The Discovery

[= KA$H =]

I watched this on TriggerStreet.Com

I would like to say a few things:

- I don't know if the two guys are friends in real-life, or if they were only friends on-screen, but they had zero chemistry together. What I mean is, I was not able to believe they were friends or had any history together. It was more like "here's one actor talking to another".

- While watching the film, I was thinking to myself "I hope this doesn't end with the tired old cliche of the camera falling down and the fade to black". I was disappointed when this (predictably) happened. Could you not have tried something different at least?

- Having said that, I commend you not using the cliche of mobile phone batteries dying at a time when you vitally need to use the phone .

- The dialogue could have done with more humour to keep it interesting.. ANYTHING but the cliche of two friends snapping at each other.

- Some of the dialogue was unneccessary. I understand you need to let the audience know what is going on, but for example:

Guy: "I need to call Dave".

He pulls out his cell phone and calls..

Guy (now on Cell phone): "Hello Dave..".

Did he really need to speak to himself and say "I need to call Dave". Just picking his phone and saying "Hello Dave" was enough to let us know that he was calling Dave.

- The mobile phone ringing over the black screen was neat.

[philipswales]

To quote Roy Walker, "it's good, but it's not right."


What actually happens is that the camera guy asks the other guy (I forget their names, I wrote it a long time ago) who he's calling. He does this because he is as much in the dark as the audience at this point and is frustrated with the other guy doing things of his own volition (e.g. running off into the woods).

The nature of the film meant that there was a lot of 'dead air' which needed to be filled. The camera guy is our narrator and therefore needs to provide exposition from time to time.

Especially since he carries the latter half of the film by himself.


And no, the two guys are not particularly close friends. The camera guy was my brother (Paul), and the other guy was an old school friend of mine (Jon).

Please note that neither are professional actors, and have very little experience in front of the camera. In fact, it was the first time ever for Jon, and considering all the dialogue he had to learn, I think he did okay.


As for the ending... well, I don't like happy endings, and since we had no money, I think that the ending I wrote was the only possible one, ultimately.

I obviously couldn't afford to show the alien(s), and having him get out safely would have been an anti-climax.

As for humour - well, it wasn't a comedy film. There was a bit of dark humour in there, probably just enough in a 10-minute drama...

[Kev Owens]

Got interested by this thread so I watched the film. I didn't like it; but let me explain why:

I made a blair witch spoof when I was at college (along with 2 million other lazy college bums). I think however we pulled it off, basically because we directly took the piss and didn't take ourselves seriously. This reminded me of it but without the humour. The intention of tension is there, but it never quite succeeds. (credit that it's on a one inch realplayer viewer!)

The nature of the film meant that there was a lot of 'dead air' which needed to be filled

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I think in that statement lies the problem. 'Dead air' is a radio term, not a film term- it doesn't exist! Film being a visual medium means that allowing characters to express emotions WITHOUT words is imperative! Where's their personality if they emote through words and not actions? As this was a 'horror' of sort, I'd expect silence to play an even bigger part than usual. I won't have a go at the acting since the guys aren't actors, but without actors (or someone who can deliver a line convincingly) you'll never raise above this standard- so that's a swipe at your pre-production I suppose!

I'm not trying to be a prick, but since STF is making another film, I thought that maybes some constructive crit may be useful, who knows.

[philipswales]

If film was a purely visual medium, then Kevin Smith wouldn't have a career.

For the entire second half (almost), there are no actors at all on the screen. All you see is a cameraman's POV with virtual darkness in the frame.

If I hadn't have put in dialogue, you'd be looking at a 1 inch black square for 5 minutes.


Let me tell you something about actors which I'm sure you already know - they're an unreliable bunch. It's hard to get talented actors in Hartlepool to begin with, but when you do, they usually end up letting you down halfway through production.

Which is why I kept the casting internal within my immediate crew - they were involved in the film's inception so couldn't bail out when they liked.

"Expressing emotion without words" is fine when you're hiring 'real' actors - not so with amateurs, unless they're exceptionally talented.

Finally, The Discovery isn't a spoof of Blair Witch. Let me tell you why I made it. After several years of filming comfortably indoors, close to home, I wanted to challenge myself and my crew. So I wrote a film that took place in the middle of the night, in a cold, inhospitable environment. I wanted to see if we could still succeed under such conditions and become better film-makers. Since we finished the film, I guess we did. The end result is almost secondary to me, considering all the struggles we had to get the thing in the can.

I don't understand the charge of lack of humour in what is essentially a DRAMA. I don't think there are many one-liners in Sophie's Choice, and no-one seemed to mind...

[Alan Gesic]

I quite agree with Kev O on this one. It makes no difference where the end result is watched (in fact I think the mpeg quality allows one to forgive quite a lot of the films visual short comings) but if, as most film makers desire, you were to get this on a big screen people would still be looking at a black or poorly lit image.

I wonder why you decided to make it in a such a poorly lit location? There must be hundreds of places in hartlepool that would suffice as a location with better ambient street light. There are even infra red cameras available to the resourceful film/video maker.

Why didn't you just make a radio play if film language and image and composition is so low on your list of priorities? Its churlish of you to deny or suggest that film is not primarily a visual medium.

I fail to see how this stretched your film making muscle and fulfilled the briefs you set out in your long gone website of putting inventiveness, flair and style into low budget film making. Its very slight- it doesn't even have a proper ending and let's face it it would have took you literally minutes to knock something up.

It seems to me like you're failing to meet your own standards. How can someone who produces this sort of work put himself in a position where he expects people to take his opinions on film making seriously? People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. This is a backwards step Phillip. Admit it.

[= KA$H =]

I would agree that the lighting could have been better. I assume your camera does not have Night Vision.

Also Phil, the "Hello Dave" bit I was referring to was AFTER the guy started having a fit on the floor.

As for the humour, sure it is a drama, but with two fairly young lads going out in the woods, realistically there would be some humour. A lot of serious films these days have elements of humour in them (see: Saw... See-saw.... geddit?!).

[philipswales]

If you have nothing to contribute, Alan, then contribute nothing.

[philipswales]

Ahh, right. I see.


In that case - not guilty, m'lud.


My brother improvised a lot of the dialogue in that scene, because it was taking longer than expected to get out of the woods, and he felt like he should be saying SOMETHING.


And since he co-directed the picture too, the decision was his ultimately.

Me, I was just the writer and producer. I give the director complete creative freedom once we go into production.


And not that it matters, but it's actually "Dev", not "Dave".

[philipswales]

And to answer your question, no, the camera didn't have night vision.

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ January 15, 2005 03:38 AM: Message edited by: philipswales ]</font>

[philipswales]

What do I expect?


I expect them to turn up when they say they will and commit to the project from the day I cast them.

Is that too much to ask? If it is, I'll just go be a writer instead.

Doing something for free doesn't mean doing it half-arsed.

I used to be in amateur dramatics. One/two rehearsals a week for 3 months, then on stage every night after work for a whole week.

Exhausting for sure, but I didn't bail out.

All I ask from my actors is one Sunday a week.

Small potatoes in comparison, isn't it?