The exposure ended up being all screwed up, because both I and the other guy were working the camera without really seeing the other persons vision for how the film would look, so it ended up being really badly exposed on my side especially(underexposed). The idea for the film wasn't to have a point, it was just supposed to be random. I think we accomplished that because it really dosen't make much sense, haha. We also just took an acting class so we're still trying to get out of that awkward first stage of being comfortable in front of a camera, so feel free to comment on that too, although I know that's not about the quality of the video, but you may comment on it.
So from a video/film point of view (I watched this with the sound turned off. No offense, but I did my time in film school.)...
- Exposure. Obviously with cut-to shots you should match exposures. And to be honest because of the lack of secondary lighting it's hard to say who was right and who was wrong. In the long run, it's sort of better to under expose. You can always raise the Gain levels in post, but you will get noise. Where as with over exposure you can't really do much to correct it other than make it a thematic or artistic choice.
- Composition and execution had a lot to be desired. During the back and forth you're both being filmed with an upward angle, which is fine. However you never set up the scene with a composite shot. We never see you both in the same scene until the end. Which would be fine if you were in different rooms, but you're supposed to be in the same room. And not only are you supposed to be in the same room, you're getting close to breaking the 180 degree rule without setting up an establishing shot.
Look at the argument scenes in Do The Right Thing. You'll get what I'm trying to say about setting up a cut-to type argument.