The audio was balanced and well-done, and the dialogue was clear and distinct.
The budget for Waiting to Pop the Question was $1,850. Most of the money went for essentials such as equipment rental, insurance, food, and post-production. However, over 20% of the budget ($400) went for location rental, which rather baffled me, because the locations in the film (an apartment and a garden) were relatively simple.
Unless the location needed is unique, many microfilmmakers will use places that are available for free (e.g. a cast/crew member’s house, public parks, etc.) Sometimes it’s even possible to use a location in exchange for featuring it in the film. (For one of our films, we needed to shoot an entire scene in a restaurant; we negotiated a deal with the owner that, in exchange for us featuring their restaurant by name in the film, they’d not only let us shoot there, but they’d also feed our cast and crew for 2/3 of the shoot!) For future films, I’d make the suggestion to try to use locations that are accessible and –ideally—free. It can end up freeing a huge chunk of your budget that can go to other things.
While the short length of the film limits the amount of depth that can be covered with two characters experiencing separate relationship problems, the slow-moving dialogue and overall lack of physical movement make it very difficult for the audience to maintain interest in the characters or the story.
While Waiting to Pop the Question is well-filmed (good lighting, well-balanced audio, etc.) the character development and dialogue need a lot more work. Character-driven shorts can be difficult to execute, as most of the film hinges on the writing. Future films will need more physical character interaction (especially within their environment), more engaging dialogue, and more developed characters.
