Bonnie Gross: I thought that “Glory at Sea” was very interesting. The story itself was very moving and done mostly with images. There is very little dialogue, which makes the entire short even more powerful. One could see that each image had thought behind it. The story was a little bit confusing to follow, especially in the beginning. I was always confused as to the exact reason the townspeople were building the boat and to why they did some of the thing they did. I guess this made the overall ending even more meaningful. One thing that threw me off was the shakiness of the entire film. At first I thought something was wrong with the video. It was frustrating to have the camera be shaky for the entire short. I did not fully understand the motive behind it, but I am sure there is specific reason that Benh Zeitlin chose to make the short this way. I really enjoyed was the close ups. There were a myriad of close ups through out the film, that were powerful. This is because each close up conveyed a huge amount of emotion, even if it were just for a second on the screen. Another thing that I really liked was a specific shot in the film. It was a medium shot of the main guy in the bathtub on the water. In the background is a street sign floating that reads, “Elysan fields.” I loved the composition of this shot. The main guy is in focus and the street sign gradually fades into focus. I thought it was very effective because it was the spot where they found their loved ones under water. In all I thought that the short was very good and had a bunch of beautiful shots.
Mike McGee: There is a lot of material I could cover, both positive and negative about this film. I could talk about how I really liked the consistent atmosphere or how some scenes dragged on too long, but all of this pales in comparison to the simple fact that this movie did something that is way too rare in film making. It didn't explain too much. It didn't nail down what was going on, where this was all taking place, what had happened, or any detail conventionally considered imperative to have a successful narrative film. It focused on what a short film does best, evoking an emotion. The whole film felt like an experience. It didn't feel like I was sitting at my computer, watching a movie for a film class. I wasn't watching it to find out the next plot detail, or to see what a character was going to do, I was watching it just to see more of it. I really can't give a movie much higher praise than that.
Calvin Ross: This film is something that I have never experienced before. It's style was extremely unique by the way it was composed and by the way it told a story. The plot of the is very vague. Little bits and pieces were given to explain what was what. I feel that this was very successful because it was not clear cut, it did not make sense, which made the film worth watching. I felt lost in this world I as was watching it. The lack of explanation is what made my imagination run wild. My mind delved into a world of the unknown, or the uncertainty. Overall, an excellent short.
Nia Barnes: This was a very unique and interesting short. The beginning of the movie just set the tone for the rest of the movie. Having the dead in the ocean just floating around was very creative. The quality of the shots under the water were a little blurry and murky but that adds to the mystery yet the adventure of the movie. The free hand camera was very affective because it truly captured the essence and the movement of the people, especially during the scene of the community partying. From the camera angles and the dark lighting captured the culture of the New Orleans people and community. This movie successfully exemplified the quality of community. Even though a storm and physically wiped out an entire community, the culture and essence is still alive which gives people hope. The location of where they shot this film was very unique. They captured the true essence of that locations being a torn down town that still has elements of beauty captures the element of the people in the short, they were brought down by the storm but kept hope alive. Having the little girl narrate the film, help adds hope to the film because there is something about the innocent voice of a child that opens peoples hearts and they start to think positively. This short was very touching and it adds a lighter side to tragedy in severe weather.
Glory at Sea, had one main feature, that stood out, during the entire film. This was the underwater cinematography, it amazed me how Benh Zeitlin was able to get those shots, and be so realistic at the same time. With the actor’s clothing colors, hair colors, and the color of the water, the seaweed, the bubbles the actor’s were blowing underwater to breathe, and Zeitlin even adding the multiple plants that grow underwater and getting them to their exact height. That is what makes a great director – Realism in a movie, so audiences will believe the story being told. My question was, how did he get those shots underwater? He must have used a waterproof camera or lens with a waterproof case over it.
My only criticism was it was difficult to understand the story at the beginning, maybe because their was little dialogue, however I did like that and I also enjoyed the voiceover. But ten minutes into the film I finally understood where he was going with the storyline. I also liked how the story gave off a message to the audience.
What was funny, was that Benh Zeitlin probably never thought anyone would realize where he shot this film. However, I knew where he shot a couple of scenes. I can say it was probably shot in New Orleans, being from there I noticed he shot in front of an abandoned theme park called, “Jazz Land” that was destroyed from Hurricane Katrina. When I saw that, it took the “story” out of the film for me and brought me back to the real world.
He had some great camera work in the film. Like the parade/music scene where I believe he’s just holding the camera himself because it’s definitely shaking, a lot! It makes the scene very real, because the audience feels like they’re in on all the action occurring.
I thought the film had great lighting, I liked his use of fire in that same scene I mentioned above. I also thought the use of color was used well, especially the water color. Also, making the days seem gloomy and sad and just “not happy,” a gray sky color. So Zeitlin did a good job there as well.
One of my favorite parts, has to be the score, or soundtrack that was composed for this film. The music that was placed in each scenes fits perfectly. I always say music/sound makes a film!
So, when I looked Zeitlin up I noticed his current film is nominated for 4 Oscars and I saw this was his first short film. I have to say, GOOD JOB!
A very well-made short, the lighting and camera work was magnificent. The way the movie was done reminded me of post-disaster pictures and films, dedicated to raising awareness or for raising money for disaster relief, and it kept that feeling throughout. Indeed, I have to admit, by the end I was moved by the overall effect that mixed the lighting, the music, the narration, and the other visuals. The lighting for the exterior “day” shots carried a muted grey-yellow tone that conveyed a mixed sense of sadness and hope at the same time. Normally I would have found the music to be grating and unremarkable, but it fit the tone of the film well, and helped build on the emotion. The visuals like the boat, the ambitious underwater shots, the ruins of their old town, and the desolate beach all contributed to the general ambiance of the movie.
However, despite the moving emotions created by the brilliant effects, the movie was horribly flawed in a few ways. Most notably, the plot is nigh-incomprehensible. It is so bizarre that it is extremely difficult to even describe the story, though I will try my best to do so. It follows the story of survivors of a terrible storm, all of whom have lost loved ones. One man miraculously (and inexplicably) washes up on shore alive, sometime after the storm has passed. He starts building a raft for unclear purposes, and eventually the townspeople join in to help, and many end up going with him. He jumps off the raft at some point while it is drifting, and disappears for an indeterminate amount of time. While he is gone, the raft begins to break apart (after I assume a few days), and, when all hope seems lost, he pops back up and they all go underwater and find their loved ones, apparently still living after the (weeks?) that they had been underwater in the middle of the ocean. Either that or they were all allegorically dead, I’m not sure which. Of further irritation, at least to me, was that some of the characters didn’t make a lot of sense. The Reverend was the main one, as he seemed to be a depressing, almost antagonistic character, but the motives behind his behavior are unclear.
Overall, Glory at Sea was a very emotionally moving short film, but most of that was due to the visuals and the sound, not the plot. It is an excellent study in how lighting, visuals, music, and camera work can create an emotional atmosphere, even if the story doesn’t make any sense.
Skylar Brown: I have mixed feelings about this short, while it was very interesting and kept me guessing at what will happen, there were points where I felt completely lost and confused about what was going on. By the end of the movie I was finally able to understand the plot but at the same time I felt like the movie left a lot of questions unanswered, which really annoys me. Though on a positive note I loved the shot composition of the whole film, the opening scene was my favorite part, when you see the rain drops from under the water it gives the dead girls words imagery. I even enjoyed how the camera wold shake when it followed the movements of a person because it made it see like the viewer was walking on the same uneven paths through the storm debris that the characters were. Also the lighting was amazing and added to the mood conveyed in the film, like in the beginning when the people are looking out at the sea the lighting was slightly darker which helped the viewer to understand that the mood is forlorn. Overall I felt that the story was very intriguing and unique but to confusing to fully enjoy, however the lighting and camera composition was amazing and the film was visually beautiful.
The most prominent feature of this film that I couldn't help but pay attention to throughout the entire story was the cinematography. Every single shot was so beautiful and symbolic and I really enjoyed watching. Some of the best shots were underwater.
Part of the way through, the film strongly reminded me of Beasts of the Southern Wild, and after it was done I realized it was the same director. It had the same soulful, innocent feeling Beasts did. The characters, although odd, were very endearing and I felt so elated at the end when they were reunited with loved ones.
The story itself was a bit confusing, as you couldn't tell whether some parts were "real" or not. It was sort of hard to follow but I think the way the film makes you feel is more important. It had a very consistent, specific tone, really creating the atmosphere and feel of the movie.
Joel Jarvis Glory at Sea is one of those films that keeps the viewer guessing what is actually going on until the very end. I'm not sure if all the characters are in limbo or planet x but the first time I watched it I was slightly confused. The second run through I tried to ignore the normal questions of who, what, when, and why, and just watched. Knowing that this is for a video production class I tried to concentrate specifically on the individual shots that made up this vague plot. The ones that intrigued me most were the underwater shots. That could have been on loop and I could have watched it for days. It amazed me how quiet and still everything was yet there were unexplainable bursts of life coming from every corner of the screen.
Steven Hiott I found Glory at Sea to be a very interesting short. Although it did not include a lot of dialogue, the lack there of made what was said important and seem very key. It was hard to figure out what some of the main points of the movie were, and it was a nice change from most movies that the meaning was more under the surface, just as many of the scenes were. The story itself was a little hard to follow, but the cinematography was amazing and the underwater shots were phenomenal, giving the viewer somewhat of a magical or out of body view. The atmosphere the shots created made it a fun short to experience.
Ellen Schwartz The storyline of Glory at the Sea was creative and mystical. I had a hard time figuring out what was going on at first but it is definitely one of those movies you have to stick with till the very end. I guess what I"m saying is that it wasn't predictable, at least for me it wasn't. One thing that I thought was interesting was the guy who came out of the sea always had his face covered with his hair but once he was in the water and found his girl his face was easily seen. I don't know what I'm trying to say here. I guess it was like he himself was trapped in this world but once he found his girlfriend(?) he was free. Or maybe a metaphor that they were both trapped. The lack of dialog left it up to our imagination to figure out the pieces. I noticed the cinematography more than the rest. Beautifully shot and the shots seemed to all have purpose to them. I especially liked the shots on the boat and beach.
Rebecca Bynum: Glory at Sea was a very interesting and unique short film. I found the story line being told by the dead about the living, different but powerful. The cinematography in this short film was brought out by the sea itself; it was a symbol well beyond being a body of water. My favorite shots in Glory at Sea were the underwater shots and the pillars or columns sticking out of the water to mark the people who died in the storm. The underwater shots brought a different approach to cinematography and created a world outside the living, it was a sense of the afterlife in this short. The pillars or columns used in the film showed distant lines in shots and created a powerful image. The characters were odd and you never really saw the main characters face except for when he was under the water. The lighting was set perfectly with a greyish dark sky used during the day up until they’re about to sail. They begin to realize hope by finishing the boat and leaving the land and he portrays this by the lighting, they finish the boat at sunset giving some warm life to the story.
This short consists of a lot of speaking coming from the camera's perspective. Lots of motion in the shots that oddly match the rhythm of what is happening and give added meaning as well. One shot in particular really spoke to me. When the dad is standing on the hill by his bike the camera is down hill and motionless while he paces around without purpose. Suddenly he is moving with a sense of urgency toward a torn up building. The camera stays with him and then as he turns 90 degrees the camera continues to back off moving at the same rate of speed, but perpendicular to the action.
Bonnie Gross: I thought that “Glory at Sea” was very interesting. The story itself was very moving and done mostly with images. There is very little dialogue, which makes the entire short even more powerful. One could see that each image had thought behind it. The story was a little bit confusing to follow, especially in the beginning. I was always confused as to the exact reason the townspeople were building the boat and to why they did some of the thing they did. I guess this made the overall ending even more meaningful.
ReplyDeleteOne thing that threw me off was the shakiness of the entire film. At first I thought something was wrong with the video. It was frustrating to have the camera be shaky for the entire short. I did not fully understand the motive behind it, but I am sure there is specific reason that Benh Zeitlin chose to make the short this way.
I really enjoyed was the close ups. There were a myriad of close ups through out the film, that were powerful. This is because each close up conveyed a huge amount of emotion, even if it were just for a second on the screen. Another thing that I really liked was a specific shot in the film. It was a medium shot of the main guy in the bathtub on the water. In the background is a street sign floating that reads, “Elysan fields.” I loved the composition of this shot. The main guy is in focus and the street sign gradually fades into focus. I thought it was very effective because it was the spot where they found their loved ones under water. In all I thought that the short was very good and had a bunch of beautiful shots.
Mike McGee:
ReplyDeleteThere is a lot of material I could cover, both positive and negative about this film. I could talk about how I really liked the consistent atmosphere or how some scenes dragged on too long, but all of this pales in comparison to the simple fact that this movie did something that is way too rare in film making. It didn't explain too much. It didn't nail down what was going on, where this was all taking place, what had happened, or any detail conventionally considered imperative to have a successful narrative film. It focused on what a short film does best, evoking an emotion.
The whole film felt like an experience. It didn't feel like I was sitting at my computer, watching a movie for a film class. I wasn't watching it to find out the next plot detail, or to see what a character was going to do, I was watching it just to see more of it. I really can't give a movie much higher praise than that.
Calvin Ross:
ReplyDeleteThis film is something that I have never experienced before. It's style was extremely unique by the way it was composed and by the way it told a story.
The plot of the is very vague. Little bits and pieces were given to explain what was what. I feel that this was very successful because it was not clear cut, it did not make sense, which made the film worth watching. I felt lost in this world I as was watching it.
The lack of explanation is what made my imagination run wild. My mind delved into a world of the unknown, or the uncertainty.
Overall, an excellent short.
Nia Barnes:
ReplyDeleteThis was a very unique and interesting short. The beginning of the movie just set the tone for the rest of the movie. Having the dead in the ocean just floating around was very creative. The quality of the shots under the water were a little blurry and murky but that adds to the mystery yet the adventure of the movie. The free hand camera was very affective because it truly captured the essence and the movement of the people, especially during the scene of the community partying. From the camera angles and the dark lighting captured the culture of the New Orleans people and community. This movie successfully exemplified the quality of community. Even though a storm and physically wiped out an entire community, the culture and essence is still alive which gives people hope. The location of where they shot this film was very unique. They captured the true essence of that locations being a torn down town that still has elements of beauty captures the element of the people in the short, they were brought down by the storm but kept hope alive. Having the little girl narrate the film, help adds hope to the film because there is something about the innocent voice of a child that opens peoples hearts and they start to think positively. This short was very touching and it adds a lighter side to tragedy in severe weather.
Glory at Sea, had one main feature, that stood out, during the entire film. This was the underwater cinematography, it amazed me how Benh Zeitlin was able to get those shots, and be so realistic at the same time. With the actor’s clothing colors, hair colors, and the color of the water, the seaweed, the bubbles the actor’s were blowing underwater to breathe, and Zeitlin even adding the multiple plants that grow underwater and getting them to their exact height. That is what makes a great director – Realism in a movie, so audiences will believe the story being told. My question was, how did he get those shots underwater? He must have used a waterproof camera or lens with a waterproof case over it.
ReplyDeleteMy only criticism was it was difficult to understand the story at the beginning, maybe because their was little dialogue, however I did like that and I also enjoyed the voiceover. But ten minutes into the film I finally understood where he was going with the storyline. I also liked how the story gave off a message to the audience.
What was funny, was that Benh Zeitlin probably never thought anyone would realize where he shot this film. However, I knew where he shot a couple of scenes. I can say it was probably shot in New Orleans, being from there I noticed he shot in front of an abandoned theme park called, “Jazz Land” that was destroyed from Hurricane Katrina. When I saw that, it took the “story” out of the film for me and brought me back to the real world.
He had some great camera work in the film. Like the parade/music scene where I believe he’s just holding the camera himself because it’s definitely shaking, a lot! It makes the scene very real, because the audience feels like they’re in on all the action occurring.
I thought the film had great lighting, I liked his use of fire in that same scene I mentioned above. I also thought the use of color was used well, especially the water color. Also, making the days seem gloomy and sad and just “not happy,” a gray sky color. So Zeitlin did a good job there as well.
One of my favorite parts, has to be the score, or soundtrack that was composed for this film. The music that was placed in each scenes fits perfectly. I always say music/sound makes a film!
So, when I looked Zeitlin up I noticed his current film is nominated for 4 Oscars and I saw this was his first short film. I have to say, GOOD JOB!
Hampton Bradshaw:
ReplyDeleteA very well-made short, the lighting and camera work was magnificent. The way the movie was done reminded me of post-disaster pictures and films, dedicated to raising awareness or for raising money for disaster relief, and it kept that feeling throughout. Indeed, I have to admit, by the end I was moved by the overall effect that mixed the lighting, the music, the narration, and the other visuals. The lighting for the exterior “day” shots carried a muted grey-yellow tone that conveyed a mixed sense of sadness and hope at the same time. Normally I would have found the music to be grating and unremarkable, but it fit the tone of the film well, and helped build on the emotion. The visuals like the boat, the ambitious underwater shots, the ruins of their old town, and the desolate beach all contributed to the general ambiance of the movie.
However, despite the moving emotions created by the brilliant effects, the movie was horribly flawed in a few ways. Most notably, the plot is nigh-incomprehensible. It is so bizarre that it is extremely difficult to even describe the story, though I will try my best to do so. It follows the story of survivors of a terrible storm, all of whom have lost loved ones. One man miraculously (and inexplicably) washes up on shore alive, sometime after the storm has passed. He starts building a raft for unclear purposes, and eventually the townspeople join in to help, and many end up going with him. He jumps off the raft at some point while it is drifting, and disappears for an indeterminate amount of time. While he is gone, the raft begins to break apart (after I assume a few days), and, when all hope seems lost, he pops back up and they all go underwater and find their loved ones, apparently still living after the (weeks?) that they had been underwater in the middle of the ocean. Either that or they were all allegorically dead, I’m not sure which. Of further irritation, at least to me, was that some of the characters didn’t make a lot of sense. The Reverend was the main one, as he seemed to be a depressing, almost antagonistic character, but the motives behind his behavior are unclear.
Overall, Glory at Sea was a very emotionally moving short film, but most of that was due to the visuals and the sound, not the plot. It is an excellent study in how lighting, visuals, music, and camera work can create an emotional atmosphere, even if the story doesn’t make any sense.
Skylar Brown:
ReplyDeleteI have mixed feelings about this short, while it was very interesting and kept me guessing at what will happen, there were points where I felt completely lost and confused about what was going on. By the end of the movie I was finally able to understand the plot but at the same time I felt like the movie left a lot of questions unanswered, which really annoys me. Though on a positive note I loved the shot composition of the whole film, the opening scene was my favorite part, when you see the rain drops from under the water it gives the dead girls words imagery. I even enjoyed how the camera wold shake when it followed the movements of a person because it made it see like the viewer was walking on the same uneven paths through the storm debris that the characters were. Also the lighting was amazing and added to the mood conveyed in the film, like in the beginning when the people are looking out at the sea the lighting was slightly darker which helped the viewer to understand that the mood is forlorn.
Overall I felt that the story was very intriguing and unique but to confusing to fully enjoy, however the lighting and camera composition was amazing and the film was visually beautiful.
Lauren Musgrove:
ReplyDeleteThe most prominent feature of this film that I couldn't help but pay attention to throughout the entire story was the cinematography. Every single shot was so beautiful and symbolic and I really enjoyed watching. Some of the best shots were underwater.
Part of the way through, the film strongly reminded me of Beasts of the Southern Wild, and after it was done I realized it was the same director. It had the same soulful, innocent feeling Beasts did. The characters, although odd, were very endearing and I felt so elated at the end when they were reunited with loved ones.
The story itself was a bit confusing, as you couldn't tell whether some parts were "real" or not. It was sort of hard to follow but I think the way the film makes you feel is more important. It had a very consistent, specific tone, really creating the atmosphere and feel of the movie.
Joel Jarvis
ReplyDeleteGlory at Sea is one of those films that keeps the viewer guessing what is actually going on until the very end. I'm not sure if all the characters are in limbo or planet x but the first time I watched it I was slightly confused. The second run through I tried to ignore the normal questions of who, what, when, and why, and just watched. Knowing that this is for a video production class I tried to concentrate specifically on the individual shots that made up this vague plot. The ones that intrigued me most were the underwater shots. That could have been on loop and I could have watched it for days. It amazed me how quiet and still everything was yet there were unexplainable bursts of life coming from every corner of the screen.
Steven Hiott
ReplyDeleteI found Glory at Sea to be a very interesting short. Although it did not include a lot of dialogue, the lack there of made what was said important and seem very key. It was hard to figure out what some of the main points of the movie were, and it was a nice change from most movies that the meaning was more under the surface, just as many of the scenes were.
The story itself was a little hard to follow, but the cinematography was amazing and the underwater shots were phenomenal, giving the viewer somewhat of a magical or out of body view. The atmosphere the shots created made it a fun short to experience.
Ellen Schwartz
ReplyDeleteThe storyline of Glory at the Sea was creative and mystical. I had a hard time figuring out what was going on at first but it is definitely one of those movies you have to stick with till the very end. I guess what I"m saying is that it wasn't predictable, at least for me it wasn't. One thing that I thought was interesting was the guy who came out of the sea always had his face covered with his hair but once he was in the water and found his girl his face was easily seen. I don't know what I'm trying to say here. I guess it was like he himself was trapped in this world but once he found his girlfriend(?) he was free. Or maybe a metaphor that they were both trapped. The lack of dialog left it up to our imagination to figure out the pieces. I noticed the cinematography more than the rest. Beautifully shot and the shots seemed to all have purpose to them. I especially liked the shots on the boat and beach.
Rebecca Bynum: Glory at Sea was a very interesting and unique short film. I found the story line being told by the dead about the living, different but powerful. The cinematography in this short film was brought out by the sea itself; it was a symbol well beyond being a body of water. My favorite shots in Glory at Sea were the underwater shots and the pillars or columns sticking out of the water to mark the people who died in the storm. The underwater shots brought a different approach to cinematography and created a world outside the living, it was a sense of the afterlife in this short. The pillars or columns used in the film showed distant lines in shots and created a powerful image. The characters were odd and you never really saw the main characters face except for when he was under the water. The lighting was set perfectly with a greyish dark sky used during the day up until they’re about to sail. They begin to realize hope by finishing the boat and leaving the land and he portrays this by the lighting, they finish the boat at sunset giving some warm life to the story.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis short consists of a lot of speaking coming from the camera's perspective. Lots of motion in the shots that oddly match the rhythm of what is happening and give added meaning as well.
ReplyDeleteOne shot in particular really spoke to me. When the dad is standing on the hill by his bike the camera is down hill and motionless while he paces around without purpose. Suddenly he is moving with a sense of urgency toward a torn up building. The camera stays with him and then as he turns 90 degrees the camera continues to back off moving at the same rate of speed, but perpendicular to the action.
- andrew wallace