I made one, that people say I should send into festivals, and the people I made it with, really want me to send it in, but I was wondering if it was the type that most festivals would accept, since it has b-roll footage from other sources, even though it's public domain I'm quite sure from all my research on each source, it's still not my original footage.

Here it is, what do you think?

Battle Damaged Souls - YouTube

It depends on the festival rules, which are usually published from the entry perspective.

Not sure about some of the content though. Are you sure this is all public domain footage? I'll assume it is.

A few questions.

The slo-mo real footage of a guillotine? Is that appropriate?
The pink footage of a black guy presumably about to be hung? Setting aside the actual content, pink seems a very strange choice.

The thing that really got me, as I watched and listened properly to the whole piece was nothing to do with the shooting and editing - it was the content. Rambling and lacking focus. Up to ¾ through I kept asking myself what was the battle damaged link - which only resolved itself when we got to the cemetary. I hadn't made the link at that point. I think the guy who wrote it really feels it, and this kind of drove the flowery, emotive, but sadly pointless script. I quite liked the black shirt against white background, but found it overly dark. His skin rarely got more than mid gray. Some of the clips were clearly old movies but I found making the link difficult? What was the old footage? Nero in Rome, or something similar? The words being spoken and the Hitler translation people/state state/people? What had this to do with the point? as until later it's not resolved.

I have to say I hated the cemetery footage because nobody thought to bring a tripod?? The occasional out of focus moment also throws attention. It also looks like it's been stabilised on the pan through the graves as his head seems to follow a track that's level, but the edges of the picture seem to rotate and gyrate around it, as if it was very wobbly and then had been repaired?. The other thing is the saturation level doesn't;t match the rather washed out feel in the rest?

You've probably already realised that, but the question about B-roll is not about B roll at all is it? There isn't any B roll material, but there is plenty of archive material - some of which could be controversial if the source isn't attributed which lots of archive material does by way of caption or end credit "archive material courtesy of the imperial War Museum" or something similar.

In any form of competition or festival, the rules usually provide for giving credit for technical or artistic work created by the entrant. Using archive material, even if compliant, means the festival committee or judges close their eyes to that content, but how do they know which is which. Hitler is a giveaway, as is the old movies, but how about the shot with blue and red sectors? Did you do that, or is that archive? I guess you - but if that section worked/didn't work it sure puts it under scrutiny.

All I really know is that if I were in the audience, I'd have switched off. It was a bit like going to church and sitting through a boring sermon. The speaker made the classic mistake of not posing a question early on, then building to an answer. He rambled, didn't make any point at all, then sort of drifted to the end with no real direction or point. 5 minutes has elapsed since I watched it, and I can't remember what his point actually was? No matter how good your shooting and editing was, all people remember is the narrative and sadly, it didn't have one. Did it tell a story? Did it have an outcome? Was there resolution? What exactly was the purpose of the short? I have no idea. Rome, Hitler, Capital Punishment, Murder? What was the bit about Battle Damaged Souls meant to mean. Did I miss this bit? I can see this link in the cemetery scene onwards. Up to this point, I didn't see any direction in his script to get there? Would WW1 footage of the somme, or the American wars, or Korea, Vietnam etc have expressed this better than actors pretending to be Romans, or Hitler ranting when scenes from Germany Vs Russia on the eastern front would have told the story better? So much was just confusing or irrelevant.

It depends on the festival rules, which are usually published from the entry perspective.

Not sure about *some of the content though. Are you sure this is all public domain footage? I'll assume it is.

A few questions.

The slo-mo real footage of a guillotine? Is that appropriate?
The pink footage of a black guy presumably about *to be hung? Setting aside the actual content, pink seems a very strange choice.

The thing that really got me, as I watched and listened properly to the whole piece was nothing to do with the shooting and editing - it *was the content. Rambling and lacking focus. Up to ¾ through I kept asking myself what was the battle damaged link - which *only resolved itself when we got to the cemetary. I hadn't made *the link at that point. I think the guy who wrote it really feels it, and *this kind of drove *the flowery, emotive, but sadly pointless script. I quite liked the black shirt against white background, but found it overly dark. His skin rarely got more than *mid gray. Some of the clips were clearly old movies but I found making the *link difficult? What was the old footage? Nero in Rome, or something similar? The words being * spoken and the Hitler translation people/state *state/people? What had this to do with the point? as until later it's not resolved.

I have to say *I hated the cemetery footage because nobody thought to bring a tripod?? The occasional out of focus moment also throws attention. It also looks like it's been stabilised on *the *pan through the graves *as his head seems to follow a track that's level, but the edges of the picture seem to rotate and gyrate around it, as if it was very wobbly and then had been repaired?. The other thing is the saturation level doesn't;t match the rather washed out feel in the *rest?

You've probably already realised that, but the question about B-roll is not about B *roll at all is it? There isn't any B roll material, but there is plenty of archive *material - some of which could be controversial if the source isn't *attributed which lots of archive *material does by way of caption or end credit "archive material courtesy of the imperial War *Museum" or something similar.

In any form of competition or festival, the rules usually *provide for giving credit for technical or artistic work created by the entrant. Using archive *material, even if compliant, means the festival committee or judges close their eyes to that content, but how do they know which is which. Hitler is a giveaway, as is the old movies, but how about the *shot with blue and red sectors? Did you do that, or is that archive? I guess you - but if that section worked/didn't work it sure puts it under scrutiny.

All I really know is that if I were in the audience, I'd have switched off. It was a bit *like going to church and sitting through *a boring sermon. The speaker made the classic mistake of not posing a question early on, then building to an answer. He rambled, didn't make *any point *at all, then sort *of drifted to the end with no real direction or point. *5 minutes has elapsed since I watched it, and I can't remember what his point actually was? No matter how good your shooting and editing was, all people remember is the narrative and sadly, it didn't have one. *Did *it tell a story? Did it have an outcome? Was there resolution? What exactly *was the purpose of the short? I have no idea. Rome, Hitler, Capital Punishment, Murder? What was the bit about Battle Damaged Souls meant to mean. Did I *miss this *bit? I can *see this link in the cemetery scene onwards. Up to this point, I didn't see any direction in his script to get there? Would WW1 footage *of the *somme, or the American wars, or Korea, Vietnam etc have *expressed this better than actors pretending to be Romans, or Hitler *ranting when scenes from Germany Vs Russia on the eastern front would have *told *the story better? So much was just confusing or irrelevant.

Okay thanks, but some of the festival rules are kind of vague, and I want to send it out to a few of them before their deadlines are up.

For some reason there are asterixes in my response. Not sure why, but this site seems to put them there after I post my response, so sorry about that.

I'm pretty sure the footage is all public domain, a couple of the photographs I could not get sources on. We were originally planning on this being a youtube piece. The producer is the one speaking in the video and he produced and wrote the script. A lot of the archive footage decisions are his, and they were in his script, where as some were decided by us later, with his approval.

I just did the short for something to do for experience, and trusted his script. *We were originally going to have it be just a youtube piece to show our work. *Some people told us we should send it into festivals, and he really wants to do it now. *I didn't think this was the type of film that was for a lot of festivals, but he wants to do it, and wants me to work with him on it, so since it's my project as well, in the sense that I did the directing, I feel I should participate in sending it to festivals as well. *What do you think?

I don't think that footage was Nero in Rome but just some footage of religious leaders I found, if that's the footage you mean?

As for the black guy being hung and the footage being pink, the original footage was actually color tinted pink. *I was thinking of changing the footage, to black and white or sepia more, but other filmmakers said they felt I should keep the original color of the footage, out of respect. *Should I?

I don't know if B-roll is the right term, it was just the term used in the film school course I took for any footage, that is put over a speaking host in a video.

As for the guillotine footage, it was his idea, in his script, for when he says 'off with his head'. *It was the only footage I could find that was public domain of a guillotine execution, real or fake. *So I am just doing what he wants in his script.

For the cemetery scene we used a gimbal and a jib, cause when he enters the cemetery, I wanted the camera POV to move up to reveal more of it as we walked in, and I wanted the gimbal to follow him walking but also rotate around him to convey certain emotions in a couple of shots. Is that bad that we used a gimbal or a jib instead of a tripod? We actually brought a tripod, just in case, but none of the storyboarded shots called for it, since all the shots had camera moves in mind, that a tripod couldn't perform. I thought it was okay, since lots of movies use those devices to create certain feelings. And you see these moves done in movies all the time, so was it bad to not use a tripod, which couldn't perform those moves, therefore?

Well - if you used a jib, it shouldn't have wobbled, should it? It looked hand held, so maybe just a bit more practice holding it steady. Gimbals can look really weird when the gimbal itself goes up and down. I thought not just looked odd. I'd say submit away, as the worst case is they won't use it or accept it.

The fact I missed the religious leaders bit, and thought they were Romans means it isn't perhaps as obvious as you think? On the guillotine front, consider that a quick painless death is reduced a bit by the blade going down slowly and slicing the head off gradually? Maybe a bit gory at that speed?

I do think that pink is a very strange colour to choose. It's usually a happy, gentle, passive colour - in the middle of a virtually monochrome piece? Keeping the colour out of 'respect' seems to generate little respect at all, to be honest.

B-roll is stuff you shoot ancillary to the prime product. I was shooting parachutists last week. My B-roll included filler material - refuelling the plan, shuts being packed, a helicopter landing, some of the parachutists eating lunch, students getting instruction and the windsock blowing. I even got a few birds flying out of trees. In the edit, when you need a cutaway, or distraction you go to B-roll, as in the A-roll being the idiots jumping out of aeroplanes. Footage that has a voice over, is rarely filler, but the thing people are watching in primary mode, with the voice over as the secondary content.

Oh okay thanks. We put the gimbal on the jib, but maybe we should have taken the camera off completely.
How does a gimbal look strange when going up and down exactly? I ask because one of the next projects I have planned, we will most likely use a gimbal to go up and down in some shots.

Is there anything I need to be aware of when moving a gimbal up and down, or is there something bad about it?

No you've got confused again. The idea of a gimbal is that it remains in the same orientation when the angle it is being held at changes. They react badly to physical movement up and down or sideways. In your video the movement seems to be up and down. It remains locked onto the head of the subject, but if you watch the bottom of the frame you can see it going up and down in some shots. To me, this signifies hand held, not on a jib. If you have a proper jib, then using a gimbal is really just using the gimbal's pan and tilt facility, assuming it has both. You're not really using the full feature set of a gimbal, and a pan/tilt head would have been just as good for the shots. If it has to move up and down, a job will be fine. The trouble with hand held shots is simply that when you walk normally, YOU go up and down. The gimbal won't take this out. Most gimbal operators have developed the old hand held cameraman technique of walking with knees never locked - so your height remains constant. It was vital with shoulder mounted cameras because walking makes the camera lurch up and down. They walked very oddly, walking with bent knees and it kept the camera level.

Watch your video again - the cemetery sequence and see if you can spot it as the camera and subject moves left.

Okay thanks, I'll watch it. I don't know how the gimbal works as much, and a separate gimbal operator who has his own did it all for me. I can try to read more about how to use a gimbal though. Which shots in the video particularly, is this happening in?

You say a pan and tilt head would have been fine, but for the shots, where I want the camera to move forwards and backwards, such as following the subject from behind him, and following him from in front, wouldn't a pan and tilt head, not work for those shots, since the camera is moving forwards and backwards?

Cemetery - wobble cam - watch the background, not the centre frame subject - nothing is smooth - lots quite jerky and some very distracting.

Oh okay thanks, I see what you mean in some shots. Could this be because of the cameras image stabilization perhaps? Could it be fighting the smoothness?

I really don't know ryan, but it's not nice to watch, is it?

Hmm... I don't have a problem with the look being gimbal moves, but I guess that's just me? It's just I have seen the gimbal being used so many times in movies before, that I am fine with it, but should I not be?

Well - if you wish to be an amateur film maker, and are willing to accept your current problems in your work - like poor sound, poor camera work and poor lighting and poor planning, then it's fine - but why would you submit your work to festivals where it's under scrutiny I have no idea. If you have learned so little from our discussions over the past few months, is there any hope.

You try hard, but are making no progress. If you really are happy with wobbly footage, and your clients are happy to accept it, then we're all wrong Ryan, and you are right - but why ask if you won't listen?

I see or hear no progress.

Name me some movies I can examine where faults like this are generating awards?

For sure, I want to make progress, it's just I am not sure what to do. What can I do to make the gimbal footage look better? You said to use a tripod, but are you only saying that cause you don't like gimbal footage, and the tripod is your personal preference, or do you like gimbal footage as long as it's good?

Let's start off with the positives. Creating any sort of movie takes a tremendous amount of time and effort, so congratulations. You'll be better for creating something even if it doesn't succeed than to not taking a risk.

Now lets talk about the flaws. First there are lots of "little" technical problems that I won't repeat. If you're goal was to highlight your skills as a cinematographer then this is more of a problem but at this level I think creativity is more important than technical excellence. That brings me to my second point. If the technicals are weak then the artistic aspects then need to be strong. I have more of a problem with "big picture" aspects of this film. I feel the goal of any independent film maker submitting to a festival should be to tell a story visually in a unique way. To me this movie doesn't do that. You 're basically interviewing a person rambling about an overly broad subject, his feelings on war, politics, and the environment, with b-roll from other sources, then him walking in the cemetery, with patriotic music in the background throughout. During the interview you're taking odd angles with the hope of creating some sort of artistic interest but it's heavy handed and doesn't work. It should have occurred to you at the planning stage that using archival footage shouldn't be used for a film festival.

The movie lacks depth, mystery, complexity and a style/viewpoint unique to you. It's a good start and something to build on, but I'd look at previous festival winners/finalists and ask yourself why did they win. I feel you need to put in more time and effort at development and planning stage. If you had shared your plan for this movie with competent film makers they might have brought up the issues I discussed.

Pete's comments are very accurate and fair.

It's not that I don't like gimbal images - I actually have one, but I use the right tool for the job. I also have a jib. Most of my work that pays the bills comes from the tripod. If I wanted to run the camera backwards, retaining the distance from the subject, then I would use the gimbal I think - but I'd be prepared to repeat the sequence three or four times till I got it right, and each take would be looked at there and then. I know what would happen. I'd step back and put a foot in a divet and trip or stumble, I'd drift off line, or somehow the direction would creep. However, I'm pretty good at keeping it at the same distance from the ground. You also could perhaps have done the shot with a zoom out to keep the subject height the same and retained perspective. In honesty, I don't know which one would look better?

I like shots of any kind that work - I don't care how they were done - but it's the right tool for the job.

Okay thanks, i want to figure out how to do it better.
We did a few takes and i chose what i thought were the best ones of course. Do all the gimbal moves look odd or just certain ones? When you suggest to zoom instead in the one shot, which shot is that exactly?

Blimey Ryan. Have you no analysis skills at all? If you cannot find these things in your own video, ask yourself if this is why you have trouble?
Let's set this like a college course. look at the supplied video. Comment critically on the success of the clips at t he following times.
4:54 the camera rises - identify an unusual feature of this change of position.
4:58 comment on the camera movement
5:09 The sequence here suffers from some movement issues - describe elements that could have been improved. Describe how the shot could have been managed more effectively.
5:17 Static shot - how could this shot have been simply stabilised?
5:22 and 5:25 Describe how the shot would look if zoom had been used rather than camera movement in terms of perspective and stability.
5:36 How does this shot work in terms of effectiveness? Is the background blur to prevent the names being visible or is it an artistic feature - how do the stability issues support the intention or work against it.
5:43 The very similar framing at this edit seems unusual - analyse the impact of the jarring viewer experience. Does it produce intentional tension, or a change of mood, or is it an error.
5:45 The pink section. evaluate the choice of colour chosen. There is also a territory implication. How would this clip be understood by non-US citizens who may not be aware of the significance of the clip, or what it actually is?
5:55 The talking head near it's conclusion - comment on how a stable camera platform would have enhanced the shot, compared to the image movement visible.

See if you can produce a response to each question. I'm not picking, but they are comments and questions that I can see, and maybe you should have considered. You have the credit as Director and editor, so these decisions were yours, else you weren't the editor or director, but the assistant to the guy who's idea it was.

What do you think?

Blimey Ryan. Have you no analysis skills at all? If you cannot find these things in your own video, ask yourself if this is why you have trouble?
Let's set this like a college course. look at the supplied video. Comment critically on the success of the clips at t he following times.
4:54 the camera rises - identify an unusual feature of this change of position.
4:58 comment on the camera movement
5:09 The sequence here suffers from some movement issues - describe elements that could have been improved. Describe how the shot could have been managed more effectively.
5:17 Static shot - how could this shot have been simply stabilised?
5:22 and 5:25 Describe how the shot would look if zoom had been used rather than camera movement in terms of perspective and stability.
5:36 How does this shot work in terms of effectiveness? Is the background blur to prevent the names being visible or is it an artistic feature - how do the stability issues support the intention or work against it.
5:43 The very similar framing at this edit seems unusual - analyse the impact of the jarring viewer experience. Does it produce intentional tension, or a change of mood, or is it an error.
5:45 The pink section. evaluate the choice of colour chosen. There is also a territory implication. How would this clip be understood by non-US citizens who may not be aware of the significance of the clip, or what it actually is?
5:55 The talking head near it's conclusion - comment on how a stable camera platform would have enhanced the shot, compared to the image movement visible.

See if you can produce a response to each question. I'm not picking, but they are comments and questions that I can see, and maybe you should have considered. You have the credit as Director and editor, so these decisions were yours, else you weren't the editor or director, but the assistant to the guy who's idea it was.

What do you think?

at 4:54, do you mean the wobble you were speaking of?

At 5:48, the camera is moving horizontally along with the person, as he walks. Is that bad?

At 5:09, when the camera comes into focus on the gravestones, it looks jittery. I'm still trying to figure ou what is causing that, but I think it might be the camera's stabilization system.

5:17, We could have put it on the tripod to stabilize it, and should have since the camera wasn't moving.

At 5:22 and 5:25, we could have zoomed to have less shake, but the camera operator did not have a zoom lens in his arsenal, and only primes. So I thought it was best to work with what he had and keep things simple, but perhaps I should have gotten a zoom lens for him?

At 5:36, the shot is to show what he is looking at and then come around to his face more to show a different perspective. The names are out of focus intentionally because I did not want to show the names on them, and just have the viewer concentrate on him looking at them more.

At 5:43, my intention was too go for a closer up shot, to show his eyes more at that moment. What am I looking for that is jarring? Did I not go close enough, to the point where it looks too similar to the previous shot?

At 5:45, I left it pink cause other filmmakers said I should do that to respect the previous footage I am using. As for whether or not a non-U.S. citizen would understand it, I was just following the writer's script. In the script it says to cut to footage of the KKK abusing African-Americans. So I was just following what was in the script.

At 5:55 I agree on the talking head and the camera not being stable. The tripod moved somehow, perhaps the tilt was not fully locked. I have other takes, but I decided to go for that take because I felt the delivery of the man was the best. When choosing takes, was is more important? Camera stabilization/movement, or subject performance delivery?

For the pink footage, I could color it to black and white then if that's better.

At 5:43, I could cut to the close up of his face sooner, if that helps. I could start out at the back of his head, looking at the names, and then cut to the side of his face right after, if that's better?

Also, for the next project, should I hire a different gimbal operator perhaps then, if the footage isn't smooth enough?

Ryan, pretend it's an exam paper, you can't ask questions, you have to make the decisions, and stand by them. I think most people will see exactly what the problems are, so it's time for you to analyse and produce conclusions, not questions.

Ps re the pink. The clip was shot in pink? Or was the version of the clip you shot recoloured to pink, as an artistic decision, and potentially a copyright issue? If it's so important your person thought itched to stay pink, that rather qualifies as something created to do some specific purpose, which is an intellectual component and protected. The old black and white clip may well be out of copyright, but the new modified version? Not an expert at US copyright interpretation.

The footage was shot in black and white, back then, and then color tinted to pink afterwards. I will switch it to black and white.

But I thought it was okay to ask questions when learning. I thought that if others see something wrong with it, then it's good to ask for the specific details, isn't it, in order to learn the craft more, in order to see the mistakes more clearly?

It's just everything I've done, I've seen in other movies though, so I am not sure what I am doing differently. Camera that looks handheld has been done several times before. Cutting from a MCU shot to a CU has been done before. So I just want to know what is it that I do incorrectly, compared to other movies?

If it's your film the quality control is your responsibility and if there's a problem it should be discussed with the crew, ideally at the time, so that something can be done about it. It's not as if you're shooting on film, with video you have instant feedback, so you can see if another take is required.

The DP/camera operator usually brings up wobbly shots at the time, especially if using jibs etc.

If spotted later in the rushes, you should be discussing possible reshoots with the crew.

If you're going to try a new technique test it in advance, not on the set or at least have a plan B you can fall back on.

It's OK to ask questions, but if you're at the stage of wanting to direct a feature film, many of the things you're asking about should be second nature by now. You should be able to analysis your own shots and know if they're working.

If you're doing hand held shots there must be a reason within the context of the story/characters of YOUR film why you're using this technique. Because you've seen it in movies isn't good enough, it has to work in the story you're telling in your film.

A wobbly shot isn't the same as a handheld shot, especially if it's siting on its own in the middle of steady shots.

In films show, don't say is the usual rule.

If it's an interview or testimony with someone. keep things simple, so that the camerawork doesn't distract from what they're saying and their body language.

Regarding festivals, check out what type of films they're interested in. Expect more refusals than acceptances into festivals, local ones may be a good stating point rather than the bigger ones.

I thought I'd link to this short film. https://youtu.be/r6-03NdlK6Y
The guy who is the DoP is actually a senior sound supervisor in broadcast, but he has his own camera and this was made on a very tight budget, with very little equipment. In essence, it's a similar type of production but the technical production values are pretty high. It's also shot on a ⅓" sensor camera (A Panasonic 371) and is cropped. Doesn't seem to have impacted at all on image quality.

From the point of view of image quality, Ryan's DSLR camera wouldn't be one that would come high in that regard, it was more about being compared to the 35mm lens adapters around at the period, for the shallower DOF. These tended to have a bit of a ProMist effect to them, which was a filter commonly used to reduced the video look at the time, but the DSLR didn't have that effect.

However, in cameras tests they didn't hold up to 1/3" cameras in image quality terms, although people liked the look, despite the flaws especially the moire patterning.

Okay thanks. For future projects, and the feature, I will definitely make more time to have the camera operator playback the footage in between takes, to see if it looks good, rather than trying to get as many takes as possible.

I will also see what I can do about cutting from a medium close up to a close up, in a way, that won't be so jarring. Is there a certain distance to measure as to how much space should be in between an MCU and a CU? I tried looking it up before, but couldn't find if there is. But is there a safe margin do you think?

I actually saw that short film before a long time ago. It has good production values, yes.

There are no set rules regarding distances for MCU and CU, although moving closer to the eyeline makes sense for the tighter shot.

Oh okay, but you said that it was jarring how I cut from one to the other, so I thought it was because there was not enough distance between the two, is that right? If that's the reason, than doesn't that mean there should be some sort of rule or guideline, to prevent those cuts from being jarring?

I didn't mention the cut, there can be a number of reasons why a cut can be jarring, assuming that it's not an intentional jar. It's the editor's job to avoid this by ensuring that the character's position in the frame, their facial and body actions, plus the dramatic motivation and timing are coming together for a smooth cut.

Oh ok, you said before at 5:43, that the similar framing seems unusual, so i thought maybe you meant the distance between the shots wasn't enough.

That's Paul. not me.

You had a moving shot with out of focus background then cut to what is almost he same framing, but different looking. For me, just too similar to work.

Oh ok. How different does the framing and background being out of focus have to be when cutting from shot to shot? I see other movies where it will cut to the next shot having similar framing, so what do they differently?

Not look like yours? Compare and contrast yours with theirs. You can either see it or not Ryan. It seems you can't so we can't make progress. If you cannot feel these things, how can we progress.

Part of what makes that cut weird is that the cam is circling the actor very fast, then cuts to a much slower move. Would probably have been more poweful to stay on the wider shot and circle all the way around to that other framing, feathering the move to a stop, maybe physically “dollying” in. But yeah, the fast speed to to a much more relaxed one is at least a big part of it.

Oh okay. Here's a scene in comparison where they cut from a shot to a closer up shot with similar framing. The first shot is at 0:48 into the video, and the closer up shot follows right after:

Bonnie and Clyde (1967). Final scene - YouTube

Both shots have similar framing and movement, so what is it that they do differently than mine though?

Motivation drives every cut in that scene, it's not mechanical.

Oh okay. Well I just want to understand everything to be better at filmmaking. Why wouldn't the motivation in mine be to cut to a close up, in that moment though? I felt it was motivated, but what made my motivation incorrect?

Youre talking about the shot where hes falling and it goes from a wide to a tight? I would still argue its different from what you did, motivation issues aside... the movement in each shot appears to be the same speed, making it seem more like each shot flows into the other, plus your shot had rotation or revolving around a subject while Bonnie&Clyde has a simple left—->right directionality.

Your inspiration for editing a documentary short is the final scene of Bonnie and Clyde being gun down?
Lol the sheer comedy of it. Oh Lord! Just can’t make this stuff up. Wow

No I never had Bonnie and Clyde in mind, I was just trying to think of an example of when in a movie, it cuts from one shot to another, and both shots have similar framing and movement. I thought of that one.

With the moving to static CU cut at around 5.40, the action of removing the glasses repeats itself, which can be effective, depending on the action, but does it work when someone is being reflective?

Also, be aware of "eccentric" framing, it can become distracting and can imply you're worried that the audience may become bored. What works with a rock singer may not work with a monologue, especially if they're static.

Note that all this is nothing to do with film festivals having problems with a type of short film, since they accept all kinds of films.

Oh okay thanks. I feel that doubling on the removal of the glasses works when someone is being reflective, but that's just my opinion. I watched it again and it felt okay to me.

When you say eccentric framing, what counts as eccentric framing?

Given that you did a fast move in and cut hard on the move to the CU, with an action repeat on the cut, all that sounds pretty unreflective, more that he's going to take extreme action.

There are a number of shots against the black background, the extreme low angle looking up,didn't seem to match the nature of the underlying message. The shot with very little head room with his hands on a black surface, if it was an altar you could've got away with it, but in this case the framing became distracting.

The wobbly cam shots in the cemetery, didn't really fit in if he was making a powerful reflective statement, more that he's suffering from psychological distress.

Given that you did a fast move in and cut hard on the move to the CU, with an action repeat on the cut, all that sounds pretty unreflective, more that he's going to take extreme action.

There are a number of shots against the black background, the extreme low angle looking up,didn't seem to match the nature of the underlying message. The shot with very little head room with his hands on a black surface, if it was an altar you could've got away with it, but in this case the framing became distracting.

The wobbly cam shots in the cemetery, didn't really fit in if he was making a powerful reflective statement, more that he's suffering from psychological distress.

Okay thanks, this is all very good input. Is there any filmmaking books that goes deep into these things? The ones I read never mention anything, like you should only cut on a repeat of the cut, if a character is going to take action, or that you should only have a shot with little head room and black hands on a surface if it it's on an altar, or things like that.

Are there any filmmaking books that go into exact details like that more?

You should read editing books, although many of these editing technique are given verbally, so you should listen and/or read interviews with editors. Repeating action on the cut by frames is used to heighten action, so can occur in fight scenes etc.

Filmmaking books can only go so far, you need to sense these things yourself.

Have a look at the complete opposite to your film. a talk made without auto cues and lasting 1/2 hour. These appeared on both the commercial ITV and the BBC in the UK, so had viewing figures. .

AJP Taylor railway timetables and mobilisation plans - YouTube

Okay thanks but what i don't understand is why can't a repeat be used in heightening reflection as well? Why is it a rule that it can only be used in action? Is it that necessary to follow such a tradition?

It's because the effect is jarring, quite the opposite of reflection, which is usually a contemplative moment, let the actor do the work, you're over cutting.

This all comes down to C O N T E X T. Just cause it worked in Bonnie & Clyde doesnt mean it will work in your film. How is your film different than B&C? Pretty much every way possible, except that they are both movies.

Conversations with walter murch (or whatever its called, by the English Patient author) is a book with insight into why film editors to what they do, mixed in with some ass kissing and repeatedly having to hear how awesome the English Patient is.

Oh ok thanks I've seen some videos of waltter Murch talk about editing but haven't read that one.

Is the cut only jarring because he repeats a move though or would it still be jarring even if i don't cut on a repeat?

What do you think, Ryan. It's pointless us explaining in words, if you cannot see any of this for yourself?