solid three dimensional character starts in the writing and is completed and personified by a great performance. But, the actor needs a solid character already written for them in order to perform the way you want them to. The characters in "The Eternal" simply don't ring true. They are very flat and not very interesting. The back story is so thin (and even non-existent in places) that there is very little that we, the viewers, can identify with.
I established that strong characters begin in the writing and are fully realized in the performance of the actor. A good actor will solidify a good story and a well-written character. Sometimes, an amazing actor can salvage a mediocre script and/or character, but not always. However, the combination of weak and poorly written characters handed off to actors who are not so proficient is, and always will be, a disaster. Such is the case in "The Eternal."
In addition to being a director, I too am an actor, so I know that we are a sensitive lot and I don't want to come across as an insufferable know-it-all, but we can never get better at what we do (acting or any profession) if no one tells us when it is bad. The poorly written dialogue notwithstanding, the acting throughout the movie comes across as just that: acting. Each actor simply delivered his/her lines and waited for the other to do the same with little to no connection between them. When someone appears to be "acting" then they are "acting" badly. I once had an acting professor that said, "Don't act. Do and be." Doing and being is much more believable than simply "acting."
One thing that stood out to me, as it relates to the acting, was a scene where Antoinette is talking with her boyfriend. His SCENE OBJECTIVE is (or should have been) "to get you to take me back." Without going into the specifics of scene objectives, suffice it to say that your scene objective will determine the physical choices you make and the impulses you run with. Many acting coaches will encourage actors to "trust their impulses." I found an exception to that rule in this scene. While trying to convince Antoinette to take him back, her boyfriend is listening to her speech on why they broke up in the first place. While she speaks, her boyfriend mimics masturbation not once, but twice. It may have seemed funny on the set, "Ha ha, look at that!" but you don't want to use actors that trust those kind of impulses. I realize that sometimes we do things that push our goal further away from us, but they are usually sub-conscience. Surely no real person in their right mind would act like they were masturbating (visually letting the other person know that you don't care about what they are saying) while trying to convince someone to take them back. These poor choices compound with the poorly written and performed characters.
Connection with one another, as actors, is another crucial piece to the performance puzzle that was missing. It felt as though each person was simply waiting for their turn to say their lines. This is not how we interact with each other in real life and our performances shouldn't look that way either.
I would also like to suggest a couple books here for those interested either in acting or becoming a better director who understands his/her actors. The first one is one that we've reviewed at MicroFilmmaker Magazine entitled "You Can Act!" by D.W. Brown (available at www.mwp.com and Amazon.com). The other, a book that I have found tremendously helpful in my own acting is "The Power of the Actor" by Ivana Chubbuck (available at Amazon.com). Again, whether you're an actor wanting to fine tune their craft or a director wanting to better his/her connection with your actors, these books are great investments.
This brings me to story pacing and general editing. "The Eternal" actually moves at a decent pace and feels a little shorter than it actually is. This is good, of course, since it's no fun to watch a forty minute movie and then feel like you've been watching it for hours. So, kudos on the pacing.
Not to sound harsh, but the editing in this film is currently nothing short of a proverbial train wreck. The only thing that looked smooth and tight was the opening title of "The Eternal." Editing is the final step in story telling and is an art form in and of itself. It can enhance a story or detract from it. Of course, when the story telling elements are not there, the editing can only do so much. Most of the scenes feel disjointed and are cut together poorly. The two biggest issues with cuts in "The Eternal" were jump cuts (not changing your camera angle by at least 30 degrees with each new shot) and basic editing tightness. Let me explain that last statement. In each scene of dialogue there was too much time in between the talking. When filming, you often end up with a little unnatural time between lines, which can make cutting the film together a bit easier. But, you MUST trim it out in post. Dialogue in film should feel as much like real dialogue as possible and not draw attention to the fact that you've changed camera angles and made a cut. Dialogue should not feel like this: Character 1: "Lovely weather we are having." BEAT CUT BEAT BEAT BEAT Character 2: "Why yes it is, but you didn't come here to talk about the weather, did you?" CUT BEAT BEAT...etc. You get the idea. This will take the viewer out of the story and, in fact, it took me out as I viewed the film. All that to say: tighten things up and it will greatly improve the feel and pacing of the dialogue scenes.
