DEATH ROW

This is my first ever COMPLETED work! I've messed around with the camera a bit and finished some test scenes... but this is the first time I've ever completed something! Of course, I wish I had more time to set the mood of the scenes but I was under a time constraint. (<3 minutes)

Please check out the 3 minute short (2:59) that I did for this contest. The idea was that it had to be 3 minutes or less and it had to portray "the creepy origins of something either real or imagined."

NEW EDIT: Highest Quality Widescreen version can be found here... http://files.filefront.com//;6003426;;/

You can also find it here... (Low quality) http://www.heavy.com/index.php?videoPath=/content/tcm/flash_video/deathrowupload
You can hit the little [] beside the speaker to make the image larger. It SHOULD be in widescreen but I've noticed that it is often in full frame.

And here... http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fu...oid=1272829910 Slightly better quality than the contest link.

The quality is a little poor in the last 2 links and the image is quite a bit darker than the higher quality version that I have. You have to watch it in the dark in order to see it better... :)

Luckily, the contest will be judged by the higher quality version that I sent in. I'll try uploading it so that I can provide another link. EDIT: Done! Please choose the first link in this post.

Please let me know what you think...

Mike

Hi there. I know from experience it's very difficult to make a scary short film. Although I didn't find your film scary there was a great deal of promise in the structure and sound effects, particularly for a first timer. Unfortunately a lot of the scenes were way to dark to make out on my computer. Good luck in the competition.

What a great debut to horror filmmaking. To me it wasn´t scary, more freaky I think. Burst out of laughter when I saw the "priest" cause it was so blatant, but it worked like a charm. Also you have the resonance factor to your story, so it could always lead to sequels and a huge mythology that works for the viewer...

Anyways keep it up, all the best with the competition, keep us up to date with that and your future projects...

Regards
Van Zijl Loots

Unfortunately a lot of the scenes were way to dark to make out on my computer. Good luck in the competition.

Yes, as I said, I'm working on getting a higher quality version uploaded to another site. I found the flash player made it much too dark.

What a great debut to horror filmmaking. To me it wasn´t scary, more freaky I think. Burst out of laughter when I saw the "priest" cause it was so blatant, but it worked like a charm. Also you have the resonance factor to your story, so it could always lead to sequels and a huge mythology that works for the viewer...

Anyways keep it up, all the best with the competition, keep us up to date with that and your future projects...

Regards
Van Zijl Loots

Thanks, Van, when did you first see the priest? Was it when you saw him in the hallway standing behind the kid? Or was that scene too dark for you to notice?


Just curious...

I uploaded it here as well...
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=1272829910

The flash players seem to make it darker and I also get a quality hit as well. Fast download though. This version seems a "tad" better though, a little brighter as well.

Anyone know of a free hosting site that allows larger files?

EDIT: Just posted a higher res widescreen version here... http://files.filefront.com//;6003426;;/
You can see this one much better! Edited the original post with this link.

Try putfiile.com. It is free and you can upload files up to 25mb without any recompression being done to your video.

Thanks, Van, when did you first see the priest? Was it when you saw him in the hallway standing behind the kid? Or was that scene too dark for you to notice?


Just curious...

I saw him when he went out of the cell, standing behind him, bloody freaky and well timed...

Regards
Van Zijl Loots

Thanks Van, I appreciate that. :)

Any other takers? The HQ version is much better and the heavy.com site seems to be down at the moment. Please post your thoughts...

Thanks,

Mike

Definitely showed promise. You needed more contrast between the light and dark in your shots. The DOF shot of them walking up the hallway out of focus with the bar in focus did not quite work for me, plus the pan afterwards was poorly framed. What were you trying to say in that shot?

Dialogue could be less hammy, but i know how difficult from my little short it is to write it. Getting some good actors for your next film will also make a big difference. I liked the shot of the hooded guy behind the lad. I think you have got some great ideas and am looking forward to them developing in your next piece.

Thanks!

I wanted a joke in the middle of the clip just to lighten things up a bit. No real actors were involved either. I also wanted the out of focus shot to be more about the dialogue... which I thought was pretty natural sounding, all things considered. I just wanted to focus on the bars to send a message of where they were. I also broke it up with an over the shoulder shot but the entire scene probably went on for too long.

Mike

The story was a little confusing, yes, but I really thought you had some great shots. Great use of lighting, sahdows, depth of field etc. You are definately not afraid of the close up which I think a lot of people forget. It is easy to shoot everything wide.

One thing you may want to try is some frame rate changes. Maybe ramp the speed on some of the scary moments. It is used alot today in horror movies.

Keep up the great shots!

PLEASE DO NOT take offense to my comments, but if you are looking for constructive criticism here are my two cents;

I agree with other post that the long shot out of focus didn't work for me either. A pull or rack focus would have worked better. The performances weren't that great, but again, you didn't work with any actors, which in my opinion shouldn't matter. Getting good performances is key, and I learn that over and over again in my own work. The story wasn't that clear, or at least the point never came through to me. Still not sure what happened except two kids going to a prison and then one getting killed. There were not enough shock factors for my taste, and not enough tension building, but I cannot stress enough that filmmaking is DIFFICULT.

Overall I found the performances not very strong, the story hard to follow, the editing could have been tighter. The beginning just seemed confusing, which most horror films are I guess. It almost came across as a horror satire, which I am sure you didn't intend. B-movies'ish. Some of the close ups very hard to tell what they were and where you were in the scene.

I would have improved several areas, which may be impossible at this point since you already shot it.

1. The beginning appeared to have an inmate kill the priest, so I am not sure why the priest later killed the kid. You should have stuck with a crazy inmate, rather than the priest.
2. Reveal less, i.e. don’t reveal the priest behind the kid too quickly.
3. The ending is way too confusion. Too much wall footage and no real pay off with either the kid killing priest or some other twist. The bag over the head didn't really mean much since priest was hung with a robe. No connection there.
4. Maybe have the priest be a ghost coming back to haunt the prison would work better.

I could add much more, but I don’t you to take any of what I say as insulting, but rather to help you improve your work.

1. The beginning appeared to have an inmate kill the priest, so I am not sure why the priest later killed the kid. You should have stuck with a crazy inmate, rather than the priest.
2. Reveal less, i.e. don’t reveal the priest behind the kid too quickly.
3. The ending is way too confusion. Too much wall footage and no real pay off with either the kid killing priest or some other twist. The bag over the head didn't really mean much since priest was hung with a robe. No connection there.
4. Maybe have the priest be a ghost coming back to haunt the prison would work better.

I could add much more, but I don’t you to take any of what I say as insulting, but rather to help you improve your work.

I had to squeeze everything in under 3 minutes so I did my best... but I have no hard feelings at all. I'll do my best to answer a few things...

1. Yes, the priest was killed by a couple of inmates. If you listen to the dialogue as the kids are walking down the hall, they discuss how the priest was caught doing "something" to the Warden's son. (I show this as flashes during the opening credits) They mention the riot that followed, the priest being murdered and the prison being shut down 50 years ago.

2. I had to reveal him as I was running out of time... ;)

3. Watch the HQ version, you can clearly see the bag over the head of the priest as he is being dragged on the floor by the inmates. You can even make out the rosary in his hand if you look close enough. That's the connection. Can't really make any of it out in the poor quality version.

4. The priest was murdered 50 years ago as mentioned by one of the kids... he IS a ghost. I actually don't expect people to get this on the first viewing. That was actually intentional. I hate movies that spell everything out.

Just do me one favour, watch the HQ version, listen to the dialoque, and let me know if all this makes sense. I do appreciate the critique! No harm at all.

I did a lot of things wrong... learning as I go.

The story was a little confusing, yes, but I really thought you had some great shots. Great use of lighting, sahdows, depth of field etc. You are definately not afraid of the close up which I think a lot of people forget. It is easy to shoot everything wide.

One thing you may want to try is some frame rate changes. Maybe ramp the speed on some of the scary moments. It is used alot today in horror movies.

Keep up the great shots!

Thanks Rick, I'll have to try the frame rate changes... see how it looks.

I had to squeeze everything in under 3 minutes so I did my best... but I have no hard feelings at all. I'll do my best to answer a few things...

1. Yes, the priest was killed by a couple of inmates. If you listen to the dialogue as the kids are walking down the hall, they discuss how the priest was caught doing "something" to the Warden's son. (I show this as flashes during the opening credits) They mention the riot that followed, the priest being murdered and the prison being shut down 50 years ago.

2. I had to reveal him as I was running out of time... ;)

3. Watch the HQ version, you can clearly see the bag over the head of the priest as he is being dragged on the floor by the inmates. You can even make out the rosary in his hand if you look close enough. That's the connection. Can't really make any of it out in the poor quality version.

4. The priest was murdered 50 years ago as mentioned by one of the kids... he IS a ghost. I actually don't expect people to get this on the first viewing. That was actually intentional. I hate movies that spell everything out.

Just do me one favour, watch the HQ version, listen to the dialoque, and let me know if all this makes sense. I do appreciate the critique! No harm at all.

I did a lot of things wrong... learning as I go.

Mike, I did watch the HQ version, and twice, but again, I'm afraid that none of the things you tell me came across visually or verbally. I'm guilty of the same mistakes, which is why I want to share my point of view in hopes of helping your vision come across.

You are right about NOT spelling things out, but that is when you TELL the audience what is going on, such as with voice over or within the dialogue. That wasn't the problem. The problem is that the visual images do not support what you are trying to get across. A great tool is watching silent movies where you need to learn the story through images and no dialogue and very little, if any, text. If you turn off the sound of your movie can you still tell what it is about? If not, there probably is a problem. The length of a movie is immaterial with respect to being able to show a narative story. You be surprised how much you can show in a short amount of time. Look at good commericals that don't have dialogue.

People should get it on the first viewing, at least the main plot. Subplots and hidden messages that are generally not important to the main story and can obviously be discovered on subsequent viewings, but to expect an audience to go back and watch it more than once to "get it" is probably not the best idea in my opinion.

Again, I saw the things, but they weren't clear as to what they meant. Seems like a lot of flashy images without any real connection. Another suggestion, never rely on dialogue to tell a story. SHOW, don't TELL, and you have something. An example of this is to have an actor throw a dish without saying anything to SHOW anger, rather than saying I'm angry. This way you don't need sound to tell a story. Good actors can also SHOW emotions rather than telling them. That's just my 4 more cents. Otherwise you live and learn. I sure do all the time.

Mike, I did watch the HQ version, and twice, but again, I'm afraid that none of the things you tell me came across visually or verbally.

That's interesting because other people "got" some of what you didn't on the first viewing. They saw the bag over the priest’s head as he was being dragged away and they made the connection. They heard that he was murdered 50 years ago during the conversation and made the connection that he was a ghost at the end.

I mean... some of it is verbally spoken; yet you say that it didn't come across verbally? I don't get that part?

No big deal though. It wasn't your cup of tea and I'm cool with that.

Still, had I had more time... I definitely would have made it a little clearer... but not much. ;)

That's just the way I like it.

You are right about NOT spelling things out, but that is when you TELL the audience what is going on, such as with voice over or within the dialogue.
I call that spelling it out. Especially when using a voice over...


But to expect an audience to go back and watch it more than once to "get it" is probably not the best idea in my opinion.
This is where we disagree; I love movies that make me do that.


Another suggestion, never rely on dialogue to tell a story.
That kind of contradicts your first quote above..? "but that is when you TELL the audience what is going on, such as with voice over or within the dialogue."

Sorry, I think we are just looking at this from two different perspectives. Yes, I want to get better at telling a story in less than 3 minutes. No, I don't mind if people have to watch it more than once to really get it.

Still, what about the people who "got it" on the first viewing? There were some comments posted on heavy.com stating just that before they added the new batch of videos.

I'll find a happy medium I'm sure.

Thanks again, I really do appreciate this.

Mike

I enjoyed it. Definately had a really creepy feel to it. And, I must admit, I did jump =).

Kudos!

Mike, these are just MY observations, again, take it with a grain of salt. If you think it works, then cool with me. I just offered my perspective and, PS, I think you misinterpreted some of what I want to get across. I meant that when you spell things out in movies such as voice over, having dialogue "on the nose" it generally shows a lack in the story, but again, some movies work like that. However, there are a lot of people that think voice over is cheating. I am not one of them (if it is done right), but I also think that even good movies with voice-overs are clearly narrated through the visual images without the sound. We learned that in film school watching movies and turning off sound. I remember "Bad Lands" being one.

In any event, good luck with it, and I hope you didn't become defensive reading my comments.

My only last advice is not to count on people not only having to get it after several viewing, but that they would actually watch it again. Thus, grab the first time so they are interested enough to watch it again, and maybe see other things they didn't catch the first time.

My only last advice is not to count on people not only having to get it after several viewing, but that they would actually watch it again. Thus, grab the first time so they are interested enough to watch it again, and maybe see other things they didn't catch the first time.
Great advice!

Thanks,

Mike

I enjoyed it. Definately had a really creepy feel to it. And, I must admit, I did jump =).

Kudos!

Awesome! Glad you liked it. Still waiting to hear who won the contest...
They plan to announce it on the website but they didn't update last night.

Still waiting...