob dylan movie? i really liked it, i'm guessing the film will shift through his life and the actors change as he ages, though it would be cool if there was no correlation between actors and years, though that would be confusing..haha

I haven’t seen it, but I heard it was not good.

I'd like to add to Bryan's post about the cuts in the clip.

What he's talking about sounds a lot like something I read in the book "The Conversations: Walter Murch and the Art of Editing Film". In it Murch explains that we as editors must be aware of the focal point of our screen as it moves about and be sure to have it move smoothly throughout the frame as the cuts happen.

In other words, if our compostition leads the eye to the upper right corner of the screen to watch someone speak and then we cut to a car speeding away, ideally the car should begin in the upper right before moving across the screen.

To me this seems like a very restrictive "rule"; a rule that is broken on a regular basis. On my first viewing of the clip I found the cutting to work well with the dialog and the energy in the room. If my eye was forced to jump around the screen at any point I didn't notice it.

Now that I think of it, the rule may apply less to Youtube because of the small size of the screen. In a theater with a Cinemascope screen that fills our vision one could produce whiplash in an audience if the editing constantly forced them to shift their gaze from one side of the sceen to the other! On Youtube the screen is so small that we can easily follow the cuts no matter how the focal point moves. Maybe Murch's "rule" was developed for the big screen and doesn't hold as true for a clip like this.

Just my 2 cents.

I'd like to add to Bryan's post about the cuts in the clip.

What he's talking about sounds a lot like something I read in the book "The Conversations: Walter Murch and the Art of Editing Film". In it Murch explains that we as editors must be aware of the focal point of our screen as it moves about and be sure to have it move smoothly throughout the frame as the cuts happen.

In other words, if our compostition leads the eye to the upper right corner of the screen to watch someone speak and then we cut to a car speeding away, ideally the car should begin in the upper right before moving across the screen.

To me this seems like a very restrictive "rule"; a rule that is broken on a regular basis. On my first viewing of the clip I found the cutting to work well with the dialog and the energy in the room. If my eye was forced to jump around the screen at any point I didn't notice it.

Now that I think of it, the rule may apply less to Youtube because of the small size of the screen. In a theater with a Cinemascope screen that fills our vision one could produce whiplash in an audience if the editing constantly forced them to shift their gaze from one side of the sceen to the other! On Youtube the screen is so small that we can easily follow the cuts no matter how the focal point moves. Maybe Murch's "rule" was developed for the big screen and doesn't hold as true for a clip like this.

Just my 2 cents.

I second that, and I will add that essentially you edit a movie until the cuts feel right for the pleasing eye, but also to move the story and performances too. Sometimes crazy confusing cuts can make an impact. This is not the case with my clip though. I have been pretty good at advancing in my editing skills, (still have more to learn), but I do cut as i feel right.

The points you guys made are certainly good and I am going to be more aware of that in the future. Watch some of the newer "documentary style films" like 21 grams, and Bourne Ultimatium. Those films all jump the line, jump cuts etc, but they still work, very well.

Those films all jump the line, jump cuts etc, but they still work, very well.

I think that sometimes a certain kind of jump cut is the new "rule"!

I think that sometimes a certain kind of jump cut is the new "rule"!

Especially with the amount fo people who suffere from ADD. The faster the cuts the more excitment the audience feel. Unfortunately, because i still like the good old pace movies like the Godfather.