Steve Jobs and Story Structure

Steve Jobs - the new Aaron Sorkin-scripted movie, not the person - is incredibly unique. Certainly not in its subject matter, since Jobs has been featured in like, four dramas/documentaries in the same amount of years, but in the way it's structured. Because of this (and the acting, and directing, and everything else that makes this movie great) I would venture to say that this movie, this iteration of possibly the most well know technological innovator of our time, should be considered the definitive screen version of Jobs and his life story. Everyone else wanting to make a Jobs movie, just stop. It's not worth it. You can't win this one. I don't care if it's not the most accurate, or if "Apple Experts" hate it, or even what your most basic opinion of the real Steve Jobs is. This is the one.

Even if you push aside most of the things that you'd normally focus on when seeing a movie, things like actors, direction, and cinematography, and focus solely on Sorkin's story structure, you've got something that is far more original than most films being made today. For a studio-backed biopic to break away from a more traditional "follow our main character throughout their entire life" story is huge. If you haven't seen it (and judging by the way it's doing at the box office, you probably haven't) Steve Jobs is broken down into three main scenes, with each one taking place before a major product launch. With the exception of a few brief, well placed flashback scenes, all exposition, all character introductions, everything is done in real time, within the boundaries of these three product launches. Is it what happened in real life? No, probably not. But Sorkin uses this structure to tell a damn good story.


There will always be movies that try to radically change the structure of a typical story, films like Memento, or Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. These can be fun, a nice break from the monotony of characters going from point A to point B over the course of a film, and some of them (these two may be some of the most notable) use non-linear storytelling to a stronger effect than just trying to confuse the audience. Other than these handfuls of non-linear scripts, movies tend to stick to the same basic structure. Sorkin broke this with Steve Jobs. It wasn't the most radical idea in the world, and you still see the development of Michael Fassbender's Jobs over the course of the film, but even Sorkin expressed his surprise at being allowed by the studio to follow through on such a different premise. In a way, it really mirrors its subject matter. A big part of the movie is how Jobs focused on adding a human component to a scary new machine (one of the major crises in the first act is how they can't get the Macintosh to say "hello) and that's more or less what Sorkin did with the script. Instead of of looking at the big picture, at Jobs' entire life, he narrows it down to five or six particular conflicts, and shows how they develop from '84-'88, and then again from '88-98.

It's also, in general, an overall compellingly human film. Again, was it totally accurate? Maybe not. But when you see the character of Steve Jobs struggling to admit that his daughter is actually his daughter, or when Wozniak is demanding that Jobs show some retroactive respect for the Apple II team, accuracy kind of stops mattering. It's a character portrait of a man who wants to change the world - who is actually in the very midst of that change - but of one who loses and finds his priorities along the way. And it's all done in a neatly wrapped, beautifully designed, three act package. It's aesthetically and emotionally fulfilling, and I'm sure Steve wouldn't have wanted it to be any other way.

Tokina 11-16mm Lens Review

Your always looking for that next beautiful landscape shot, or the perfect astrophotography time lapse, but what the lens do you have by your side to capture these amazing scenes. While there are so many options and each lens have it's perks, there is not one perfect lens for any given scenario. It is up to you as the operator to compose the picture how you see fit. however, I recently picked up the Tokina 11-16mm for landscape and time lapse photography due to the amazing wide angle it provided, because I think in this type of photography this is going to help you gather the most interesting shots available.

(Due to uploading to blogger, the quality is quite poor.)

                 (Captured with the Sony a7s with the Tokina 11-16mm and Glidecam HD 4000)

This past Sunday I took to the football field to gather some B-roll of the stadium, I put together this teaser as a test video of the footage gathered. All material is shot in 60FPS conformed in post.

In the first shot you can see one huge problem right off the bat. The lens flare. While I love a good lens flare, it can be a bit much sometimes. I had no lens hood on while I shot because I was observing the flares and how they compared to my other lenses. But it would be interesting to see how it worked against preventing them. One interesting effect that occurs due to the full frame sensor, is that when completely wide at 11mm a picture will result like this.

The huge vignette is quite unflattering thus making the lens primarily fixed at 16mm. The great
APC-S feature of the camera turns this 11-16mm into a 17-24mm which is a handy trick to get a bit more punch as well as helps with the vignetting.

The football teaser above also demonstrates the issue with the ND filter. Due to the sunny weather we had this past Sunday, the ND was necessary to be able to shoot at an appropriate F-stop. The filter is variable up to 8 stops, but getting close to 6 is when the black streak in the top right corner of the image occurs, in some images it is more noticeable, but is very noticeable in the time lapse below.

While those two issues occurred in the video, the lens overall is very useful. First off the field of view is amazing. Paired with the full frame, even when punched in to the 17-24 APS-C mode, the lens is so wide and if you want that extra wideness, the 16mm is more than useable, however filters do come in to frame so indoors might be the best option for that. But this wide lens is great to make your shot extra smooth with the Glidecam, as well as capturing a a large canvas with time lapse. 

(The vertical capability is also a feature which needs exploring.)

A feature I neglected to touch upon until this point is the speed of this lens. With f2.8, this is amazing for night time photography. I've been meaning to test out the low light monster that is the a7s, combined with this lens, because I think it would have amazing results. Now just to get to somewhere that lacks light pollution. 

The final picture is one testing long exposure with the ND filter. While in the corners, the vignette is present, the ability to do a 30 sec exposure really made the water quite milky. 

Overall, testing new gear is stressful but enjoyable and you learn that ever piece of equipment has its pros and cons. In the end you just have to decide what you want to put up with more and if its worth the resulting image.

A7S II

Yeah I'm late. BUT thats only because I heard about this announcement from Sony and I wanted to wait to see if it got confirmed today. It did! The A7S II is finally here and it is impressive. The camera builds on the power of its predecessor while introducing new elements from the A7R line. Notably, the camera now shoots natively in 4K. Unlike the previous model, which you would need an external recorder to squeeze out any more than 1080p, this one shoots it directly onto your cards. The low light range has been kept the same (still absolutely insane at a possible 400,000+ ISO) but an added bonus is the internal image stabilization that we saw introduced to the A7 and A7R lines not too long ago.

As an active proponent for Canon, even I am finding it difficult not to make the switch when such amazing possibilities are becoming available. The only thing that is currently keeping me where I am is the lens selection, but their 8K cameras are still less than impressive. Its time for them to pick up their game and catch up with the advancements of Sony.

A look into the night with the Sony A7s (Part 1)

Recently I was able to make a huge investment for myself as a filmmaker. I introduced myself to a new camera, the A7s. I have had my eye on this Sony product for quite sometime now. I have been blown away by it's dynamic range and high ISO capabilities displayed online and now I finally get a chance to use this in a real world setting.

(A still from the A7s, Sigma Art 35mm 1.4)

So where to start? The Sony A7s has so many favorable traits its hard distinguish a starting point. I'll start with my three favorite features and move on throughout each blog post, addressing individual features as we move along. For myself there were a few things that I found desirable about the camera that swayed me to switch from Canon to Sony. First off, variable frame rates. I previously shot on the Canon T3i as it was my starter camera and boy did it get me through some times. However, the highest frame rate you can go is 60fps at 1280x720. This is universal through most Canon DSLRs.

 (Tokina 11-16mm 2.8)

The 5DmkIII, which previously ruled the DSLR world, couldn't compete. The A7s can also be boosted to 120 fps with the downgrade to 1280x720. It can't compete with the Phantom or RED, but for a Full-Frame DSLR, this variability will get the job done. The video posted below is shot completely in 60fps.  All footage is played back in realtime until brought into post to be altered. 

While the variable frame rates are so much fun to play with, thats not all there is to this beast. The ISO is off the charts. Most of the footage above, besides what was indoors, was filmed at upwards of 30,000 ISO. This was my first day with the camera and I really was enjoying this party trick. Grain in the image began to increase as I went up, however it is quite clean around 20,000. Some 50,000 iso footage can even be salvageable. Once you increase upwards of this threshold you will need to use plug-ins like Neat Video to decrease grain levels.

 (Sigma Art 35mm 1.4)

Many filmmakers have highlighted in reviews this outstanding feature, and I hope to learn how to take advantage of this feature and really get some outstanding footage. Once difference I noticed is that the Video ISO is much cleaner at much higher ISOs than the photos. This is due to the sensor only having 12.2mp, thus the pictures suffer loss of quality in order for the video to prevail. Although the resolution is not quite up to par with Cameras like the 5D or even the A7s older brothers the A7 and A7r, the pictures produced still look very nice when paired with the right glass.

While these two capabilities are useful and help with more advanced shooting, you can never forget the little things. The live recording punch in feature is so handy and is something I've been looking forward to for quite some time. Paranoia strikes at the strangest times, especially when conducting interviews. The everlasting battle of not being able to tell if you have something in your eye or if your shot is soft. Being able to punch in and check focus is an amazing feature especially when it comes to doc work, not only in interview settings but out in the field too. The back tilt able LCD screen paired with an amazing EVF makes this camera very diverse. 

(Sigma Art 35mm 1.4)

Using the EVF paired with the punch in focus feature will be great when recording in the field and you need that extra assurance that the subject of your shot, whether that be an animal, mountain top, you name it, is in focus. There are multiple custom keys on this camera that you can arrange which ever is most comfortable for you. I prefer to have my C1 button (located on the top right corner diagonal from the shutter release) to be my short cut to this handy feature, but to each their own. 

I'm very excited to start using this new investment for personal projects, thesis films, and even try my hand at time-lapses. It feels weird making the next step of your career goal and being faced with new and unique situations. While the learning curve in this industry is always changing, this factor is what drives me to be the best I can be. There will be plenty more reviews to come in regards to the time-lapse capabilities, picture profiles, and much more. Until next time. 

Impending Motion Pictures in Pre-Production: Games to Film

Hey there ho there folks,

     Happy Friday! I know I'm happy, since I've meticulously planned my schedule to ensure I have no classes. That being said, I've spent this stashed away free time perusing all the films that are currently in pre-production and I have a lot of feelings towards the news of them existing. Particularly towards this slowly growing trend of turning games into movies. Theres a small handful of this genre specifically that are currently in pre-production. Though I approach this game to film phenomena with a pocketful of trepidation there are some that hold potential and some... not-so-much. I figured I'd share them with you for this weeks blog post.

     When I saw that Sony purchased the game rights to bring us a 3D "Assasins Creed" movie next summer, I immediately thought of this:

     However, after some thought, perhaps this film won't be as awkward as it initially sounds. After all, "Silent Hill" had a decent turn out and presented truly gruesomely twisted special effects thanks to Sony. With "Assasins Creed", alongside Sony, many other production companies are getting their hands in this game to film adaptation. Ubisoft, Regency and 20th Century Fox are all supposed producers of this potentially epic film. Screen Rants writer Ron Keys describes it to us in saying, “Think of it as ‘Prince of Persia’ meets ‘Lost’ but with an actual story and legitimate characters.” Still hesitant? Well, believe me when I say that this is not the  game to film in pre-production that has me the most nervous currently. What does you may ask?

     On July 1st, 2016 "Angry Birds: The Movie" will be released to a theater near you. We can all thank Zeus that it is not live action. *Phew* I admit in not wanting to look into the finer details of the production knowing that it's inspired by an unproductive, pointless, plotless *swallows vomit in mouth* app... For the sake of this blog post I had to delve deeper. So, with all faith for humanity slipping through my fingers I typed and searched for more. Honestly? I was surprised. They have Emmy award winner Jon Vitti writing the screenplay. He's responsible for writing for various Fox television shows such as The Simpsons and The Office. Both directors for this seemingly silly animation (Clay Kaytis and Fergal Reilly) have worked on "Spider-Man 2", "Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs", "Tangled", "Wreck-It-Ralph" and "Frozen." While the concept is daft, I'm thinking that perhaps the minds behind it could really make it into something not-so-awful. 

Thoughts?

Why comic book movies are dominating the Hollywood Box Office

For those of you who know me, you are probably not at all surprised by the fact that I chose to write my first post on this blog about comic book movies. If you do not know me yet, hello my name is Lindsay Koenig and I am a huge nerd. But according to the Hollywood summer box office, I'm not alone.

This summer Marvel Studios, owned by Disney, released a film based on a little known comic book called Guardians of the Galaxy. This was considered a pretty big risk for the studio because unlike previous films they'd released such as Captain America or Iron Man, Guardians of the Galaxy was not a popular comic book series. Not only this, but Guardians was by far the most "comic book like" of all their previous films; featuring a colorful cast of alien characters such as a talking tree and raccoon. The studio had no way of knowing if this quirky film would make any money at the box office.

But Marvel Studios needn't have worried. The film opened with a whooping 95 million dollars in it's opening weekend. Not only that but it has since made over 251 million dollars and has secured it's place as the top grossing film of the summer and is on track to be the highest grossing film of the year.

Guardians of the Galaxy wasn't the only comic book film to roll in the dough this year, however.
In fact, 4 of the top 10 grossing films of 2014 are comic book movies. Here's a look at some of the other big money makers.

Amazing Spiderman 2

Released May 2, 2014

$202 Million 

X-Men: Days of Future Past

Released May 22

$232 Million

Captain America: The Winter Soldier

Released April 4th

$259 Million 

So what is it about comic book films that makes them so successful? And why are some studio's comic book movies more successful than others?

To figure this out I'm going to start with the most successful studio out of the many currently producing comic book movies: the Disney owned Marvel Studios.

Back in 2008, Marvel Studios released it's first film. Iron Man became the first in what would become one of the most successful film series of all time. Iron Man was a huge hit not only with audiences, but also with critics. Before 2008 (which also featured the success of Warner Brothers comic book flick The Dark Knight) comic book films were looked at as a bit of a joke, or one notes without much depth to them other than actors in spandex fighting bad guys. 

What made Iron Man so unique, and I believe ultimately so successful, is that there is much more to the film than it's action and explosions.

Firstly, the main character of the film is flawed. Tony Stark feels like a real person, not the typical "do-gooder, responsible hero" type character one might except from a children's cartoon series. Because Tony Stark feels like a real person it is easy for the audience to relate to him and become invested in his story. I would argue that Marvel does an excellent job of making all their heroes seem like real people with real flaws, problems, and emotions. It would be easy for a larger than life character like Iron Man or Captain America to slip into something like a caricature, but these films do a great job of grounding their heroes and making them accessible to the audiences.  

Secondly, something that I found hugely important to the success of a film such as Iron Man, is the respect for the source material. While many might find the subject matter to be a bit of a joke, or something silly or goofy (see the Batman films outside of the Dark Knight Trilogy); Marvel Studios has been extremely respectful to it's source material. There is an element of seriousness to Iron Man and the other Marvel films, even when events on screen would seem far fetched in real life. The stakes are real for these characters, which makes it real for the audience. If you don't understand what I'm getting at think about it this way, Iron Man doesn't make "boom" "pow" nosies when he is fighting bad guys, does he?

Thirdly, and what I would argue most importantly, is that Iron Man deals with issues that are relevant to our world and society today. Within the first few minutes of the film our main character is captured by terrorists. Not only this, but Tony Stark's character arc involves him dealing with the fact that his company not only sold weapons to the American Military but also to terrorist groups, and Stark realizing his responsibility for what his company has done. These plot lines hit pretty close to home, especially in a world where terrorism is such a prevalent issue. By tackling such topics, Iron Man becomes more than just a movie about a superhero.

Since Iron Man, many other comic book flicks have tackled important societal and emotional issues. Iron Man 3 dealt with anxiety and post traumatic stress disorder, while Captain America: The Winter Solider had a heavy political subplot about government and power. Even Guardians of the Galaxy, for all it's crazy space shenanigans, contained undertones about loss and dealing with grief. 

Marvel Studios isn't the only studios whose comic book films deal with issues outside of what might be excepted for the average Hollywood action flick. 20th Century Fox's X-Men franchise deals largely with the way society treats minorities, while Warners Brother's Dark Knight films focus on issues such as terrorism and corruption.

These are just a few of the many reasons I believe comic book movies have been so successful in recent years, and why they continue to dominate the box office. I can only open that other genres start to pick up on what makes these films so successful. If every popcorn flick was as good as the average comic book film, Hollywood would be in good shape.

Captain Phillips: A True American Hero Or Movie Star?

Tom Hanks stars in a new popular film Captain Phillips, which is based on the real events that occurred in April 2009 when the Maersk Alabama cargo ship was attacked by Somali pirates. I saw this movie over fall break and I loved it, Tom Hanks is an absolute amazing actor and he did not disappoint playing Captain Phillips. In the movie the cargo ship is sailing a dangerous route down the Somali coast, where pirate attacks have been known to happen. There are warnings sent to Captain Phillips advising ships to remain as far away from the coast as possible to decrease the risk of attack. Captain Phillips beefs up security and makes sure the crew is prepared by conducting a few practice drills. They are just in time because that same day two boats with armed pirates make their first attempt to seize the Maersk Alabama, but the pirates were evaded due to the ship's large wake. The crew is shook up, and know the pirates will come again. The next day one of the same pirate boats with four armed Somalis returns to take the ship, the crew does everything they can but eventually the pirates are able to board the ship and take command of the ship. The pirates are young men around 17 years old, and they are looking for a large ransom for the ship and crew. Most of the crew hides in the engine room while Captain Phillips tries to reason and retain some control over the pirates who have guns to him. While the head pirate is looking for the crew he is wounded and taken by the crew in the engine room. The head pirate, Muse, is bargained for the release of Captain Phillips but the pirates do not follow through with the deal: they take Muse and Phillips into a life raft and start making their way to the Somali coast.

The movie is fantastic and it keeps you on the edge of your seat the entire time. However, it is the story we want to believe, not necessarily the whole truth behind the actual events. The real crew of the Maersk Alabama tell a different story of Captain Phillips. To the crew, Phillips isn't the American hero we all want him to be. After the incident the crew filed a lawsuit against the Maersk Line and the Waterman Steamship Corp. for almost $50 million for a complete and willing disregard for their safety. The crew have described Phillips as being arrogant when it came to the risk of the pirates. The attorney who brought the claim for the crew said "the crew had begged Captain Phillips not to go so close to the Somali coast." Phillips was being suborn, and disregarding his crew "he told them he wouldn't let pirates scare him or force him to sail away from the coast." Over the three week period in which the Maersk Alabama was attacked 16 other cargo ships in the same area had been attacked by pirates and some had been taken hostage. Phillips has even admitted that he received SEVEN emails while on board to move off shore by 600 more miles to reduce the threat from pirates. The Maersk Alabama was only 235 miles off the shore at the time of attack, though Phillips told CNN in 2010 that the ship was 300 miles off the shore.

Tom Hanks next to Captain Phillips

It seems to me that Phillips blatantly disregarded his crew's safety, to prove that he was not going to let pirates boss him around; which is what they ended up doing when they threatened the lives of every crew member on board. Also during the first attack by the pirates, Phillips was putting the crew through a fire drill, however in the film it is a security drill. Phillips ordered the crew to complete the fire drill before addressing the pirates which were only seven miles away. When Phillips and the crew made a narrow escape the first time, Phillips ordered the ship back to it's original route. One of the crew members refused and slept with his flashlight and boots on, waiting for what he knew was inevitable: another attack. When that attack did come the next morning Phillips did not tell his crew what he wanted to do so the chief engineer, Mike Perry, took things into his own hands. He and the rest of the crew locked themselves in the engine room (in 130 degree heat for 12 hours), he disabled the ship's systems, and sized the lead pirate to bargain for Phillips. To me, Mike Perry is the real hero. Four days after Phillips was taken hostage with the pirates in the lifeboat, he was rescued by Seal Team Six and hailed an American Hero who "gave himself up for his crew" and the crew was offered as little as $5,000 for their life rights by Sony and made to sign nondisclosure agreements. Captain Phillips put his entire crew in danger and disregarded every warning he was given, he is not an American hero. It is sad, and I wish the movie depicted who Captain Phillips really is because it really is an amazing movie, but unfortunately it is just a movie: it's twisted to be what we want to believe.

The Last of Us

Despite the series finale of Breaking Bad airing two nights ago (it was perfect, no more needs to be said), I thought that I'd shake things up a little bit and talk about something slightly different for once: video games. Watching my roommate drive, shoot, and otherwise rampage his way through the new Grand Theft Auto V has got me thinking of the last video game I played, and I feel like this blog is as good a place as any to talk about how great it was.

By no means am I a huge video game nerd; they've just never been "my thing." I'll buy 2-3 games per year, get bored with them, and then come back to them a while later, always wanting to get my money's worth. (with a new game costing $60, can you blame me?) Like most other forms of media, I appreciate games for the stories they tell, which is awesome since games seem to getting more and more cinematic as we move into the newest generation of video games consoles.

All of this brings me to the last - and arguably best - video game that I played: The Last of Us. Made by developer Naughty Dog - the same team that made all three of the wonderful, Indiana Jones-esque "Uncharted" games - The Last of Us was a PS3 exclusive and basically ended up being the console's swan song. I bought the game when it first came out in mid June, played it for two or three weeks until I was done, and haven't played a single game since. I'm not sure why, entirely; other friends who played the game enjoyed it so much that they immediately started back at the beginning. It's like part of me knows that I'll never find a game that will be able to top this one, and I don't want to disappoint myself by even trying.

Let me back up a little bit. The majority of The Last of Us takes place about 20 years in the future, when America is overrun by a deadly virus that transforms people into horrifically mutated, mindless zombie/plant hybrids. If George A Romero and Al Gore had written a horror movie together, this would be the outcome. After the most emotional, devastating 15 minute opening scene in videogame history, you play as Joel, a survivor of the virus. Joel is eventually given the daunting task of escorting Ellie, a 14 year old girl with a pretty huge secret, across the ravaged country and into Colorado. Lots of shooting, puzzle solving, and throwing bricks at zombie heads follows.

While the gameplay is phenomenal and obviously such a huge aspect of the medium (not to mention shockingly violent), the story is what made me fall in love with this game. I've seen action movies before, and I've probably seen every apocalyptic, end of the world film that there is to see, but never has one effected me as much as the The Last of Us. The whole plot revolves around the relationship between Ellie and Joel; she's the spunky, mature-for-her-age upstart, and he's the grumpy, "I'm too old for this shit" father figure who, coincidentally, lost a daughter when the virus first broke out. As the game goes on, the two begin to warm up to each other, and this is shown through the smallest, subtlest of actions ("subtle" is a word that more video game developers should really learn).

Through the entire game, I remember trying to figure out how it would end; surely the two travelers would find a cure to the virus and live happily ever after as "father" and "daughter." Roll credits, eject game, move on. But here's where Naughty Dog threw us a curveball. (Spoilers to follow. Don't say I didn't warn you) Towards the end, you find out that Ellie holds the cure to the entire virus. Awesome, right? Wrong. To get this cure, the doctors in Colorado have no choice but to shut down her brain, which will, of course, kill her. "Ok, it's sad, but I guess I can deal with Ellie dying if it means saving the whole country," I thought.

Unfortunately, Joel and I were thinking two different things.

Unable to deal with the death of Ellie, who is perhaps the only person he has really become attached to since his daughter died almost 20 years ago, Joel goes on a rampage, mowing down guards and doctors (all good people) in order to reach his young friend. The worst part is, you - the player - are forced to go through with all of this, unable to do anything but watch as your fingers control Joel doing these terrible deeds. At the end, Ellie has no memory of what happened, and Joel lies straight to her face, not telling her of the things he did to save her. She says "promise me that everything you've said has been true." He promises. She looks at him, knowing that he's lying, and says "ok." AND THE GAME ENDS.

It's ambiguous, it's bold, and it's a damn near perfect ending for a game that has been so bleak and sad throughout. There's no "boss battle," no zombie drama, just a boldfaced lie and the acceptance of it by another. It's about the line between doing something for love and doing something for yourself. You sympathize with Joel, and yet you end the game with a knot in your stomach. It's the reason why I haven't bought a video game since, and it's absolutely one of the biggest arguments that can be made for video games as an art form (not only because of the story, but also because of it's gorgeous graphics that focus on nature reclaiming man made objects and cities, something that I didn't even touch upon). It may not have any strippers or hallucinogenic alien-fighting sequences like this year's other huge video game, but I think it deserves even more praise and should be lauded as one of the best video games not only of 2013, but of all time.

Devotion

I want to share with everyone this video I came across in my Introduction to Field Production class. It's from a series of short films that Sony produced called "Dreams", and the writing really impressed me. I feel that a good script is not always lengthy dialogue with lots of complicated characters. Sometimes the story line does not need to rely on the dialogue. When a script accomplishes this it really draws the audience into the film. This gets you thinking and makes you an active audience member.

The first time watching this I knew something was off with the main character, played by Tony Hale, but I couldn't put my finger on it. I realize some people will catch the twist before I did, but it caught me off guard. I love it when a script can do that to me, just like in The Sixth Sense.

I really enjoyed all the Sony Dreams short films. I thought they all had a very high production value. The next video, Intolerable, does the opposite of the last video and does not really leave you with a clear idea about what is going on. Sometimes it's also best to leave the viewer guessing instead of the script providing the twist or ending.