Thursday, January 26, 2006

In Between Days

'In Between Days' is bare bones story telling – a subtle relationship film told with few words and fewer plot points. The camera is mostly on Aimie (Jiseon Kim), a Korean girl whose unspoken affection for her best friend Tran is the through line for the entire film. Shot almost entirely in close-ups and with flat lighting the film has a rawness that matches its stripped down structure. Being a low budget production it was nice to see that writer/director/editor Kim and the producers knew their limitations and not only stuck to them but embraced them.

I thought that Jiseon Kim (discovered by the director working in a New Jersey coffee shop) was excellent in the role Aimie. She was there at the premier along with the director which was cool. Afterwards I asked her if she was planning to do more films and she said she’d like to if she gets the chance. Hopefully that will happen.

I enjoyed this very minimalist film but it’s definitely not for everyone. If you enjoy basic stories told very subtly then I’d recommend it. I don’t imagine that it will get a major distribution deal though so it might be hard to find.


Blogger Drew said...

I'm glad I saw this movie at Sundance. Watching a film at a festival allows you to absorb more of the filmmaker's sensibilites than otherwise. There is a personal quality still attached to a film before it gets purchased and run through the marketing machine. This is especially important for a film like "In Between Days". This quality would have been missing had I saw this elswhere.

11:06 AM  
Blogger Drew said...

I also found this film liberating and inspiring in a way because it brakes so many "rules". I thought the scenes where she was talking to her Dad were shot on video because you could almost see the pixels fighting to stabalize with low light conditions. This may have been a film to video transfer artifact also, but it only seemed to occur during those segments. What do you think?

11:46 AM  
Blogger Jordan said...

I noticed as well. It reminded me of when we tried to shoot Josh and Timm at the duck pond at night in no lighting and cranked the gain up. It looked similarly pixelish. i didn't mind it in this film. sometimes in small stories the low-budgetness adds to the charm.

12:34 PM  
Blogger Drew said...

Yeah I was just wondering if it is possible that they shot on digital and then transfered to film. That particular film would have worked fine with digital I think. I wanted to ask her.

10:37 AM  
Blogger benji said...

The film looked 16mm to me and this was somewhat confirmed when I noticed in the credits "16mm transfer to DV by..."
But I'd also wager there was HD shots also and I saw a credit for that too. I noticed some of the scenes, like in the parking garage looked different than the rest, as in a different format.
The pixelation you are referring to though, I am almost 100 percent sure was shot on 16mm. It looks like other 16mm indepenent films I've seen. Film doesn't handle low light as good as video. When the blacks don't get enough exposure, they tend to pixel out like that. That's why they film is somewhat the opposite of digital, because in digital you are worried about your brights because they'll blow out and turn everything white, but in film you are typically overexposing on purpose because you are protecting your blacks and shades making sure to give them enough exposure. And the light contrast for over-exposures handle much better in film so you're usually not too worried about blowing out. I saw on the production diaries for Kong that the DP overexposed everything by at least 2 stops so that "they'd have a healthy negative" to scan in for digital color-correction. The highlights are way easier to bring back down in film. Not so for the blacks.

12:59 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home