|
|
 |
And though I usually don’t point out consistency issues – because every film has dozens, if not hundreds – there were a couple big ones in this movie. For instance, at one point Karl looks to his left – where we know a window to the outside to be – and then there is a cut to a shot of two men standing in the terminal, a view which Karl should only be able to see on his right. Also, when Karl gets up to leave, he stands to his right, which would place him right up against the window, then there is a cut to show Jim looking to his left, which is in the opposite direction that Karl was last seen standing. It may be a good idea to use some different takes in order to better cement the “visual logic” of this scene.
Use of Audio
There wasn’t any music in this film, but there was a lot of really good ambient sound. I really liked the background noise inside the airport, as well as the sound of planes taking off over the opening credits (though occasionally wind noises would cut in and out, but I think that’s to be expected with trying to get audio of airplanes).
There were some dialogue issues, however. When Jim and Karl first meet, Karl’s voice tends to fade in and out a lot. Also, when the two of them are sitting and talking, it seemed as though the off-camera person was simply sitting behind the camera and saying their lines. As a result, their voice is much louder than the voice of the individual in the shot; then when the shot is reversed, the volume of the voices changes again. This is rather an awkward element of the movie’s audio, but it could easily be fixed by re-recording the off-camera dialogue.
Use of Budget
These filmmakers did a pretty good job at keeping their budget low (about £40/$72 US), however in this case it may have been better to spend a bit more in order to come up with a better product. More money could have been used to work out some of a lighting problems, perhaps by procuring a better camera, getting some more artificial lighting, or even some gels; as well as to fix the existing audio issues, whether by ADR or by getting a better microphone on the day. In addition, more time (which, as all microfilmmakers know, is money) could have been spent in better preparation. More shot planning ahead of time could have meant less fixing that needed to be done in post.
Lasting Appeal
The story told in this film is based on a true story, and it also has a theme that a viewing audience will be able to identify with. It has only been five years since 9/11, but the event is still fresh in all of our memories. This film takes a very different look at the historical tragedy; not as a global happening, but its effect on just two people. This is a story that deserves to be told, but in its present form it may not get the attention that it should. If the issues mentioned above can be fixed, I’m sure this film will be able to find an appreciative audience.
Overall Comment
9/11 was such a tragedy for Americans that we sometimes forget it affected people in other nations as well. But there were over 200 victims that represented 36 different countries. Coming up on the five-year anniversary, there has been a significant rash of memorial films and TV specials (coming a little too soon, in my opinion). But a film like Airport 9/11 shows a very different perspective than most of the things that the mainstream media is putting out, and that is a very important thing.
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
Content |
8.0 |
|
Visual
Look |
5.5 |
|
Use
of Audio |
7.0 |
|
Use
of Budget |
6.0 |
|
Lasting
Appeal |
6.0 |
|
Overall
Score |
6.5
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
The
author of half a dozen screen plays, two novels, and a proficient
camera-woman in her own right, Monika
DeLeeuw-Taylor is Microfilmmaker's lead writing analyst and
one of our top film reviewers. When she's not writing a critique for
Microfilmmaker, she's writing screenplays for Viking Productions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
