Music Video (Tool) Feedback Welcome

[Kent Frost]

This was a music video I made about 4 years ago for a song called "Stinkfist" by Tool. Unfortunately, due to things happening in life (and later on, loss of working equipment), it was never finished, hence the 18-second gap in the middle.

http://www.djspiral.com/video/stinkfist.wmv

Let me know what you all think.

[Frank Hool]

Yeah, You have some good ideas there. But for that music and Your for Your storiline would work much better little bit more dramatic stage(lighting...etc) and character(make up...etc) setup.

[Kent Frost]

Sure, in an ideal setting where I have money to spend on doing it (which is what I would love to be able to do, but yunno...). This was just a project that I did while in between jobs. Took about 3 days to shoot and 3 weeks to edit.
Speaking of makeup, there was some used. Toward the end of the video, I had some white makeup to help make my appearance more pale.
You gotta admit though, not bad for being shot in a small 1-bedroom apartment.

[Andy Graham]

Is that the same Tool that were headlining the download festival in England along side metallica and guns n roses? if so then there pretty famous.

I thought the video was damn good. Was it all done in camera or did you use any effects in post?. Anyway good job


Andy.

[Kent Frost]

Thanks for the comments.
The effects I used in post were things like simple cuts editing, BW, film effects such as grain, scratches and dust, as well as digital zooming. The motion was done in-camera. I shot it with the original Optura that Canon had out in the late 90's. It had progressive scan (the only one other than the XL1 at the time), as well as a 1/8th sec shutter, which is what I used to get the motion effects. I ran the audio track through Sound Forge and slowed it down to 4x it's actual length, then we lip-synced to that. In post, I then sped the footage up to 1/4th it's actual length to match the original speed of the audio track, giving a result of very quick, jerky action.

well, theres something about homevideo quality that just gets to me. I know you were on a limited budget but that dosnt mean that you have to make it that appearant. for example, say i lived in my grandmother's home, thats my situation...i unwillingly have her in the shoot of a my music video and say to the viewers "hey, what can i do? its her home. thats my situation. she wanted to be in the video". My point is that you live in a small apartment, so use it to your advantage, not your weakness. The apartment shots KILL the mood as various comercial products are identifiable and other dynamics or personal living. The sex scene shots are a bit better as you trasform a room to an ideal setting with your limited budget.

the big picture: digital home video frame rates, gamma, and lighting used for a big production aesthetic. NOT GOOD! it just spells cheese. If you are limited to home video quality, then make home videos. example, Blair witch project was shot on some home video (forget the 16mm shots for now), it was supposed to be home video, so they used homevideo, therefore it simply works. also there are several music videos that are shot on home video and are great like that fat boy slim video shot a while back. but they didnt want to hide the fact that it was a candid home video. What i am trying to say is the classic media studies saying: "the medium = message".

[Kent Frost]

Well, I appreciate the comment, but as has been mentioned before, this was shot 4 years ago. When I began shooting this, I wasn't even taking it seriously. I began shooting a couple of clips just to see what I could do, and then a few of my friends motivated me to do the whole thing. This was a project that I did generally because I just wanted to. No one hired me to do it. I just did it. I don't live in that apartment anymore, haven't for 3 years. I do plan on doing a music video again (not sure when or for what song), and when I do it, the whole thing will be on a set. Now as far as the quality. Keep in mind that you saw a very compressed video on the internet. It was shot using a progressive scan camcorder that records on MiniDV.
Now for the so-called "sex" scene, (and by the way, I don't like the tone of your sarcasm) If I could take a moment and explain the symbology of the video. The girl is supposed to represent an object of desire, which can be different for every person but hear me out... in this video, I interpreted the lyrics as referring to drugs. So she represents a drug that the guy in the video can't seem to shake the craving for. Notice how at the end of the video, he ends up, basically, on his death bed. Notice he first sees her in the mirror, which represents a reflection of himself. At the end, she's standing in the mirror and fades away. This represents the drug's success in killing him, because he's not there and her reflection fades away.

Nevertheless, thanks for tearing it apart.

[Andy Graham]

I'll asume for the moment that your not a million dollar budget filmmaker (which i could be wrong maybe you are ) it has been spoken about in various places about why we try to make video look like film. Why do we strive so hard to make something look like something its not? The general public do not have the same criticism of what they see as the people in the industry do (or should i say people trying to get into the industry), i know this because i listn to my friends family and clients and they all say the same thing the only thing that matters is the story.

I ask why do you hate the look of what has given most of us the chance to do what we love?

It is entirely possible that he chose to do it that way precisely for the look that he achieved.....who knows.

I liked it.

[Andy Graham]

By the way if the blair witch project had had some of the in camera tricks that Kents music video had maybe i would have liked it.And the 16mm shots wern't any better than the hi8 stuff.

Andy.

[Travis Maynard]

I'm with Andy. Good job using what you had Kent.

well, im all for kent: that he stands up for his work and he truely believes in it. And as he has said, that this was 4 years ago and i believe that progress work is better than no progress work. I am not a pro-filmmaker, nor do i know anything about video editing programs. But i have a very decerning eye for the quality of craft and art. Many people at my university approach me for input on art easthetics and i have been told by an instructor that i am beyond my current year level. I just want to say that maybe my critique has just a little bit more worth than you think...im not saying it is the ultimate truth, but it isnt simply a random ruthless internet bashing.

As for the video, i still think budget shouldnt be an excuss for bad quality (kent, you misunderstood me, quality not refering to resolution/compression. rather the overall look and feel of the production). And as i have said before, BAD QUALITY IS NOT BAD AT ALL, but it has to contribute to the context of the art.

Andy is sooooo on the ball here and i thank him for actually listening to me and giving true response. The majority of people dont see quality nor do they care. Its all about content. And i am slowly begining to learn that the hard way as i have had strictly content-based people critique my art and find it lacking in value.

Kent, no offense to your ideas...they seem pretty solid! But thats not what i originally commented on.

To each their own.

[Jeff Cottrone]

First, your comments and critiques and your discerning eye are welcome here. Artists grow through constructive criticism. Part of the hard part of being an artist is learning how to deal with criticism, especially when you work so hard on something and then someone who has never even attempted it before sweeps in and tears it apart (not saying you did this--my own past experiences).

Actually, I found your comments to be fairly insightful, the problem was your tone. Whenever anyone has anything critical to say about anything, they need to really take care to understand someone worked hard, or is still working hard, on that. Just as important as WHAT you have to say is HOW you say it.

I took a poetry class once where this one guy ended up inadvertently pissing everyone off with his comments. It was almost like he had to justify his worth by elevating his opinion through his rather condescending tone. The sad part was he was very insightful. But people started tuning him out and many of his good comments were lost.

Personally, I relegate all criticisms in two camps: from my peers, who are actually involved in doing it and therefore know the limitations and difficulties firsthand; and the critics, some who may even have a better critical eye, but have no firsthand experience. I find that my peers will come across more gently because they know how hard any creative endevour is, but they also know that sometimes creative decisions HAVE to be made due to certain limitations that someone who hasn't done it wouldn't realize.

But I've also learned to tune out the tone of the critics, look past the fact that they have no experience actually doing it, and sift out the insights they occasionally have. I just wish they'd find a kinder, gentler way of saying it.

[Andy Graham]

Originally Posted by Jeff Cottrone

Actually, I found your comments to be fairly insightful, the problem was your tone. Whenever anyone has anything critical to say about anything, they need to really take care to understand someone worked hard, or is still working hard, on that. Just as important as WHAT you have to say is HOW you say it

I agree with Jeff, of course your comments and criticism are welcome here as we all need to be guided. Its all about putting your point across in a way that the other guy won't take offense to .

Anyway your both new here so welcome

Andy.

[Cole McDonald]

I was looking at it more for the in camera effects (I was right in my guess about the slowing the music down - very impressed with the physical intensity you were still able to bring to the performance). Some of my first films were done in a much crappier apartment than you used for your shot. I think the one giveaway that it's not an actual set is the white walls...makes the shot harder to expose as well.

Lighting would have given you a better image, but all that said, I don't care...the end result stands on its own well as a fan video or an effects test. Bully for you!

for the critics in here: What is wrong is important, but which bits did you feel he got right? The negative is easy to focus on, but is only half of the learning battle...The other half is figuring out which parts are successful...(sex scenes are a cop out and mean you haven't spent time analyzing the piece for positives at all).

[Nate Fields]

dude that was so great. you have given me alot of ideas for effects its crazy.
i really enjoyed that. its too bad you did not have a budget to go and film somwhere else. i really lked the sped up stuff and the slow shutter stuff.
keep up the nice work buddy