The Hit - ID# 113

Southland College Prep

Dramatic Narrative

Entry Description

The aftermath of the disposal of an important member of the family is explored and sees Paulie’s fate settled once and for all.

Copyright Info

Recent Teacher Comments

• 4/30 9:25 am - Overall, the dialogue was good, but some of it felt forced. Nice shot selection. It added to the drama. At times, it was just too dark, but I still liked the style and variety. Quality incorporation of sound design into the story. It was very ambitious and added a lot. Sound is so tough, it could have used more touch ups, but I really appreciate that you went for it.
• 3/10 8:29 am - Your music drops down so suddenly in the opening, but for seemingly no reason, I am waiting for something to happen, dialog, action something, but instead it takes close to 10 seconds for the first dialog to start. I think portions of this video were brilliant, but as a complete dramatic narrative there was nothing new, fresh, or creative about it. I felt like I was watching a mob movie that I have seen before a million times in television and movies. You have a knack for editing a conversation together using your camera, and editing., and your actors, lighting, etc were very good. I just would have loved more of a story. Sound was really crisp, but at times your lav mic rubbed up against a shirt and was a little distracting Guy at the end seemed a little bit to happy to kill off his friend.

Judge 1

Positives: • The acting is phenomenal - I really believed these characters- great casting choices & commitment to the roles. If the commitment wasn't there, this wouldn't work- but you all made it work; bravo! • The cinematography is so bold; I love it- it makes the film unforgettable and really elevates the story.

Improvements: • There are sections where the sound drops out completely; It doesn't feel finished and takes me out of the film briefly. • The cinematography, despite being bold, is a bit too dark.

Judge 2

Positives: A dark and mysterious mood is established at the outset with an ominous call from what one assumes is a mob boss. A deed is accomplished. The introduction of a practical (46 – 49 sec mark) overhead further sets the tone of what appears to be a gangster related hit in a film noir exploration. The dialogue is crisp and staccato; it’s very much like a David Mamet play with an economy of words that describe the situation without too much verbiage. I recommend his film, Spartan (2004) where, as the title suggests, is a study in what’s NOT being said rather than what is. Another such example would be Heist (2001) and equally short sentenced, but no less intriguing film of a film noir narrative.

Improvements: The overall film is much too dark. Just because the narrative subject is a film noir, gangster scene, it doesn’t mean that the film should be shot in the dark. Shooting the film at dusk or late afternoon can establish the mood fully without drowning the entire scene in black. This can be solved by an introduction of light through a window behind the gangster, ‘Johnny,’ leaving him in a dark and ominous silhouette. The addition of a lit cigarette showing: 1) a smoky haze and 2) a little bit of a red light, can achieve the mise-en-scene of the scene. A study in Film Noir movies show two aspects: 1) a dark scene is lit with strong shafts of light peering through the horizontal blinds or overhead from a street lamp with fog or rain, and 2) a bright scene is deliberately painted dark in corners as if to suggest something sinister or, at least, with high contrast setting as to make the blacks extremely dark while making the lights extremely bright. Remember, when viewing films with a strong character study (film noir + underworld characters), it’s best to balance the dark with the light. The dialogue, ‘You know what? You’re right,’ (Blam!) sounds like an ADR element and feels uncomfortable and contrary to the entire dialogue exchange (48 – 1:12 sec mark). The sudden drop in sound (4:26 – 4:35 sec mark) additionally is a bit jarring in the absence of any sound. Finally, the split screen used when the ‘Paully’ washes his hands is considerably different in each scene (the left is brightly lit, the right is not lit at all). This is unnecessary and could have been stage a little more naturally. No need to light the faces of the two guys are dumping the body in the trunk. What’s important is the actual dumping of the body itself. I recommend Good Fellas (1991) by Martin Scorsese where the body is dumped in the back of the car. The scene is heavily lit from the outside by car lights and brake lights. It takes away nothing to see that the deed is evil, but it’s a scene really well lit to ‘show the viewer’ the deed cinematically.

Judge 3

Positives: Great placement of title with the car! The performances are committed.

Improvements: The opening split screen is unnecessary. It offers no new information. The film is too dark overall. Often, I am not sure where we are in terms of location. Needs to be lightened up a bit.

Judge 4

Positives:

Improvements: