The SOF Ethics Video Series - Episode 1: Adultery

Greetings all, long time lurker, first time submitter.
Here's the link to the video:


vimeo.com/86564151
Password:bmcuser

This was shot over four days with a mostly military cast & crew. Meant to be part of small group discussions in the Special Operations community regarding ethical conduct. This is the 'Adultery' episode, which is the first in the series (four episodes) but the last one shot. The secondary purpose was to show what kind of products the Special Warfare Center can kick out in-house. For the whole production, we lost a bit on quality over a contractor but saved around $150,000.
This my first vimeo post, I'll work on getting a higher quality version later.

Tech specs:
Camera: Blackmagic Cinema Camera (m43 mount, ProRes, film profile)
Lens: Helios 58, Sankor anamorphic, Isco anamorphic
Audio: Assorted Sennheiser shotguns.
Lights: Assorted Lowell flourescents.
Gear: SHAPE rig, 20' Easyjib, PVC pipe track

All post-production (Editing, grading, audio) done in FCPX.

All critiques and questions are welcome.

Certainly an ambitious project, Anthony. Attempting to get believable performances from non-professional actors is a daunting task at best, add to that a drama with gravitas & you're upping the stakes immeasurably.

For the most part you've achieved your goal. Let's look at the positives...

The opening scene is excellent, the steady forward movement as we establish the shot, progressing with that track as we move inside past the men in various states of distress, ending on the Captain's line, delivered in a perfect, natural, believable manner. I was hooked.

Then we start to go a bit off that high standard. COL Griggs delivery is a bit wooden & unnatural, Capt Nelson also has some of this tendency at times. In situations like this, I like to get the actors up off the page. By this I mean, relax the rigidity of the script somewhat. Though your text is fairly well written for the most part, we don't need to keep the speaker shackled to a by wrote performance. If there are certain points or beats that need to be hit in the scene, we can experiment by a more natural conversation around the points, shoot more, edit more, but end up with a much more organic natural read. Granted, in your situation with military men, the level of relaxedness will be considerably less, but I like to read once thru totally relaxed, then ridiculously officious, once we've hit those two almost comical extremes, we have an increased propensity to just settle into a baseline or real read by feeling for the scene rather than performance for the page or lens. As mentioned the writing is fairly natural for the most part, but in this scene the mention of seeing people "walking thru that door" doesn't need to be repeated.

The outdoor meeting scene works really well, I was very impressed by the quality of sound here. Not only levels but clarity, balance, etc. Overall your sound is professional, the music is subtle & effective, loved the epic cinematic track during the closing credits. But it's the calibre of the sound in the external scenes, or indeed every scene outside the Colonel's office, which contrasts with the substandard quality within. We have a slight hissing roomtone which is particularly noticeable on the tale end of Captain Nelson's lines, where it's abruptly cut off. The cutoff rather than a ramped fade draws even more attention to the anomaly. This is extremely annoying & along with the stilted performances in that room makes us enjoy the other scenes exponentially more. As a director you have to detach yourself from the regular work groove we all slip into, enough to be able to see the subtle things that disrupt the scene. The Negs, I call them. This would include Captain Nelson's continually furrowed brow. Is he projecting skepticism, amazement, incredulity? It doesn't fit. Nor does his accelerated blink rate. Maybe you wanted him to look a little nervous, but it still doesn't fit here. Celebrated FBI interrogation specialist & supervisor in the area of counterintelligence and behavioral assessment, Joe Navarro associates the elevated blink rate with dishonesty. Speaking of not fitting in, any nervousness upon first meeting Colonel Griggs seems to have dissipated a few minutes into their interview. In fact, as Nelson returns with the file he seems almost casual. This section seems somewhat incongruous, as we don't believe he would return to the important superior officer's purview when he hasn't even read the document he's bringing back to discuss. "I've just started it," he says.

Ok, we get it, you want to set up your script so the Colonel can tell the story, but the ploy is disingenuous & doesn't fit our perceived military decorum of an officer in this situation. All your military audience watching this will pick up on this, even if only subconsciously (another neg accrued). These all may seem like tiny negatives, but they add up.

Perhaps a another route to get you where you want to be in that office, could be Nelson returning with the paper open, with a question about a specific detail. Griggs, could appear annoyed at the interruption but quietly admiring the perceptive young officer for spotting that buried salient point. This can begin to establish an interesting dynamic of growing respect.

Having only watched the film once, I'm going on initial observations, your exterior scenes are more memorable & natural. The scene with the purple flowers as our lovers recline on the couch, could do with a subtle touch. Yes it's a beautiful frame, but I would have preferred a very slow zoom throughout that scene, even if we just track in 10 to 15% as the scene plays, we will establish an emotional feeling of increased intimacy. This camera technique will support the script & performances, both of which work strongly here. She's very believable. You can even add a slight slow creeping zoom when we shift to the closer 2 shot, but less here, maybe 5% over the length of the shot.

We have an odd little audio choice with the phone business, we hear Colin when he's speaking English, but for some reason we can't hear him responding in Spanish. This makes her head nodding appear pantomime & corny. The line about Colin loving her Spanish seems a tad contrived to end the scene on. Speaking of which, why does her father the Deputy Attorney General not have a Spanish accent? He sounds like a good ole Southern boy just stepping off the set of Dukes of Hazzard.

We have a slight issue with camera angles for establishing heights of actors. Ok, Colin may be shorter but let's lessen that a tad when he's meeting the girls. This problem first comes to our notice in the first outdoor meeting scene when our adulterer meets the official's daughter. She might be tall, but she seems too tall here. Yes in reality many men are shorter than the girls they're with, but Hollywood goes to great lengths to conceal this. Why? Because we're dealing with establishing emotional connections with the audience so that we're not jarred from the fantasy of story, back into the stark reality of everyday mundane existence. Tom Cruise or Robert Downey Jr., might actually be shorter than their leading ladies, but this is never noticeable in the films. Is this because these actors are insecure? Maybe, but I assure you the decision to conceal the height comes from the studio execs at the highest level. The romantic ideal isn't just a fairytale fabrication it's a universal trait that translates into every language.

In your first outdoor scene she almost does a comical spit-take when she sees our loverboy for the first time. This seems highly implausible at a public meeting in front of her father & other dignitaries. Ok, so they like each other, but let's be subtle, in a romantic spark sense, less is more here.

One other note on this scene. Remember the setting here, we're in a predominantly Catholic country, where abortion is illegal, we're at an official state gathering where dress-code is brought up, her father's a distinguished statesman whom she describes as "puritanical," yet we see her brazenly flaunting a tattoo on her back. In our culture we might think nothing of such a display, but having traveled to such countries I can assure you this doesn't fit the story you're trying to portray.

Since we keep going back to the office conversation, the sound hiss issue becomes increasingly apparent as it contrasts to the otherwise excellent sound from the other scenes. Once a Neg sets in, it opens the door for others to be noticed. Suddenly we are aware the lighting doesn't match. Colonel Griggs has a soft light from his right, yet Nelson shows none of that, he's in a much brighter room, with no light from his left, just a hot overhead, none of which is spilling onto Griggs. It doesn't fit.

When the outgoing drunken CO gets a beat down from the Paraguayan cops, the truncheon whacks look entirely fake. The mopping the floor scene goes on a bit too long, or more accurately, it doesn't really work. Perhaps a stern look from the Colonel would convey more serious demotion implications on our furrowed friend's face. This would ultimately carry more weight as we close the film with the text cautioning that a dishonorable discharge is a severe deterrent to obtaining work in the civilian world. We need to establish the horror-show scenario this fellow faces having lost everything. Why show someone with a janitorial job? Some of those cleaners make good money, sure it's not as prestigious as being a military officer, but it's not the level of destitute despair we want to impart.

Again, these may seem like a lot of tiny nit picking critical points, but without them a viewer is drawn deeper into the suspension of disbelief, to a place where your intended message can take root, & that is the purpose of your film. So all the minuscule obstacles to the impactful delivery of your core tenet, hinder the purpose & prime objective. Thus, these seemingly petty pieces of minutia accumulate into a powerful enemy fighting against you.

Regarding your objective; at the mention of the title, our senses are primed to be somewhat cynical of what's sure to be a morality tale. Yet the story was still thoroughly engaging, even with the occasional amateurish annoyance, this level of audience engagement is a strong testament to your ability as a filmmaker.

Thanks for sharing, Anthony. Looking forward to more of your work.
And a special heartfelt thank-you to you & your team for bravely serving your country.







J. Matthew
Global•Watch•Media•Consulting
www.GWM2.com

@GlobalWatchM3






.

Thanks so much for your well considered response. You have a long history of valuable feedback, and I appreciate the time you took for this one.

The details you noticed coincide pretty well with my own. The actor playing the Colonel is a frequent community stage actor, in addition to his real job as an actual Colonel in the Radiology department at our base hospital. The love interest is also an actress at the same theatre, and consults with the Public Affairs shop at the Special Warfare Center. The only 'Professional' actor was Tavis Baker, who kindly filled in as a last minute replacement for the Young Captain. So the stilted performance you see is COL Griggs' best efforts to tone down the projected acting style more typically seen on the stage, in addition to his limited familiarity with the script. This was the last night of shooting, and the previous day was a completely different scenario.

All the rest were soldiers from the Civil Affairs Section at the Special Warfare Center. Interestingly, two of them were on the actual team that was sent to Paraguay to relieve the team that is depicted in the script. So our choices were limited. Aracel was going to be an Amazon with a tattoo, the Hispanic accents were going to be mixed, and Colin was going to be short. I completely understand what you meant about height differences, but it was a conscious decision not to fudge that. The soldier playing Colin is not really an actor, and the grief he would have gotten from his buddies if we'd made him taller would have been too much to bear.

The lighting differences you see are the result of shooting at a practical location instead of a stage. The Colonel - Captain sequences were shot over three hours one night in Commanding General's reception area. It was the largest area that suited our purposes, but still didn't leave room for more than two light stands. Since I couldn't move furniture around much, I decided to use the light as a visual reminder that the Captain was under scrutiny. In retrospect, it was probably just wishful thinking. To my eye, the bigger problem is the plain background behind the Captain, as opposed to the Colonel. I think that draws attention to the lighting differences you noticed. I'll make another grading pass and see if I can mitigate that.

Honest question here: Did the lack of shot variety in the Colonel's office bother you at all? We were so pressed for time and had only one camera, but I always wondered if it would have benefited from more than just two O/S's. On the other hand, I tried to keep those sections short to maintain interest, and more shots may have looks too busy. I opted go for 'simple but good' in the details because we were so audacious in the concept itself. No one in the command had any idea how ambitious we were in attempting this.

Another question: I went for as un-video a look as I could, from lens choices to camera moves to color grading. As you've said, I'm far too into the weeds to render a valid opinion any more. Did the look complement the story?


The audio hiss you hear has been a constant struggle. We decided to record audio in camera rather than externally to simplify the workflow and eliminate another vector for mistakes - This was my first major scripted production of this nature, and also our first time using this camera. As has been well documented elsewhere, audio recording on the Blackmagic cameras is an absolute disgrace. They managed to get a near-film quality image for a hundredth of what it cost five years ago, but were utterly baffled by the prospect of plumbing a usable audio signal into the damned thing. On the upside, I can say that Final Cut's audio tools are pretty good. The remaining hiss you hear is where I just finally had to abandon audio restoration and move on in order to meet the production deadline. Now that I'm past that, I can go back and improve it for the next duplication run. I'm looking at Izotope RX as a possible solution.

On a positive note, I'm glad that the Colonel/Captain portion didn't detract too much from the narrative. I wrote it this way to serve two purposes: Primarily, as something to cut to when I couldn't actually shoot something, for budget ($0.00) or time (One month) reasons. Secondarily, I wanted at least the framework of an ethical discussion, in case the video got seen outside a strictly classroom environment.

My greatest regret is that the thesis statement for this episode is alluded to, but never explicitly given. When the Colonel says the weakness is not the fact that the girl is attractive, we never pay that statement off. In the script, later on the Colonel reveals that the greater danger is the fact that the soldier himself is suddenly attractive. This happens all the time on deployments, especially in Civil Affairs, and is the real situation that needs guarding against. The sexiest thing in the world is a good suit and a gun. Sergeant Bob suddenly becomes 'The American', the tall guy with the murky past and the Operational Fund. This is the heightened experience that can lead to compromised ethical decision making. Unfortunately, this speech was accidentally cut in a round of script editing. I simply blew it. Luckily, much of the live discussion focuses on this point.

You noted the clumsiness of getting back into the office and on to the story. This was a combination of bad writing and late editorial changes. I recognize that narratively I have only the bare bones here. This was a concession to budget, time, acting ability and, frankly, my own talents as a new writer. As I was cutting the episodes together, we decided to make this episode first instead of last. It was our best, and we decided to lead with it. As a result, I had to cut some lines that no longer made sense, and shorten the transition to the embassy scene.

As far as their informality, this is a function of the intended audience vs. the incidental. Much of the SF mission is cultivating relationships, and so in-house they're all on a first name basis. A civilian audience may find it jarring but the intended audience, so far, has had no problem with it.

Another example of this was the mopping scene. We went back and forth in editing over adding a line of text writ large over the middle of the screen, reading "Somewhere far, far away." The image is immediately recognizable to the intended audience. No one, but no one wants to associate in any way with someone leaving the Special Forces (God forbid it might be contagious). So what happens is what you see: He gets stuck doing mundane work until his paperwork clears. It might be that he's too far away for you to see he's still in uniform.

As to the couch scene, look again. I did add a zoom, but apparently it was too subtle. I'll see if I can increase it and still match the next shot.

As for the beat down, was it the audio, the performance or the framing/editing that took you out of the moment? I always felt like it was the shot revealing the gun. I never quite got it right, but couldn't tell you why.

That's enough, I think. Again, thanks so much for your critique. This was an experiment on so many levels and you were very generous with your time.

Thank you for the thoughtful reply, Anthony. Many times, especially with young filmmakers, their ego gets bruised if even the slightest suggestion is made. It's been my experience that the pathway to growth begins with the possibility of changes. Most of this has to happen in our mind first.

Rather go over a list of points, your experiences with editing & losing chunks of logic or reason are commonplace in filmmaking, even on major features. Where they differ is the experience & courage to stray off the norm in the freedom of artistic license.

For instance, the Deputy Attorney General's obvious American accent at the Embassy mixer. We've already got the footage of your four men walking (& yes we know Colin is shorter, we'll deal with that later). As they do the walk we've got a set pace & it matches the dialogue, but you could try a little section of one of the shots, perhaps the one from the back where you slow the frame rate as you add one line as a voice over from the CO. "He was educated in the US." This is a tiny little throw away line, but it fixes an error in logic or narrative continuity completely.

Similarly, when we're having the recounting of the story by the Colonel, the strict adherence to the script I alluded to earlier, is mirrored in your marriage to convention in the video style. At ease soldier! So if you absolutely must have a mopping scene, it could be misty, dreamlike, preferably with the lights flickering off & on, ending on an off. Experiment with music in that tiny piece, if this is a horrific prospect to SpecForce guys, amp it up a touch, subtly in the music or sound effects. Try a dreamy or nightmarish feel to a subtle extent, I wouldn't mind experimenting with a contra-zoom for the vertigo or Hitchcock effect. As that happens I would like to try a closeup overlay of the mop man's face, down, forlorn in shadows as he mops, maybe at only 50% opacity but filling over half the frame, in slow motion as we see a drop fall from his face, was it sweat.. a tear?

Yes we all have deadlines & budgets, but experimenting on the side of daring in tiny little scenes like this really opens up your story, & contrasts beautifully with the static office dialogue scenes. Art is contrast. Be willing to fail on your own, you might try something that's too crazy, & it doesn't work, but you had a look at it, then you can ratchet it back towards the direction of caution to find something that works. Just like the technique I described for tuning your actors using two extremes, you can apply the same principals to your post production artistry. You have these creative choices which are so small & subtle yet they liberate you from a straight "ABC" narrative. When you play with speed & light like this you're shaping time & space, with this power comes emotional impact on viewers. Better delivery system.

Time constraints are an enemy of art. The famous axiom "Fast Good Cheap, pick two.," applies to any project. So your struggles with script are common. Many successful features had their script reworked & rewritten, often by several people, experts, consultants, etc, for upwards of two years before shooting begins. Plus I've been on sets of features where daily rewrites are also going on. The gist of what I'm getting at is a mindset, & for the most part it's rather foreign to the conditioned regimented mind necessary for military officers.

Perhaps you can think of it this way. You go thru years of training, forging your body & mind into an almost machine like response to various stimuli. Your knowledge & competency with all the weapon systems, rules of engagement, chain of command, all work like clockwork. However, when you're in the firestorm of combat it's a fluid situation, people behave in sometimes unpredictable ways, you're forced to adjust plans or waver off the written page even momentarily as you recalibrate & adapt to reach the objective. Every film is like this too, we preplan every possible outcome, yet the weather doesn't behave, or a prop get's lost or broken, Murphy's law resurfaces, in the most unexpected way. We roll with it, confidently trusting in our training, experience, the unified vision for the project & our team. At the helm, you have to learn to trust your artistic eye. We captured that scene in the can perfectly, but before we break the set, let's run it once more, but let the actors be free, or let's change the lighting or camera position. Dare to experiment. Especially with digital, you're not paying for film. What's the difference between the style of a successful feature & a corporate sales team video? Artistry. Now, granted, yours needs to be a bit of both, but I'm a firm believer that if you capture the heart & mind of your viewer you'll convey the lesson far better than just preaching at them. Advertisers know this, because it works.

So, did I find the office scene could use more camera angles or shot types, sure, but it wasn't a major issue at the time, because the other tiny negs were distracting me. Perhaps a high corner of the room POV down on the desk with the two men might work, or a tracking shot along their profiles, you have leeway to experiment, if something doesn't work, lose it. Same with the bright wall, mask it in post add a vignette or reduce brightness, many options.

There's even a way to vary your over the shoulder shots in post. For instance, here's a choice you could make to add another dimension of feeling. Assuming both those O/S shots are locked down on a tripod, you could add a slight movement of the frame in post from the Captain's side, this very gently shows us some nerves or instability when the Colonel gets on a serious topic. It's a tiny almost imperceptible thing the subconscious registers. Speaking of imperceptible, I'd have to watch the film again to look for the zoom on the couch.

"Informality" is perhaps the wrong choice of words, sorry if that's what I implied, I was meaning more along the lines of implausibility. It didn't seem logical the Captain would return to discuss a case which he just started reading. Especially since the paper wan't thick, he could have taken just five extra minutes then returned with some substance. We could recognize the plot device you were working & didn't like it. Ok, the base fosters a more conversational style environment, but having just met the Colonel, I can't see a Captain being so relaxed as to just saunter back without even reading the document. As for conversational style & particularly the acting chasm between stage projection & screen intimacy. Getting a believable performance out of an actor is a tricky business, sometimes you have to be a little deceptive. Your scene's lit & blocked, you're running thru variations (these are vital). You're on digital, I let the camera roll when nobody knows or activate it by remote, I might be talking in the scene, coaching or challenging, easily removed in post. I might walk in & out of the frame while working with them. All this convinces them we're not shooting. It's in these moments you sometimes get the real person, not the actor performing. This method is the most effective when working with child actors.

As for your grading, I was ok with it. Your exterior shots, the people interacting, foliage & skin-tones all work for me, in that there's no real "look" we perceive you're going for, so the orange & teal "blockbuster" look isn't aimed for, nor the colder scifi pale green hue, all of which would have been distracting. Fairly consistently your grading appears natural, so we can just focus on the story, nothing is really detracting. The opening scene seemed a bit muddy brown reddish both for her exterior & the first guy we see inside, which I think is Colin, when we reach our adulterer there's some light but I still feel that outdoors scene could deal with a little conventional exterior night grading which is more a colder bluer moonlight look usually. The interior looks like either the camera settings are off a tad (we heard it has 13 stops), but something is just a tiny bit off for me. Perhaps someone with more technical expertise can advise on this section, as I haven't worked with that camera yet. The look reminds me of other DSLR's we shot video on in low light conditions, the color, the grain or noise, it just doesn't look like film to me. But like I said earlier, it's probably one of my favorite lines in the film, "Sir, we have a situation.

As for the "situation" with Colin's height. What I'm suggesting isn't standing him on an apple box or putting her in a trench (yes they've done that), but rather a slight shift that even his buddies wouldn't notice. Not in the four men walking to the party scene, but in the iconic meeting of the girl scene. His buddies don't know how tall the girl he's meeting is. We're shooting an innocuous meeting, but we want it to contain a spark of romantic idealism. Why? Because the scene has weight, Colin's meeting this girl & whatever excitement or potential romance is implied has to be powerful enough to sway him from his duty to report a serious military infraction, this is almost a forbidden fruit dream-like sequence. We have license here to play with music, lighting, angles, anything, make it a bit mystical even, he's being seduced from his post. If I let the prospect of buddies teasing, alter my artistic choices, I'm no longer a conduit for the spirit of true expression, that's paralyzing. It's more empowering for the piece to be too courageous then rein it back a bit in post, than to be lame & devoid of exciting choices. Many times I've had battles with editors over them wanting things to be more conventional, less daring, their mindset & lack of creativity was crippling. But I insisted, & time after time, it was the daring aspects they fought so hard against, which were the best received by clients, viewers & critics. You can't be an artist if you're not free to play. Sometimes like a child, you make a mess, but sometimes, it's genius. Play a little, within the confines of the structure, stretch the parameters a bit. Hehe... just remembered a great great Special Forces motto - SAS - Who Dares Wins.







J. Matthew
Global•Watch•Media•Consulting
www.GWM2.com

@GlobalWatchM3






.