My Friend, My Enemy
Posted: Fri, 10th Dec 2010, 11:41am
Post 1 of 22
|Which is the stronger force, friendship or loyalty?|
"My Friend, My Enemy" is the latest project by Killer Whale Studios. Original music by Tommy Gundersen.
Posted: Fri, 10th Dec 2010, 8:46pm
Post 2 of 22
Awesome. Loved it the whole time. The acting was good, not great, but good. The visuals were good, very dreamlike, and in the end that makes a lot of sense.
Here are a few things I didn't like
The "dueling" part was kinda slow. Not much actual sword fighting, although that wasn't the point, so it didn't hurt the effect in the end. When Micheal said "You're always one for cheap shots." it didn't really seem like a cheap shot, cause it was kinda slow... And his block didn't seem to match the cut to his closeup. Also when Micheal says "or your so called freedom" there is a sword clash sound, but I don't see any swords hit each other and when you cut their swords are far apart. Also the waves get a bit too loud at times.
One other thing right before Lucifer tackles Micheal, it is super obvious that he is going to and it seems to take a long time, maybe that is because I expected it. I'm not sure, I just know it seemed slow. Besides, Lucifer just stands there and takes it. He has plenty of time to move or run at Micheal but he doesn't do either. Micheal didn't seem that angry either.Also the "wrestling" on the ground seemed pointless. Maybe some shaky cam would have made it more intense?
But other than that stuff I really liked the cinematography, the grading, the location, the actors were good for the most part, the costumes were well done, the swords looked real (were they?), and it was all around a solid 4. So nice job!
4/5 stars from me!
Have a wonderful day/night!
Posted: Sat, 11th Dec 2010, 5:20pm
Post 3 of 22
Thanks Biblemac for the watch! I appreciate it. In reference to what you didn't like:
I completely agree. The dueling part ended up being slow because there was little dueling that we actually filmed. We actually filmed the "sword fight" before we filmed the dialogue, so we could edit them together accordingly. Unfortunately, when I imported the footage into my computer, I found that we were so worried about getting the dialogue takes over in time, that their locations in the fighting shots were different from the dialog spots. So I edited it accordingly, but in the end we ended up with only a few shots of actual sword fighting. So you're certainly right about the lack of actual sword fighting. I see where you're coming from on the "cheap shot" as well, but we were more going off of the fact that Michael hadn't drawn his sword yet.
And yes, there was some mis-matching in the audio. The waves were incredible loud (something I hadn't caught when I scouted the location) so we took what audio we could get. Unfortunately, some of this audio had clangs that weren't there visually. I tried to number these down to one or two, and obviously you caught one of them
Yeah, the tackling part was a bit slower than expected, but that's just one of the things we didn't have much of a chance to change.
While I can put a lot of blame on the time limit we were given in filming this, most of the mistakes made could have been avoided, so it was certainly a learning experience in that regard. Anyway, I'm really glad you enjoyed it. Yes, those swords were quite real, and fairly sharp. Our "Michael" actor actually cut his hand in one of the scenes, but he toughed it out until we finished up. I guess that's what you get when you play with sharp toys.
Posted: Sat, 11th Dec 2010, 10:02pm
Post 4 of 22
I enjoyed this a lot. Solid production values and good attention (or, close enough) to costuming and location. The picturesque backdrop for the whole short is good and cinematic, and the cinematography and pretense (an argument amongst friends) services this well.
I went into this thinking I would like the acting from Michael and not Lucifer, as the former fits the characteristic mold of a Shakespearean archetype, with medieval chinstrap beard, strong jaw and overstated words. Lucifer, however, looks more like a kid, has a weaker, less expressive chin and cheekbones, and bangs in his hair that look a bit out of place. As such, I was immediately tempted to side with the acting from Michael.
However, after about Lucifer's fourth line, it became obvious that his acting was better, and that Michael's was only impressive on the surface because it was intentionally overstated.
So here's the deal. For me, at least, Michael's acting brought the whole thing down. It was punctuated by dramatic pauses, very stagey, and very Shakespearean. In many cases, this works, but not in a dialog. It felt like a half-measure, as if he wanted badly to say many things to express his regrets to Lucifer, but instead of listening and responding to Lucifer's arguments, he went ahead with his own words instead. Which is fine - there are PLENTY of people out there whose only form of listening is to wait for their turn to speak. However, there's still an aspect of 'listening' that has to happen. If one member of a dialog is indeed only waiting their turn to speak, then when they do speak, it doesn't just have to be overstated and punctuated by dramatic voice inflection, but it also has to have a volume and heft to its delivery. In my opinion, Michael's delivery fell flat in this aspect.
It was director Sidney Lumet who once posited that the key to true acting is listening. That, if the actor actually listens to what's going on from another actor, they focus more on a response and less on their memorized lines. In this respect, the responses are sometimes different from the prescribed lines, but they are more natural nonetheless. For Michael, I would liked to have seen him pay attention to Lucifer's words more.
Good example of why this looks wrong to me: If you play this short on mute, and unmute only at Michael's lines, they sound great. A bit archaic, as the costuming suggests, and very standoffish and medieval in formality. He seems to carry well the overtly formal, incensed diction of a time we once knew. When we turn on Lucifer's dialog, however, it is not read in the same way - rather, it's more modern, more emotional, and more reactionary. Lucifer actually feels like he's reacting to Michael's words, and his lines are less a predetermined speech and more a causal response to Michael.
So how do I come to determine which acting works better if both would work individually well without the other? I land on Lucifer because he listens. You can tell. Even in spite of his actions being less dramatic, less actor-ly, his 'actorliness' makes itself present in how well he reacts to what's happening in the scene.
I'm not saying I'm an expert at direction or anything like that, nor am I saying that I have never directed over-acting before. But I think that Michael over-acts in the worst way: it's half-hearted. If he's going to push the anger and the frustration, have him YELL rather than coarsely increase volume. Go full-force, full measure. No half measures. When I did 'Exodus' there's a scene at the end, kind of opposite in story of this, where two enemies draw common understanding (and thus invert the friend-to-enemy aspect presented here) following an argument. In 'Exodus', admittedly, the argument is loud and screamy, put it's more real because the actors are listening to each other, and when they aren't listening, it's not because they're focusing on their upcoming scripted lines, but because they're focusing on what response they actually want to tell the other actor. You may be surprised to find that none of the words exchanged 'at the fence' in Exodus were ever in the script - the protagonist was supposed to stand there scared for his life while a voiceover took over the narration (which happens eventually, but still). Instead, the actors read each others reactions and formed an argument against one another motivated by their characters' emotions. It was all improvised, but felt very real because the words came from listening and reading the scene, not recalling the script.
Overacting and overreacting in short films is totally fine with me if it's two people acting out to each other. When the scene doesn't necessarily call for intensity, but the actors bring it, and become themselves engrossed in it, that's something I love - because the acting talents aren't acting for anybody but themselves. The intensity isn't for the camera to see, it's for the actor to give, and the camera being there is just a convenience to capturing those moments. When you have one half of an acting duo acting to the camera, and not the other actor in the scene, there's a problem. I felt very much that Michael was saying things for the benefit of the camera, while Lucifer tried to bring it back to Michael himself with his words.
Anyhow, these are my sole qualms with this short film. You've done a great job in production design, and it shows. You also cultivated a nice, medieval script and got people down to do it, and that's commendable as well.
Overall, this was an enjoyable short. I would have liked probably less archaic dialog and a more even-handed (or even more over-the-top) performance from Michael, but these complaints are minor.
Posted: Sat, 11th Dec 2010, 10:43pm
Post 5 of 22
I agree with everything Ben3308 said just never thought about it till now. Some good, valid points in there.
Posted: Sat, 11th Dec 2010, 11:19pm
Post 6 of 22
Ben, we're in the exact same page here. I completely understand what you're saying. I'm on my phone right now so i'll be putting a longish response when I get home. Thanks for taking the time to watch and critic it. Means a lot.
Okay, so here's my response to your thoughts. First of all, I just wanted to thank you again for going into such detail. You obviously really payed attention to the film and put a lot of thought into your post.
I read your post about three times, and then watched the film seeing it from your perspective (I tried muting Lucifer's lines). I was about half way through before I agreed with everything you're saying. That's mostly what has been bothering me in post production. The acting seemed fine when piecing it together, but every time I watched it all the way through something just was nagging at me. So you hit the nail right on the head with your comments.
I'd say that it was a flaw in my direction of the actors rather than the actors (or actor) themselves. I should have caught that earlier on, and adjusted properly on set, or in rehearsal. I think a lot of it stemmed from the fact that I really tried to accentuate the differences between the two characters, that I forget the larger picture. Certainly something to learn from.
Anyways, I'm really glad you liked it. I put a lot of effort into it, so it's nice to see others enjoy it.
Posted: Sun, 12th Dec 2010, 4:25am
Post 7 of 22
Thrawn, I know that your most recent post wasn't directed at me, but I just wanted to say how much more I look forward to whatever your next production may be simply because of how you are taking this criticism from Ben and I. So just thought you deserved to be applauded for that.
Posted: Sun, 12th Dec 2010, 5:37pm
Post 8 of 22
Hi Thrawn, been looking forwarded to this for a while.
Having watched it, I have to say that I liked it, but there were certain issues that, for me, make it a high quality, but ultimately flawed effort.
Please don't take that the wrong way, I don't mean that it's no good, or that you wasted your time or anything like that. I mean that what you attempted was daring and challenging, and not all of it worked.
First off, I really like the concept, I think it's a great idea. So, you have a great foundation in the concept. And the concept is the story here, so you have that too. The production values are good, the technical's are invisible as they should be. The location and costume work fit the content well, and the simple cinematography and grading work well. The emphasis is on the characters, where it should be.
I liked that the sword fighting was secondary, and I actually thought it worked really well having them not really appear to be that interested in fighting each other. The ending and the revelation of who these people are support the idea that the physical act of fighting is secondary at this point, all the damage has been done. I liked that, so even if some of that came about as the result of necessity, it works.
The cinematography was good, allowing the focus to be held firmly on the characters. Same for the grading, it had a nice, natural, cinematic look. The natural look and feel was perfect for this. I felt like you were perhaps deliberately understating the power of the characters by placing them firmly in reality, presenting them as flesh and blood, in order to emphasise the moral, mental struggle between them. I don't know if you consciously did that or not, but it works. The ending gives the whole thing context, and I think had you played it as an epic battle or whatever it would have lost it's power.
On to the acting. Ben has already said a lot of what I thought about the acting, and the problems presented by the different styles. I do think that Lucifer gave the better performance, and I think visually he makes a good Lucifer in the context of your film. Unassuming, physically unremarkable, etc. Michael, for me, didn't work. His delivery was forced and unnatural and jarring. It's like you were directing 2 versions of the film at once, and Michael is the only part from the second version you put in. The problem for me is, everything he said sounded fake because of how real everything Lucifer said sounded. Lucifer looked like he was talking, having a conversation, you could see his mind at work. Not Michael, he was reciting lines. The ironic and irritating thing about this is that you could have made the film Michael style and it would have still worked, it would just have been a completely different film. You could play up the staged, theatrical quality, you could play up the feeling that they are reciting lines to suggest the idea of fate etc, which would work here. You could have really pushed the Shakespearian delivery, made the characters much more archetypal. But you would have had to do everything in the same style as the acting, the whole film would be very different. Instead, you went largely with the more realistic, naturalistic style, but you didn't go far enough with it. You've got two very different styles of acting, and everything else is somewhere in the middle and as a result none of it gels properly. The direction, acting, design, isn't unified.
Another problem for me is the script. There's too much here. I think the amount of dialogue is symptomatic of what you were going for with Michael. Long, Shakespearian, dramatic dialogue. Again, this would be totally fine, if the whole thing was one long shot for example, then the intensity that comes from long unbroken dialogue would be allowed to build and could be very effective. But, the way you did shoot it was too free for that, too real. Does that make sense? Essentially, what I think it comes down to is this: Michaels acting requires a more extreme, defined framework in order to work. Everything must be unified towards this end, production design, cinematography, editing etc. The on screen world in which Michael is a believable character has to be as artificial as the acting style. It has to be obviously staged, it has to be clear that we are watching a performance, not a real person. I hope that makes sense.
Also, I'm not sure that the visual effects at the end really work or do anything for the film. The quiet, understated revelation of who these characters are is powerful in it's subtlety. I didn't need to see Lucifer dissolve into the air (rendering any attempt at a duel pointless anyway, considering this talent would make him basically impervious to weapons) and I didn't need to see Michael with wings. Those things were unnecessary. They actually diminished the impact.
I really did enjoy this though, and I think it's a really interesting idea and a really good thing to have made. I like the idea so much I wish I had thought of it. So, I think that despite it's flaws it's definitely something you should be proud of. Also, making this has no doubt been a huge learning experience, and you will now be much better equipped for your next film (which I'm looking forward to, what ever it might be.)
Good work Thrawn, well done.
Posted: Mon, 13th Dec 2010, 3:06am
Post 9 of 22
First of all, thanks for the time you put into the response. You and Ben both offered excellent advice/critic and in-depth explanations of your thoughts. I really appreciate it, especially coming from a great filmmaker like yourself. I’ve mentioned this back in the production thread, but your work has been a large inspiration to me. The fact that I’m able to post this video here to be viewed by people such as yourself, the Adams brothers, Sollthar, etc is quite exciting since all of you have played a large part in my development as a filmmaker. Now that I’ve gotten that out of the way, one to your thoughts..
Thanks for the kind words towards the cinematography, location/costumes, and grading. I put a lot of effort into all of those, and while I’ve been proud of them, it’s nice to see them noticed. I also put a lot of thought into the context and presentation of the confrontation, which is nice to know it didn’t go unnoticed.
But back to the flawed directing/acting/writing. I’d really like to say that I was just directing two different versions of the film at one time to be... artistic(?), like you suggested, but unfortunately that’s not how I went about it at all. The book/poem Paradise Lost
was an inspiration for this piece, so while I wanted to bring a separate interpretation to the table, I also wanted to keep some of the ancient/somewhat-Shakespearian elements to it, which ended up in the dialogue. It’s not as if I had two separate visions for the short, more like I was trying to work with two main ingredients that ultimately ended up clashing with each other. I guess you just can’t have everything
Like I had mentioned in my response to Ben, I could definitely feel something was wrong when editing, but I couldn’t put my finger on it until now. It seems rather blatantly obvious now that it has been pointed out to me. I really like your thoughts about the the entire production becoming “defined” like Michael or “free” like Lucifer (that’s the best I can sum that paragraph up). It makes perfect sense to me. I really wish I had that insight before-hand, but oh well, I suppose that’s what learning experiences are for.
About the ending visuals (Lucifer’s disappearance and Michael’s wings) there was certainly some discussion about that. I wanted Lucifers “exit” to be simple, but at the same time somewhat significant now that his identity had been revealed. We (my friends who helped me out) had some disagreement as to how this should be accomplished. We ended up taking three different takes. One, where he disappears into thin air (what we ended up using), another where he walks into the ocean (Like this..
), and a third where we don’t see him leave at all. The ocean idea seemed a tad corny to me, and I wasn’t sure how I felt about not seeing him leave at all, so I opted to go for the simple dissolve. Looking back, going another route would have been a better choice, as the visual effect certainly seems to dampen the impact (the opposite of the intended effect).
I will stick by those wings however. I don’t know, maybe it’s because I worked for hours on them the night before (we stayed up until 4:00 AM finishing them, and woke up at 6:00 AM to start filming) but I don’t think they did any harm. I put them in there as sort of (for lack of better phrase) shout out to John Milton (author of Paradise Lost) and his interpretation of “white winged and carrying harps” angels which, along with some misguided paintings, really worked towards the modern concept of angels. I’m not saying you’re wrong, but it’s definitely something that I would keep in there. Let’s call it personal preference.
I think that’s everything. I’m glad that you enjoyed it. It’s certainly a turned out to be a much greater learning experience than I had expected, and that’s great. Thank you for your thoughts, they certainly help.
Posted: Mon, 13th Dec 2010, 7:58am
Post 10 of 22
Much has been said already so there's not much new to add. The cinematography in this is well done and works. The sound is crips and clear and the music works too. The costumes look nice and take me into a different world. So in terms of production value, this is simple but very effective and does the trick well. Big compliments there!
There's two reasons that despite the solid technicals this doesn't work for me. One reason is the mentioned acting. For me, they're both simply not good enough to carry that kind of stagey, shakespearian dialogue. As said above, one is better then the other, but as a whole, I just simply didn't "feel" what they're saying. I heard the words, but didn't feel the emotion. And that's way more important in acting then knowing your lines.
Second reason is the script and it's the same here. I didn't feel anything because you as the writer didn't let me to. What I've been presented here lingers way too much on dialogue for one thing. It doesn't make use of the fact that film is an audiovisual medium. While the technicals were solid as said, they're replaceable standard fare and don't serve the story, nor the emotions in any way. The camerawork doesn't support each moment with the right angle or perspective, it just shows us what's happening. The best rule for filmic storytelling is "don't tell, show!" - That should always guide you through the creative process. Never tell, show! So we have two people talking to each other about lots of stuff that has happened, but the film doesn't show that. It just presumes all of it and expects us to care about something that we are not shown and only told with words.
It's the "climax" problem so many many inexperienced filmmakers fall into. The belief that a shortfilm can be based on a climax scene of basically a bigger movie, but without showing the rest. The problem is, those climaxes only work WITH the rest. If we, the audience, had time to engage ourselves in the characters and the moment. And I felt your story had enough depth to do that. But the problem is, I'm expected to care about the struggle of two people (or angels) I have just met. I was never shown what they went through, I was never lead through the story of their lifes, their friendship and their betrayal. And without that, any climax falls flat on it's nose. This one does, unfortunately, despite a great effort.
I hope you can take this into a account for your next screenplay. Don't just write a climax. Begin with a scene that let's us get to know the characters. Then show their problem and inherent different development. Then have the climax where all comes to an end.
If you can work on your writing, I think you can improve your films easily by a lot. Your technical knowledge is there. Now it's time for the art of storytelling to come in and you'll have a winner on your hand.
And if it doesn't work, you can always blame me.
Posted: Mon, 13th Dec 2010, 10:17am
Post 11 of 22
Agree with everything that has been said.
There was an enormous amount of dialogue in here, especially for amateur actors to handle. But even with pro actors there aren't many that can pull of this kind of operatic stuff - you need a Patrick Stewart or Christohper Lee or Ian McKellen, otherwise you're going to get into serious trouble (see: Star Wars prequels).
However, the bigger problem for me was the staging: it's essentially two people standing in the same place talking at each other for 5 minutes. The location and camerawork becomes largely unnecessary: this could have worked just as well as a radio play or a stageplay.
While I wouldn't necessarily want this to become an 'action' short, in this case I think it would have worked. Having this kind of dialogue and delivery while in the middle of an epic swordfight would be great - very much in the style of classic adventuring with the hero and villain trading words as much as blades.
Imagine them having this conversation while fighting on the beach, in the water, on the edge of the cliff, etc.
That's just one option, of course. But the staging is too static to support such dense, lengthy dialogue.
As others have said, though, it's still a cool project and you should be pleased with what you've got here. Really, really looking forward to what you and your team do next!
Edit: I'm also aware that doing a big swordfight with dialogue like that would be hellishly
Last edited Mon, 13th Dec 2010, 5:29pm; edited 1 times in total.
Posted: Mon, 13th Dec 2010, 5:21pm
Post 12 of 22
Wow, certainly a lot to take in!
Sollthar, thanks for the advice! I'd respond to every single point you made, but my response would pretty much be the same for each. All very good points and a lot of information to absorb and apply in my next video. I particularly found your "don't tell, show" point to be helpful. Hopefully I can put it to use in the future. Regarding the short film being a climax to a larger story.. Yes, it almost acted as a single portion of a much larger story. And even though the viewer isn't presented with the rest of the story in that specific short, I think it works to the films advantage. All we're presented with is two friends who are separated by a sense of loyalty. We all know the story, beginning to end, but it's a matter of knowing which
story. It's the lack of context that makes up for.. well, the lack of context. Or at least that's how it was intended. Does that make sense at all? I know that may not be the traditional way of making a short film, and maybe it did fall "flat on its nose", but that was my thought process behind that. Thanks for giving it a watch! (Despite the fact that all the flaws are due to you.. in some way or form.
Tarn, I mostly agree with you on what you had to say. It's a pity that I couldn't get Christopher Lee or Ian Mckellen for the roles.. I'm not entirely sure they would have went for it
I may as well note that I specifically didn't want this to be an action short. While yes, there were swords and there was some great potential in the location for an exciting duel, that's not what I was going for. I didn't want for the swords to carry the film, I wanted the dialogue to carry it. Which, I suppose, ended up being the film's downfall. I also didn't want two strict "heroes" and "villians", per say, which is also another reason why I didn't present the context in the first place. I see what you're saying, and while that's certainly a direction I could have taken it, that's not what I was after.
Thanks to both of you.
Posted: Mon, 13th Dec 2010, 5:34pm
Post 13 of 22
Yeah, the 'big epic swordfight' is just one option. Even if you didn't go the action route there still needed to be more varied and imaginative staging.
To take a couple of examples from Lord of the Rings (because I just watched it this weekend): check out the scene where Gandalf first explains to Frodo about the ring, dropping it in the fire, then reciting the One Ring speech, then telling him the history. Also check out the Council of Elrond scene at Rivendell, when they decide what to do.
On paper, in the script, both the scenes are very, very static with TONS of dialogue. As mentioned, it helps when you've got Ian McKellen doing half of the talking, but that's not why these scenes work: they work because the camerawork is designed specifically around every single line.
They're not just getting shot, reverse, wide coverage. The camera angles and moves are designed for each line: such as Gandalf reciting the One Ring speech, or the close-up on Frodo saying "what must I do?" Similarly, the Council scene moves around a lot, with people getting up, walking over to the ring, shifting motivations, everyone having an argument and jumping up in anger - it transforms what is essentially a load of people sitting in a circle having an Exposition Conversation into a very compelling bit of drama.
Both those scenes are worth examining shot-by-shot, as they're also notably vast improvements on the same sections in the book, which drag on, and on, and on, and on.
I think there was a chance to do that here as well, using the sand, water, sky, everything you had to hand, to turn it into compelling drama - without needing a big swordfight.
Did that make sense?
Posted: Wed, 15th Dec 2010, 6:01am
Post 14 of 22
Makes sense, thanks Tarn
By the way, you're narrating my next film. No, you don't have a choice in the matter
Posted: Wed, 15th Dec 2010, 9:25am
Post 15 of 22
Thrawn wrote:Makes sense, thanks Tarn
By the way, you're narrating my next film. No, you don't have a choice in the matter
Hehe, ok, keep me posted.
Posted: Wed, 22nd Dec 2010, 6:22pm
Post 16 of 22
I enjoyed watching and learning from this film. The previous comments make a lot of sense, but one thing I really appreciated is you did not try to accomplish something that is unattainable for your skill level and resources. Like others have said, the staging was too plain. However, I liked that you focused more on the characters and less on the action, and you created a film that, despite its flaws, tells its story pretty well.
If you had tried to make overwhelming action and special effects, the story would have been lost (plus they probably would not have been as great as you had hoped after watching Inception and Robin Hood - that's my general tendency, at least
). God bless as you seek to tell stories well through film. It is good for us as filmmakers to always keep our focus on that.
Posted: Thu, 23rd Dec 2010, 8:46am
Post 17 of 22
Thanks Gibs, I appreciate you taking the time to watch and comment. +1, as always.
Posted: Mon, 14th Feb 2011, 4:56pm
Post 18 of 22
Well done...a difficult project, to say the least.It's one that not many of us would contemplate.
You made an excellent go of it though ,even if I personally don't agree with long narrated scenes in amateur movies.
Last edited Fri, 18th Feb 2011, 8:32am; edited 1 times in total.
Posted: Fri, 18th Feb 2011, 3:23am
Post 19 of 22
Hey guys thanks for the reviews. I'm Tim, I helped Laz do sound on the project. It's awesome that we were nominated for an award and that all of you have put so much time and effort into reviewing this film. It wasn't a perfect film by any means, but we're all proud of it!
(Thanks Davlin for bringing this thread back to life)
Posted: Fri, 18th Feb 2011, 7:58am
Post 20 of 22
Thanks Davlin for the watch. Glad you could enjoy it despite our differences
Posted: Thu, 24th Feb 2011, 5:30am
Post 21 of 22
This is a bit like finally coming to the surface and gasping that first breath. I have yet to see a film here with more raw potential. There isn't anything more to say than has already been said by Ben, Sollthar and others. This is only a scene and a pretty good one, but the title is killer. It got my attention and all but forced me to go look for the film to see what it’s about. I agree with the others, if you put some effort into a complete story, I don’t think you’d have much trouble selling it at all. Kudos with a capital “K”
Posted: Thu, 24th Feb 2011, 5:49am
Post 22 of 22
One suggestion would be to either ADR your dialogue or get your ocean footage and green screen your actors in so you can control the background sounds and bring your dialogue forward in the mix. I had the same problem with a scene where an assault team was coming out of the water with an explosion on a ship in the background. The waves totally dominated the background sound so we composited the explosion in and had to ADR the dialogue, which is not easy, but well worth the effort.