Penfever - Occam's Razor

[penfever]

I hope you all saw it - and have lots of opinions. I do so love opinions. So please, post and when I wake up in the morning, I'll check em all out.

[mikkowilson]

Penfever,
First off: I wish I could give you an astoundingly well done review as you are dishing out to others. Seriously, you write good reviews.

Ok, your film.
I never really caught onto what happened. The guy killed, check a machien that woudl goign to make the killings irrelevant, he traveld forward sin time, check his progress, kille dsome more. Eventually he ended up victim to his thaory and inside his machine?
Sorry if' that's way off, that's what I got from it.

However, the boring (techincal) side as you put it, was very good. I like the stypel, thgouh maybe a little too uch "makign it film like" for my tastes.

I liked the effect with the watch. Simple and effective.

Good makeup too with the bloodwork.

I wish I had got into the groove a little better and been able to understand your well made peice. Maybe it lacked explanation at the begining, maybe it's because it's 8am and I haven't slept last night becaues i've been watching entries, but this one just didn't "click" for me, sorry.

- Mikko

[penfever]

Nope, you got it entirely, Mikko. Nothing more to it. I know the film is a little dense - easy for me to say, but most people say it benefits from multiple viewings.

[MojoTrancer]

I'm hoping when I watch it more I will pick up on some stuff as well. I just didn't get it the first time around. I did like the Primer influence though. And the very simple effect of the watch ticking away the time forward and backward was cool.

BTW was that an old Power Mac in the background in the lab?

[penfever]

Yep, it was an old PM. We raided the garbage for set pieces. Fun story, that. And yeah, Primer was the inspiration for the film. Which is why it is so confusing, I guess.

[Blaine]

Your piece had an interesting look. My problem with it was I didn't catch the Sci-Fi aspect. It would have played as a horror piece but there wasn't anything that pointed to Sci-Fi for me. As a video short it had some interesting things in it. I thought your lead actor had an interesting look. He even looked familiar. Also in the first sequence I thought I noticed a shift in the "look". It started out with some very good contrast with the blacks really crushed and then as he opened the door I felt it lost that feel and took another direction. I'm at a bit of a loss here because I thought it was a good piece but just didn't fit the category. :confused:

[penfever]

Well, I thought time travel was sci-fi. But who knows...?

[Blaine]

Wow. I guess I'll have to watch it again because I missed that entirely.

[Blaine]

Okay, I went back and watched it again. Knowing going in it is about time travel, yes, I see that now. Not knowing, I just didn't catch it. Perhaps I didn't pay close enough attention to the watch, I don't know. I was more caught up in why he was killing everyone on not getting the answer to that, unfortunately. But I do stand corrected. I now see the Sci-Fi angle. I retract what I said previously that it was "good piece but just didn't fit the category." Did I miss the tie-in for the killing? I heard the part about all the ways to kill with a blade but couldn't understand your character's motivation. Maybe it's me...maybe it's late. I don't know. I'll try it again tomorrow. This is a video that I believe could be better served in a longer format to develop the story more fully.

[penfever]

Well, MikkoWilson sorta mentioned it above, but basically the motivation is - he's trying to disprove Occam's Razor, and he's kinda crazy so he picks a crazy way to do it.

OCCAM'S RAZOR = THE EXPLANATION WHICH REQUIRES THE FEWEST LEAPS OF FAITH IS ALWAYS THE CORRECT ONE.

So, if a dude kills his wife, you'd immediately conclude, oh, he killed her. Or if he doesn't kill his wife, you'd conclude the opposite. But in fact, the protagonist uses time travel to frustrate those beliefs - in fact, he both kills and doesn't kill his wife, because in the end he stops himself from doing it (via time travel). Ergo, the explanation which requires the fewest leaps of faith was NOT the correct one.
Now he kills those people but then he says "Don't worry, before they knew it, they'll be fine". Because of course, they will be once he goes back and kills himself - since he believes all of his earlier (later) actions will be eradicated.
Unfortunately, he miscalculates, and the him from the past sees the him from the future coming to kill the him from the past, which causes a nasty paradox - hence the ending.

[ProfD]

As a Physics major originally, I got it. Interesting piece. I couldn't help but think that a few very quick zooms to break the pace a little would make it a lot more interesting, but overall, I liked it. Cool.

ProfD.

[Shaun Patrick]

And yeah, Primer was the inspiration for the film. Which is why it is so confusing, I guess.

It definitely had a Primer feel to it story wise but, ultimately, I don't is that is good thing because I think Primer suffers from "too dense for it's own good" syndrome. Sure, there is a lot of neat stuff going on in Primer but I'm not sure an overload of ideas/concepts is the same as good storytelling.

I definitely need to watch your film again but I think it's too dense/convaluted from a story perspective. It doesn't make a lick of sense upon first viewing, in my opinion. Yeah, I'll watch it again but the majority of viewers probably won't give it a second chance. So I'm not saying you need to dumb it down, but I think the viewer needs to take away something or at least understand the basics of the story after the first viewing.

Which brings me to my main critique...blocking for camera/visual storytelling.

You have a lot of neat gadgets/shots (time machine, lab, doppleganger in tha bathroom etc.) and I think these things are squandered because of the shots you chose in the editing process or shot originally.

Example #1: When the scientist first enters the lab, his VO and dialogue is covered in one wide shot that lingers for way too long. Why is he pissed off? What machine is he talking about? Where is the machine in the lab? Is it that small computer? The wide shot does nothing to build tension or give any information to the audience. It would have been interesting to have seen this scene broken up into more shots.

Example #2: In the final green screen shot/dialogue between the scientists, you've set up a Shot-Reverse-Shot but both characters are on the same side of the frame (the left side I believe) and it's completely disorienting in a bad way. The rule of thumb usually is that you have one character on one side of the frame and the other character (after the cut) on the opposite side.

So just some initial critique. I will give it another view after I see a couple more of the flicks. Overall, though, nice job.

[penfever]

Thanks, Shaun. I totally hadn't noticed that thing about shot/reverse on the same side of the frame. That's a good point, I should know better than that.
I was trying for a particular style with the long takes. But everybody has their own feel about such things.

[Dahopafilms]

Penfever,

This was an interesting short which I have now viewed three times - and I think a fourth is in my future. Overall, I'm left with a dissatisfied feeling even after the third view - likely a function of my pea-brain just not getting it.

First, the story. I needed your explanation in your post to better understand it because I did not get the whole concept from a simple view of the piece (As Mom always said - "Forget liberal arts. Get a Physics degree, you moron!").

On the various viewings, my general thoughts included "Why did he kill the guy outside the lab - he was already known and was going to have no trouble getting in?" The "before they'd knew it they'd be fine" explanation doesn't really convince me, because every attack poses an increased risk to the protagonist that something could go wrong and he could be stopped "mid-experiment". Was he a scientist or did he enjoy the kills? Hmmm.

I must say I didn't really buy the initial kills. Kinda "splat, you're dead, move on". Maybe less on screen would have worked for me (let the viewer fill in the scene) - exactly as you did with the poor guy crawling on the floor with the (knife? pole? baton?) in his back.

I was a little claustrophobic with it being shot fully interior. But that's just me.

I had some sound issues when he got to the lab and was talking to himself (and I have some issues with cinema where characters talk to themselves - when was the last time anyone really talked to themselves other than by voicing an appropriate expletive?). It took a couple of passes to adjust the sound to try and hear what he was saying.

As simple as it was, I liked the watch effect. I also liked the fact that it was an older-style digital.

I really liked the music (although, again, the mix didn't always cut it on my system). The mixed reverse of the orchestral piece really worked for me in keeping with the theme.

I liked the time machine - kinda a trash compactor with special features. The srobe effect for the time travel also worked for me.

I also really liked your lead actor and thought he was talented in a very cool (read:cold) kind of way. He had a Kevin Spacey feel to him (that's good) as long as he wasn't trying to "do" Kevin Spacey (that's bad).

Watch the placement of your closing credits - in my version the credits bled beyond the side parameters of the screen.

The fact that I'm going to watch this again is, in my book, a compliment to your short and I thank you very much for making it and letting us comment.

[penfever]

Dahopa, thanks for the detailed response, I appreciate it.
Obviously, you're right. The security guard did know him, he could have talked his way through, but he was impatient, and it was a 5-minute film. :) Anyway, I thought it was pretty in character for him to show total indifference towards them.

Sorry the sound mix didn't work for you - I spent a pretty long time on it, but I only heard it on 2-3 sets of speakers. I never test enough systems.
The lead, Jeff Mills, is a very talented guy, former restaurateur, operates out of NYC. I'd totally recommend him to anyone in the area, he's just getting back into filmmaking, he's a lot of fun and a cool dude.
The credits were fixed in a post-submission version.
And as you say, if you're watching it four times, like it or hate it, I feel like my work is done. I don't ask people to agree with my films or how I make them, just to give them a shot.
Thanks again for your helpful advice.

[D_and_G]

Ok, where to start ?

My first impression was that the narrative was muddled. I had no clue as to the primary goal of the protagonist. Besides his cold blooded killings, there seemed to be no definable reason for what he was doing. At first I thought he was trying to find a way to rectify the murder of his wife, but then that was ruled out.

Now down to the tech side, I thought it was alright. But, like NBC said, the set dressing and production designing is very important for selling this type of film. Or inversely, try make it a selling point (like Primer). I don't think that was accomplished here, and instead the location/dressing brought me out of the story.

In Primer, they are operating off the corporate grid. In your flick the Scientist is working with a time machine - guarded by security, lab coats etc... leading to the impression this was a Corporate lab. Thus, a corporate lab with a teenage security guard, and a broom closet for a time machine ? I know you are working under limitations, and budget, but I think the short should have been rewritten or creatively dressed (think unorthodox) to keep the suspension of disbelief.

Acting, music, pace was all adequate, but I would see how some sound design (atmospheric undertones) could enhance the story.

Now, after you've explained the short to me, I have a bit of a Scientific quibble, and feel free to ignore it. The reason that your premise - studying Occam's Razor by the scientists experiment is questionable at best, is due to The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. It is a result of the quantum wave function collapse, inherent in the model.

Simply put , merely by studying the results of his time experiment, he is changing the result on a quantum level, nullifying the veracity of the results. Now i know this is a sci-fi (fictional) short, but i thought I'd just throw that in there.

All in all, I felt you were going for big ideas, without the proper narrative to back them up. With better (or innovative) location/lab, older actors, and a streamlined story, your premise is an interesting one to explore.

Please take what I've said with a grain a salt. I mean zero disrespect, and hope you keep on shooting :)

Cheers.

[smelni]

Was interesting for me because i loved primer and it had that feel to it.

Could have moved a bit faster - but nicely shot.

A good effort

[Blaine]

Well, MikkoWilson sorta mentioned it above, but basically the motivation is - he's trying to disprove Occam's Razor, and he's kinda crazy so he picks a crazy way to do it.

OCCAM'S RAZOR = THE EXPLANATION WHICH REQUIRES THE FEWEST LEAPS OF FAITH IS ALWAYS THE CORRECT ONE.

So, if a dude kills his wife, you'd immediately conclude, oh, he killed her. Or if he doesn't kill his wife, you'd conclude the opposite. But in fact, the protagonist uses time travel to frustrate those beliefs - in fact, he both kills and doesn't kill his wife, because in the end he stops himself from doing it (via time travel). Ergo, the explanation which requires the fewest leaps of faith was NOT the correct one.
Now he kills those people but then he says "Don't worry, before they knew it, they'll be fine". Because of course, they will be once he goes back and kills himself - since he believes all of his earlier (later) actions will be eradicated.
Unfortunately, he miscalculates, and the him from the past sees the him from the future coming to kill the him from the past, which causes a nasty paradox - hence the ending.
Well, you'll be happy to know that I've watched this three more times to try to see what I'm missing. What I'm having problems with is that it's not on the screen. You've go some really interesting looking shots. And yes, I can now see where you've got your time machine. But if you hadn't told me that he killed his wife, I'd have never known it. I see a body fall on the bed but it happens so fast I can't even tell it's a woman and because the body seems to be falling onto the bed, I can't be sure it's a killing (I'm not a murderer, I'm a scientist). You need to show some more. If you want me to know it's his wife let me see that. Perhaps linger on the body while he's putting on his lab jacket. It might go a long way toward explaining what he's doing.

[penfever]

Thanks again for the comments, just keep 'em coming...

[BrianV]

Unique voice. Good use of montage, etc. His voice worked well to lead us into the mood of the piece.

*thumbs up*

[darkfader]

You do give a rather honest view on films. If you have the chance take a look at the upload and I will download your film too. I am looking for some good constructive critisicim

[Norm Sanders]

penfever, I don't know what to say. I really expected more from you, probably because I've respected so many of your reviews I've seen. You give such precise feedback that I thought, now this guys' going to deliver big time.

But the film made ZERO sense to me, other than a guy that liked to kill people. He speaks of control, like a scientist, but if that were the case then I'd imagine a story/killer more in the line of the movie SAW ... who keeps them captive, experimenting with them, etc.

This dude just walks up and knifes people. Ah yes, the knife ... he oh so loves that knife. And that's about all I got out of it.

I didn't understand what was going on, the ending, nothing. I've not read through the other posts, so perhaps I'm the only one who missed it? If so, spoon feed it to me, please?

Otherwise, editing, camera, lighting, etc. all seemed fine (nothing that caught my eye, but nothing that turned me off either).

[THX-1138]

I liked it.

Better than Primer. At least I'm not asking you for my money and time back.


I too love long shots. and as mentioned earlier the shot on the scientist at the begining in his workspace was long...too long for most people with no movement from actor or camera.

My suggestion would have been a slow dolly toward him. That would have buit curiosity and dramatic tension. Tarkofsky is a master at the long shot...are you into him at all? If not watching his films is a good thing to do as a study in long shots.



Your credits have names that go off screne. Use title safe bars in your NLE! I was very disapointed when I saw that. Your film's too good to have soeething like that in it.


The old Macintosh in the lab was a nice touch but why was'nt it on? It just seemed wierd to not have a visual refrence to a functioning machine....and maybe I'm jumping to conclusions but I thought the computer was part of the Time Travel machine.


I like the time laps on the watch alot...reminded me of HG Wells Time Machine. Nice old school effects!

One editing tweek I would have made is to have the first kill scene be be much quicker. Up the shock value.

Foley on the door - the creaking - was off to me. First time the door opens a bit then the creaking starts. The second time the door is opened it creaks immediatly.


I'm being picky now of course.... Great entry. Thanks for making it.

Kip Kubin

[EditPhish]

Sorry Penfever... but yours was one of my least favorites... there were several reasons.

I don't want to watch a movie that has to be explained to me, or, that I have to watch multiple times to figure out at least the basics of the story. I also didn't catch the time travel aspect until subsequent viewings.

It felt random to me... and like you were trying to be obscure for the sake of being obscure. The pacing was too slow, and there was a real lack of cohesiveness with sound and music. What I mean is that you need to pay attention to sound FX, dialogue and scoring equally, so that they fit together like pieces of a puzzle... but it felt like you put effort into the sound FX, but forgot about the other two pieces.

The lighting was okay, though a little flat in spots... and the blood FX looks good. But ultimately the story just lost me.

Thanks for sharing it, and I hope you aren't offended by my criticisms... our individual opinions hopefully all help each other, and it's the viewer we are really making films for :)

[conrad_johnson]

Hey - I'll have to agree with many of your other reviewers in saying that the short didn't do it for me. It was dense in story, which is fine if it leaves you wanting to understand more. But for me, it didn't. Sorry. I liked the look of the actor and the locations you picked were great. But the story just wasn't delivered very well, and it took reading your responses to reviews to even guess at what was going on.

This coming from someone whose short also presented some amount of confusion to its viewers (go check it out), so you can take the comments with a grain of salt I guess!

[Z B Brox]

I really like the premise of this movie, and I'm certianly willing to forgive unscientific behavior from a scientist who's this deranged (after all, he's mastered time travel, chances of a God complex seem fair to good). I think like most I would've just preferred the storytelling to be a little more explicit. What was there I really enjoyed, but I wanted these interesting ideas to be conveyed more clearly and explored in more depth. I know that can be a lot to ask of a short, but I think it can be done, and a few of the shorts here prove it.

[kimko]

Well, MikkoWilson sorta mentioned it above, but basically the motivation is - he's trying to disprove Occam's Razor, and he's kinda crazy so he picks a crazy way to do it.

OCCAM'S RAZOR = THE EXPLANATION WHICH REQUIRES THE FEWEST LEAPS OF FAITH IS ALWAYS THE CORRECT ONE.

So, if a dude kills his wife, you'd immediately conclude, oh, he killed her. Or if he doesn't kill his wife, you'd conclude the opposite. But in fact, the protagonist uses time travel to frustrate those beliefs - in fact, he both kills and doesn't kill his wife, because in the end he stops himself from doing it (via time travel). Ergo, the explanation which requires the fewest leaps of faith was NOT the correct one.
Now he kills those people but then he says "Don't worry, before they knew it, they'll be fine". Because of course, they will be once he goes back and kills himself - since he believes all of his earlier (later) actions will be eradicated.
Unfortunately, he miscalculates, and the him from the past sees the him from the future coming to kill the him from the past, which causes a nasty paradox - hence the ending.WOW I LIKE THAT STORY ; HOW YOU EXPLAINED IT THAT IS BUT I DIDN'T GET THAT FROM THE SHORT. MAN IT'S SO HARD GETTING THE CONCEPT IN A 6MIN. SHORT

[iSTy]

I wouldn't say this was the worst one I've seen. But it's also not one of the best, probably because I really couldn't understand it. although I like the 'explanation' above. and after reading it a few times, i think it makes sense.