C A C H E - snodart/theloniusjones

[snodart]

Snodart,

One more question. Did you ever consider having a little blood hit the window shade in the scene with the bat? Not a lot mind you, but just a slight spatter.

Chris

Chris,
Yes, we did talk about it, but decided against it. We decided that it would have been a little too much. I think the scene is pretty shocking as is. I don't know though, I think that a very very small amount of splatter might have been a nice touch. It would have had to of been something that made people say, "oh, was that blood?" and not "damn, that guys blood splatted on the blinds!"

In the original version, instead of cutting when Mr. Nell leans up against the blinds, the shot keeps going (long continuous shot). We dollied back with Mr. Nell as he walked out the front door. We held on the empty doorway with only the pedophile's motionless feet showing. We haven't fully decided about adding this in the final version. I'm pretty fond of it in its original state, but that doesn't always mean it should be used.

BTW, Tim tackled the often confusing timing issues involved with shooting a composite like this. There was not several individual shots composited together, but one long continuous shot that was cut up and realigned. Anyway, Tim saved us a good deal of time and effort with this one.

 

[Chris Messineo]

Yes, we did talk about it, but decided against it. We decided that it would have been a little too much. I think the scene is pretty shocking as is. I don't know though, I think that a very very small amount of splatter might have been a nice touch. It would have had to of been something that made people say, "oh, was that blood?" and not "damn, that guys blood splatted on the blinds!"

Interesting. I think visually it could have been quite striking and if not overdone (ala buckets of blood) it could have added to the impact. Anyway, great film and I enjoyed it with or without the blood.

Chris

 

[heisest]

Thank you for your input. I was hoping you would expand on your comment. When you say "not much acting", do you mean that your disagreed with some of the acting choices or did you find the presentation lacking in the respect that through the acting it was unable to "suspend disbelief"? Your thoughts are welcome....so please expand if you will.

Well I guess I should have said not much dialog. Much of we see is the reactions of the 'hero' to what it happening to others. Facial expressions. And it was done very well. It was believable. So my comment wasnt mean to be a negative.

A good story is one that can move an audience's emotions.
And yours did it for me. Well done.

 

[concannon]

Thank you for your message. That brings up an interesting point which I feel is great about Justin and Tim's work here. They did an amazing job of taking the script which is mainly a map of specific "actions and dialouge", and pulled out the underlining feelings and emotions that drive it in a very meaningful and powerful way.

 

[WilderWorks]

Just want to say this was in my top three, and I really admire the control of tone and the excellent visual style. As I believe others have noted, I was left a little unclear concerning who was who now and then, so that's something to take into consideration in the future -- a problem easily solved by careful casting or costume design. And it happens even in major productions. If the players aren't big names, with faces we've seen a million times, sometimes we need a little longer than usual to pick them out.

 

[snodart]

Just want to say this was in my top three, and I really admire the control of tone and the excellent visual style. As I believe others have noted, I was left a little unclear concerning who was who now and then, so that's something to take into consideration in the future -- a problem easily solved by careful casting or costume design. And it happens even in major productions. If the players aren't big names, with faces we've seen a million times, sometimes we need a little longer than usual to pick them out.

Excellent, excellent point. Tim and I were talking about this today when picking apart why some folks got lost. We realized that it made sense to us while making/editing because we have been around the actors and could easily distinguish them from each other. Another great lesson learned for the future. Thanks for the tip! I'm surprised that I didn't take this into consideration, since I am usually the first to mix up characters when watching a flick.

 

[Jack Daniel Stanley]

GReat job guys ... some really excellent lighting and comps and unique characters and good story.

I only have two tiny dings and one suggestion. The colors seemed a little too saturated for my taste and looked less filmic therefore. In your banner their's a nice sort of bleachbybass CC going on and I would encourage you to explore that. It was mostly in the skin tones that it bugged me, but that could have been because most of the principles were SO tan. Just something to think about.

I was able to hold the narrative through him trying to remember the license plate number to showing up at the guys house and whooping him, but my girl friend was not, and I was only able to do it because I knew that's where you wanted to take the story. I think there needs to be a link somehow. Most of us can't find somebody's address from the license plate, so just a shot of him on a people finder or private eye website entering a license plate #, or something is all you need (sorry if I'm way off on what I think happened in terms of him getting the license and somehow finding the guy)

Finally I would consider reordering the scenes as follows if his perfromance tracks OK through it.
- beating the guy
- psychatrist scene from the beginning "how would I know if I'm hallucinating"
- my god what have I done.
Why? Because you have a picked a great idea of approriate scale for short film and you sort of deny us the pleasure of wondering what's going on and then the punchline or payoff to the piece is somewhat weekened I think, because you've already set out clearly that he has hallucinations (or at least according to the medical community)

If we start with him in the shop with the deja vu vision, and then maybe see him with the meds, and then see him see the kid ... then we are gooing back and forth and confused in a good way ... what was with those pills, it seems like he can see the future but why is he so upset and disquited by it why isn't it a good thing, i guess he's a superhero that sees the future but its too taxing on him or something

and then you hit us with the doctor scene -- Ohhh crapppp he's nuts

and then have the nice coda with the what have I done scene.

Whatcha think.

Don't get me wrong, I thought it had a fairly nice tragectory and I enjoyed it as is, I'm just looking at short film srtucture and the notion that what seems to work best is the set up and then defiance of an expectation rather than a fulfillment of one, and withholding a definitive answer on his mental state until the end seems to fall into that way of thinking and make the tragectory less straight.

But again really enjoyed it, the scene ordering thing is a something to think about rather than a criticism (if you do it you probably need less of the doctor scene at that poingt), I liked the acting a lot as well as the general idea and story (and your guy reminded me of Bill Paxton in a good way). Looking forward to more from you, you are high in the top 3 on my score sheet.

Thanks,

Jack

 

[snodart]

JDS, thanks for all the input.

I only have two tiny dings and one suggestion. The colors seemed a little too saturated for my taste and looked less filmic therefore. In your banner their's a nice sort of bleachbybass CC going on and I would encourage you to explore that. It was mostly in the skin tones that it bugged me, but that could have been because most of the principles were SO tan. Just something to think about.

I agree, a bleach bypass sort of look could be worth exploring.

I was able to hold the narrative through him trying to remember the license plate number to showing up at the guys house and whooping him, but my girl friend was not, and I was only able to do it because I knew that's where you wanted to take the story. I think there needs to be a link somehow. Most of us can't find somebody's address from the license plate, so just a shot of him on a people finder or private eye website entering a license plate #, or something is all you need (sorry if I'm way off on what I think happened in terms of him getting the license and somehow finding the guy)

This has been discussed, some seem to get it with out exrta help, some dont. It is a fine line as to how much to give the viewer. Too much info seems to make for a less interactive and perhaps boring experience. Not enough, of course leaves some confused. This is definately something we tried to keep in mind and will continue to keep a close watch on in future. I like the idea of a story not unfolding in front of the viewer's eyes, but being unfolded by the viewer. At least giving the viewer the impression that they are unfolding the story. I'm not sure how many have heard Phil Henry and his radio talk show, but he is a true expert at this. Either way, thanks for the input... it all brings us closer to being able to pull this concept off.

Finally I would consider reordering the scenes as follows if his perfromance tracks OK through it.
- beating the guy
- psychatrist scene from the beginning "how would I know if I'm hallucinating"
- my god what have I done.
Why? Because you have a picked a great idea of approriate scale for short film and you sort of deny us the pleasure of wondering what's going on and then the punchline or payoff to the piece is somewhat weekened I think, because you've already set out clearly that he has hallucinations (or at least according to the medical community)

If we start with him in the shop with the deja vu vision, and then maybe see him with the meds, and then see him see the kid ... then we are gooing back and forth and confused in a good way ... what was with those pills, it seems like he can see the future but why is he so upset and disquited by it why isn't it a good thing, i guess he's a superhero that sees the future but its too taxing on him or something

and then you hit us with the doctor scene -- Ohhh crapppp he's nuts

and then have the nice coda with the what have I done scene.

Whatcha think.

Don't get me wrong, I thought it had a fairly nice tragectory and I enjoyed it as is, I'm just looking at short film srtucture and the notion that what seems to work best is the set up and then defiance of an expectation rather than a fulfillment of one, and withholding a definitive answer on his mental state until the end seems to fall into that way of thinking and make the tragectory less straight.

I think your idea might work fine, but it just wasn't the feel that we were going for. We did not want the traditional "punchline" or "payoff" as seen in many films. The purpose of our version was not to show that he was in fact crazy in the end. We wanted it to still be left open as to whether or not the ability was real or simply a result of his mental state. So there realy is not a true payoff, punchline, or twist to leave the viewer with a sense of resolve. Instead we were goaled with leaving the viewer with an uneasy feeling in hopes that, to some degree, it would cause them to question how they look at the idealized notion of justice.

It is important to understand tradition, before attempting to step away from it, however slight. So your input and ideas have been nice to read; and we appreciate it.

Thanks

EDIT:spelling

 

[Jack Daniel Stanley]

welll it does work and I admire you for having the courage to go against the usual punchline payoff ...

I wonder if you could introduce some of that at the end and still have it be ambiguous but just have more of a button by introducing that new idea more towards the end

its not "broken" as is, just pondering structure and impact in these mini movies

 

[Kholi]

Late viewer,

Got a chance to watch, re-watch, then watch a third time just now.

I can't say anything that hasn't already been said. I was going to ask about the guy entering the bedroom scene, but after scanning the thread I found out.

The only thing that honestly didn't do it for me was the score. It was a tad bit off... like... not "it" for this short. Y'know?

Otherwise, top vote right here.

Your adapter rocks. You've probably gone over all of the specifics about it, so I'll have to scan again.

Great job, you guys. Looking forward to your next piece.

Edit Here:

I just noticed you were using a 100b. I dunno, for some reason, a and b seem like two different cameras to me. The image is just super clean, man. And with your adapter, it looks superb. I really want to see this on a television. I'm not at home in OC right now so I can't just put up the file in Quicktime. SUcks.

 

[Norm Sanders]

Wow, well I can't take the time to read through the 11 pages of posts, so I'll just put mine here. Any questions I ask that I'm SURE you've answered you can feel free to just cut & paste or point me to the appropriate page for the answers.

First, this is the only one that's rec'd a 10 from me for acting. Outstanding job. WOWZA!

Everything was actually quite solid in this, but where it fell just a TAD short (still ranked VERY high, but this is my only beef, if there were one), would be in knowing what exactly happened ... or perhaps it's SUPPOSED to be ambiguous and open to debate.

I didn't know if he had a child that had perhaps been lost to a predator, and he believed this was the one, or he himself had been abused, and that's why we see the face as he himself saw it as a child.

I DO understand that the guy he killed was the one in the Subaru Outback, but I'm confused on who was in the picture ... him or his child.

Two MINOR technical critiques were to get a different SFX for when the bat hits the guy's head ... just didn't sell it for me ... and that after SMASHING the guy's skull that many times, there should have been some kind of dark matter making its way up onto the blinds (blood, chunks of tissue, skull, etc.) ... something that would block the light some as it splattered onto the blinds.

Otherwise, top notch job. Really nice film.

 

[Mark Harris]

I too am coming a little late to this thread. I am finally cathing up on a bunch of the films now.

This was GREAT. Well made, good acting. I think it's the best thing I've seen.

It felt lifted from Donny Darko, both in tone and content. Maybe it was supposed to be and that was discussed earlier. If so, ignore this part of the post.

I didn't have any real issue with the ambiguity. I like movies that leave me wondering, because they really engage your imagination rather than just spoon-feed everything to you.

However, I will put in that I assumed the pic was of him as a boy.

BUT, I think if there is confusion about whether it is him, or his kid, LEAVE IT LIKE THAT. How great is it that you can have a series of images so equally mean two things? I like it a lot.

I was going to say I thought you could have done without the opening scene, because it never really comes back to that. Unless it does in some secret way I don't get. But you know what, the movie is good enough that it doesn't matter that much to me.

Amazing work.

 

[sean90291]

I wonder if a dissolve between the picture of the child and the protagonist in close up would emphasize the protagonist and abused child are one and the same. You could even insert a close up of the photo (re-shoot it if you have to) and dissolve to a close up of your actor. That's a convention most of us know says, "the guy in the picture is him in the past."

A couple people said there should be a blood splatter on the blinds. I don't agree. I like the way it is. Simple, real, and most of all DIFFERENT. The blood spatter is done to death in corny shorts. And truly, if you've ever beaten anyone really badly with a bat (I have many times), you break bones and sh*t but blood doesn't come squirting out. ;-)

 

[Mark Harris]

I agree about the splatter sean90291. It doesn't matter to me either way, because it;s not the important part of the story to me.

 

[Norm Sanders]

Sorry, sean90291, I've seen enough police photographs of slayings that the blood DOES come out. Sure, with just one or two hits it wouldn't necessarily, but he hit that skull with FULL force many times over ... to the point that the last few wold be like ramming that bat into a soup bowl ... at the very least when you pull that Louisville Slugger out of the cavity, SOMETHING's going to be sticking to it & slinging off.

 

[snodart]

Late viewer,

Got a chance to watch, re-watch, then watch a third time just now.

I can't say anything that hasn't already been said. I was going to ask about the guy entering the bedroom scene, but after scanning the thread I found out.

The only thing that honestly didn't do it for me was the score. It was a tad bit off... like... not "it" for this short. Y'know?

Otherwise, top vote right here.

Your adapter rocks. You've probably gone over all of the specifics about it, so I'll have to scan again.

Great job, you guys. Looking forward to your next piece.

Kholi, thanks for taking a good look at it. We agree totally about the score. We just ran short on time. Tim and I (mostly Tim) worked on the final score this weekend and plan to have it finished for the DVD and screening if Cache makes it there.

I have not gone into too many details about the adapter in this thread, but you can get some more info in the link below. There are some pics of the original version there. It has been completely revised since then, but the concept is the same. I'm attempting to put out a DIY DVD sometime in the next few months. We will be making something for Horror Fest though and that will take priority and receive 110% of our attention.

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=45972&page=65

Thanks for the great compliments.

First, this is the only one that's rec'd a 10 from me for acting. Outstanding job. WOWZA!

I agree and pass all the credit to Dave Concannon's great work on this.

]Everything was actually quite solid in this, but where it fell just a TAD short (still ranked VERY high, but this is my only beef, if there were one), would be in knowing what exactly happened ... or perhaps it's SUPPOSED to be ambiguous and open to debate.

I didn't know if he had a child that had perhaps been lost to a predator, and he believed this was the one, or he himself had been abused, and that's why we see the face as he himself saw it as a child.

I didn't have any real issue with the ambiguity. I like movies that leave me wondering, because they really engage your imagination rather than just spoon-feed everything to you.

However, I will put in that I assumed the pic was of him as a boy.

BUT, I think if there is confusion about whether it is him, or his kid, LEAVE IT LIKE THAT. How great is it that you can have a series of images so equally mean two things? I like it a lot.

I wonder if a dissolve between the picture of the child and the protagonist in close up would emphasize the protagonist and abused child are one and the same. You could even insert a close up of the photo (re-shoot it if you have to) and dissolve to a close up of your actor. That's a convention most of us know says, "the guy in the picture is him in the past."

The issue of the flashback has come up. Some got that it was him as a boy and others thought that it was his son... one person thought it was him molesting a boy. It seems that most leaned toward it being him as a boy, which was our intent. I agree with desperatecomfort in that the ambiguity works as a plus. I'm am not a big fan of having a story fed to me. Yet, because we did intend to show that it was him as a boy, at least to a slightly greater degree, we have been discussing various ways that we could have done it differently. The input has been a great help in this. The core purpose of the scene was to show that Mr. Nell has a damaged past. Whatever way the scene is taken, I think that this core aspect gets to the viewer. We will most likely leave it as is and count it as a happy accident.

Two MINOR technical critiques were to get a different SFX for when the bat hits the guy's head ... just didn't sell it for me

This is a tough one. It hasen't come up much in the tread. Sometimes I see it and love the sound FX, other times I hate it. I think that perhaps it could use something.

... and that after SMASHING the guy's skull that many times, there should have been some kind of dark matter making its way up onto the blinds (blood, chunks of tissue, skull, etc.) ... something that would block the light some as it splattered onto the blinds.

A couple people said there should be a blood splatter on the blinds. I don't agree. I like the way it is. Simple, real, and most of all DIFFERENT. The blood spatter is done to death in corny shorts. And truly, if you've ever beaten anyone really badly with a bat (I have many times), you break bones and sh*t but blood doesn't come squirting out. ;-)

I agree about the splatter sean90291. It doesn't matter to me either way, because it;s not the important part of the story to me.

Sorry, sean90291, I've seen enough police photographs of slayings that the blood DOES come out. Sure, with just one or two hits it wouldn't necessarily, but he hit that skull with FULL force many times over ... to the point that the last few wold be like ramming that bat into a soup bowl ... at the very least when you pull that Louisville Slugger out of the cavity, SOMETHING's going to be sticking to it & slinging off.

The matter splatter.... all great points. Here is my take on it: In reality, perhaps there would be blood and brain matter on the blinds and perhaps even on Mr. Nell. IMO though, it is not necessary in this case and would have had the potential to distract. When we discussed this topic, we also thought that adding the blood would feel a little too expected.

There is a short film (don't remember the name) that is set up as a documentary. It shows a man on his way to receive the ultimate piece of body art, a gun shot wound in the arm. At the time of the gunshot, his body does not fly back and he is not projected out of the chair. Though the short was a fake documentary, and the man was not actually shot, wow did it look real. If it would have been played out like a traditional hollywood gun shot, there is no way it would have worked.

At any rate, all the great comments and discussion have been excellent and are greatly appreciated.

Thanks for the input and compliments

 

[concannon]

I saw that one a few years ago at the AFI Fest. Funny.

 

[snodart]

I saw that one a few years ago at the AFI Fest. Funny.

I should have known that Dave would have already seen it. What a great short! I have it on a DVD somewhere around here.... I will see if I can find it and get the name.

EDIT:

It felt lifted from Donny Darko, both in tone and content. Maybe it was supposed to be and that was discussed earlier. If so, ignore this part of the post.

I almost forgot about this comment. I spent some time with several movies in preparation for making Cache. The three that I probably looked at the most were Memento, The Machinist, and Donnie Darko.

(Tim may have looked at others)

 

[theloniusjones]

What a great short! I have it on a DVD somewhere around here.... I will see if I can find it and get the name.

It's called "Delusions in Modern Primitivism". Loved it. Here's the website:

http://www.danloflin.com/dimp/

I spent some time with several movies in preparation for making Cache. The three that I probably looked at the most were Memento, The Machinist, and Donnie Darko. (Tim may have looked at others)

Didn't really draw inspiration from this movie other than for this, but the flashback scene is an homage to one of my favorites, "O Homem que Copiava (The Man Who Copied)", a brazilian film.

 

[Mark Harris]

I almost forgot about this comment. I spent some time with several movies in preparation for making Cache. The three that I probably looked at the most were Memento, The Machinist, and Donnie Darko.

(Tim may have looked at others)

All great choices for influences.

What I have been wracking my brain about though, is what the title means and how it relates to the story...