"The Dinner Guest" Short Film ~LONG OVERDUE

Freakin awesome!

Freakin awesome!

Acting was very realistic, very well edited, color, etc. Sweet piece of media right there!:Drogar-BigGrin(DBG)
 
Wonderful work. I thought the execution of the story was very professional, the dialogue was very well written, it had a very film like quality to it. Although they were both very good actors, my favorite was the boy. The man was great too, but somethimes I felt as if he was trying to hard to be the crazy character. It was so much better than most shorts I've seen. I think the only thing I didn't like was the predictability of the outcome. Right from the first close-ups of the funny looking meat in the oven I knew it was going to be a person and two seconds after the guy told us his sister was missing I knew it was her. Everything else was great, especially the directing. Congratulations
 
I liked it also.

Found it instantly predictable, so that kinda ruined it for me a bit. I was sitting through 21 min of a film I knew the ending too.

The setup didn't really make me believe, it seemed a little implausible to me(as to the how fast everyone trusts everyone I mean). But after that smooth sailing really.

Though you do cross the axis during the dinner scene. It was jarring enough that I stopped the movie and checked to make sure.

Overall, really nice film.
 
Scrappy & Loki, thanks for commenting.

it seemed a little implausible to me(as to the how fast everyone trusts everyone I mean).
Click to expand...
Well, only William had to trust. I knew I couldn't devote a ton of time to his change from gun-toting anger which is why I have him simply break down and cry from the futileness of the situation. You figure, he had broken in and no telling how long he was in that house searching before he decided to confront Dorian. Dorian plays the accusation off nicely and when the kid breaks down, he immediately starts reassuring the kid, lowering his defenses. The man's good at it...that's how he gets 'em.


Since the predictabilty thing came up again I've a question to both of you because I'm curious: Did you know it was a horror film before watching (because of this thread)?

Thanks.
 
First off, I am a fan of horror -- so I take issue with a previous poster who stated something to the effect of "make a meaningful picture next time... without all the violence!" I think horror CAN be the most meaningful of all the genres. Horror deals with the ULTIMATE issues and ULTIMATE questions we are usually too afraid to think of. Such as death and the meaning of life. If one watches horror with their brain detached, yes, it is only mindless entertainment (if you are entertained by such things); otherwise, it can be much more. In this case, it may make one ponder how child abuse affects the mind... and how such abuse may spill over into the rest of society as the victim grows older. A movie like THE BREAKUP isn't going to come close -- it wouldn't dare offend in such a way.

And the cool thing about horror -- as opposed to most "artsy" films -- is that the creators often don't even have to TRY to preach. The moral of the story seeps through the celluloid (or video) like blood -- whether or not (especially if "not") the creators attempted to do so, in the first place. However, most "artsy" films will try to bang you over the head with their moralizing -- and then, you still may not get their point.

Secondly, to the filmmaker complaining about the "bad" lighting... maybe so, but I was watching the movie. I didn't notice. I don't think the average viewer will, either. It was not jarring to me at all.

Third, maybe this is because I'm a fan of the genre, but as soon as I saw the meat I knew we had a cannibal on our hands. Then the toys and the music -- and the banging/knocking. I thought maybe a kid was locked in a closet. But no, the boy comes in with a gun (that was a surprise... come to think of it though, it sounded more like someone was knocking on the door... but later he said he came in through the bedroom window... which was it?). At that point, after explaining about his sister, I thought: "Ohhhh, the meat... THAT was the sister!" So, no real surprise, but I was still anxious to see what would come of it all.

Maybe this is too morbid (not really), but I think the boy should've learned he was eating his sister. Is that just for shocks? Yeah, I'm guilty... but it would've added a small jolt (its been done before, but it's always a sick delight).

Did the "gayness" of the boy distract??? I can only tell you my own personal feelings when it was revealed: "Oh brother... where is this gonna' go?" Maybe we shouldn't think any different of a gay character being in a film, than if it was a straight character, but in reality -- we do. Why? 20 years ago... you saw a gay character in a film maybe 1 in 250 (just a wild guess). 10 years ago... maybe 1 in 25. Today, 4 in 5. It seems like every sitcom and movie has to have its token gay character (used to be the token black character). First of all, that's a VERY rapid rise... probably too rapid for the average viewer to have become comfortable with yet. In other words, if this was the frog in the proverbial heating water -- the frog would've jumped before the boiling began! We all know how it goes, right? The frog sits in the cool water as heat is slowly applied beneath him -- if the temp is raised slowly enough the frog won't notice and will eventually boil alive. If too quickly raised, the frog will leap out. In this case, I think many viewers are opting to leap out. But, it is only a matter of time before those who want to fight it won't be able to -- if they want to be entertained they'll have to learn to put up with the gay characters... and eventually, they won't find them so distasteful, afterall.

That being said -- I'd add that the upswing in gay characters today is not to add authenticity to today's entertainment, but most often to: (1) appear trendy; (2) make a statement; and (3) force eventual acceptance (see the "frog illustration" above). Even if only one of the three is correct in any given film, this is not authentic filmmaking -- but the type of inauthentic proselytizing that evangelical filmmakers are often guilty of. Now, I have NO IDEA if any of that played any part in the decision to insert a gay character here in this movie... I have no idea regarding the motive or intention of the makers. All I can say is that, as a viewer, yes -- it did SEEM forced into place. (I think I do recall a post by one of the makers, maybe Kaz, saying that they do TRY to make movies with gay characters... so maybe it is in their agenda, I don't know... I don't care.)

Over all, I found the film to be very well done and entertaining. One I'd even like to have on DVD to show others!
 
Last edited:
Telebay, that was a hell of a post.

I think horror CAN be the most meaningful of all the genres. Horror deals with the ULTIMATE issues and ULTIMATE questions we are usually to afraid to think of.... In this case, it may make one ponder how child abuse affects the mind... and how such abuse may spill over into the rest of society as the victim grows older.
Click to expand...
You got it. That's exactly how we feel and it's the purpose of the film to begin with.

Maybe this is too morbid (not really), but I think the boy should've learned he was eating his sister.
Click to expand...
My guess is the boy learned that as soon as the blade hit his neck. :) I wanted it to be more along the lines of Dorian watching this kid eat another kid wondering like a mad scientist performing an experiment, "Hmmm, I wonder what would happen if..."

That being said -- I'd add that the upswing in gay characters today is not to add authenticity to today's entertainment, but most often to: (1) appear trendy; (2) make a statement; and (3) force eventual acceptance
Click to expand...
Neither of those points mesh with this film.

I have NO IDEA if any of that played any part in the decision to insert a gay character here in this movie... I have no idea regarding the motive or intention of the makers. All I can say is that, as a viewer, yes -- it did seem forced into place. (I think I do recall a post by one of the makers, maybe Kaz, saying that they do TRY to make movies with gay characters... so maybe it is in their agenda, I don't know... I don't care.)
Click to expand...
I never said I try to get gay characters in my films, I said for this film we WANTED one. The point stated earlier was that him being gay shouldn't be an issue any more than if he was straight or black or whatever. But it did manage to give us an added vulnerability to this young man coming to grips with his sexuality and that vulnerability was ripe pickings for a would be murderer.

Over all, I found the film to be very well done and entertaining. One I'd even like to have on DVD to show others!
Click to expand...
Thanks much! One day I will make a DVD of all my films together (once it reaches more than an hour runtime...)
 
Kaz, I don't think I knew it was a horror film before I saw it, but when I saw him cooking the funny meat alarm bells started going off. It did bother me about how quickly the boys transition from being so adament his sister was in the house to giving the guy the gun. I recognized the emotional breakdown but didn't buy into it. (no biggie) I must say, it was so blatantly obvious what was going to happen (on top of all the other hints you even had the foreshadowing hansel and grettel analogy) I was expecting something else to happen (eg. boy killing the man) for the sake of a plot twist. I guess in some way, I was sort of surprised, the obvious actually did happen. Again the talent that went into directing, acting and camera work was outstanding and seperates this work from the vast majority of shorts I have seen. One more note, as everyone else, I knew the ending of "Titanic", the movie, and it made a billion dollars.
keep up the good work and don't show the film to your mother
 
Loki said:
it seemed a little implausible to me(as to the how fast everyone trusts everyone I mean).
Click to expand...

Also to add to Kaz's comment- the boy, when he realized he had crossed a line and come to conclusion that his sister was not there, I think, was a bit greatful that Dorian was not going to call the cops. William was trying to "play nice" since he very well could have gone to jail for breaking an entering and threatening Dorian's life, at least from his perspective at that moment. Dorian knew this. Dorian didnt need to trust. He knew he was in control. He had an agenda.

Scrappy said:
The man was great too, but somethimes I felt as if he was trying to hard to be the crazy character.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the compliment; For the second part of comment-
I never play a charater "crazy". I work through motivation and have a reason for everything I do. My character was a somewhat socially awkward man. He is this way because he, in a way is stuck in sort of a peter pan syndrome, and doesnt socialize much, especially with people his own age (because he despises adulthood) and didnt have the healthiest of child rearing years to say the least. He often tries to be funny but is somewhat inapropriate and has a different take on life. He truely appreciates William and who he is, but knows he has to sacrifice his life to maintain his own sanity (he feels he is stable and is able to preserve his innocence). This is why right before he kills him, you see him switch into somewhat of an automatic mode, so he can detatch in some way right before he kills him. Maybe this came off as "crazy". His character has learned to "switch" like this, and I think he learned this from when he originally killed his parents (which is something never discussed, but I beleive Dorian had to do it for his self preservation which is the theme for his killings). His limp came from when his father beat him with the shovel and the bandaid came from when the girl was victimized (also never discussed). I have a reason why I did everything. Never just to be "crazy" -this is too broad, subjective and irresponsible as an actor- who should always have respect for where the character is coming from, no matter how distasteful.
If I may have automatically come off crazy too you , Im not sure why, unless u already had a preconceived notion of my character through reading the thread.


Scrappy said:
the boy comes in with a gun (that was a surprise... come to think of it though, it sounded more like someone was knocking on the door... but later he said he came in through the bedroom window... which was it?).
Click to expand...

The boy knocked on the door and no one answered so he took another route.... He was armed and ready to find/save his sister.


telebay said:
Did the "gayness" of the boy distract??? I can only tell you my own personal feelings when it was revealed: "Oh brother... where is this gonna' go?" Maybe we shouldn't think any different of a gay character being in a film, than if it was a straight character, but in reality -- we do. Why? 20 years ago... you saw a gay character in a film maybe 1 in 250 (just a wild guess). 10 years ago... maybe 1 in 25. Today, 4 in 5. It seems like every sitcom and movie has to have its token gay character (used to be the token black character). First of all, that's a VERY rapid rise... probably too rapid for the average viewer to have become comfortable with yet. In other words, if this was the frog in the proverbial heating water -- the frog would've jumped before the boiling began! We all know how it goes, right? The frog sits in the cool water as heat is slowly applied beneath him -- if the temp is raised slowly enough the frog won't notice and will eventually boil alive. If too quickly raised, the frog will leap out. In this case, I think many viewers are opting to leap out. But, it is only a matter of time before those who want to fight it won't be able to -- if they want to be entertained they'll have to learn to put up with the gay characters... and eventually, they won't find them so distasteful, afterall.
Click to expand...

You say it may me "too rapid" of an increase of gay people in film for the average veiwer to be comfortable with. Film is a reflection of life and if the film is powerful enough, sometimes it can influence our reality. I dont think it should have taken so long for black people to had been more comfortable to view on film as "regular joes". It shouln't have taken any time. I beileive this goes for gay people as well. I dont think the transition should have ever existed- but I know it does. But that does not mean that people should be worried about expressing who they are as human beings and artists just because other people haven't caught up. I do not beleive that there needs to be a time table for this. If someone is abused or neglected for a period of time, should they be slowly weened off of it so the abuser will feel more "comfortable"?

Also, I know you may not have meant it this way but your frog analogy bothered me. To compare a frog boiling alive to people accepting gay people (which I am) was a bit unsettling. I hope you did not mean that you you think people will eventually "boil", and succumb to an evil or something. hopefully this was just an analogy of what you think people feel before even having dealt with it. Because if and when it does happen that it is a non issue, I think well see, the people who felt that way will say, "Geez, what was all the fuss about? These people are just like us. What the heck were we scared of?" I know you probably meant that alot of people may feel this way- as if they may "boil", but this is out of their lack of understanding. This is the tragic reality of this moment in time.

That being said -- I'd add that the upswing in gay characters today is not to add authenticity to today's entertainment, but most often to: (1) appear trendy; (2) make a statement; and (3) force eventual acceptance (see the "frog illustration" above). Even if only one of the three is correct in any given film, this is not authentic filmmaking -- but the type of inauthentic proselytizing that evangelical filmmakers are often guilty of. Now, I have NO IDEA if any of that played any part in the decision to insert a gay character here in this movie... I have no idea regarding the motive or intention of the makers. All I can say is that, as a viewer, yes -- it did SEEM forced into place. (I think I do recall a post by one of the makers, maybe Kaz, saying that they do TRY to make movies with gay characters... so maybe it is in their agenda, I don't know... I don't care.)
Click to expand...

Blake Balu said:
The "gay thing" you refer to happened to be used for a couple of reasons: Yes it served as a red herring, but it also allowed the boy's character to be more vulnerable to the bonding that he perceived was happening between the two of them. Also Dorian was able to use it to his benefit to get closer to him to do the deed. This is also a great reason for the boy to have run away from home, since his parents rejected him (very common), something which he and Dorian share in common and helps this bonding experience.
Click to expand...


Over all, I found the film to be very well done and entertaining. One I'd even like to have on DVD to show others!
Click to expand...

Thank you so much.
I appreciate all your comments as this open discussion is educating to me and others Im sure.
 
Last edited:
responding to Balu

responding to Balu

I certainly didn't mean to offend with my analogy about the frog. The fact that the frog was being boiled alive has nothing to do with how it FEELS for the general public to accept gay people. The point is incrementalism. How if things are done slowly people accomodate and adjust better to it. When the temp is turned up too quickly, frogs -- and people -- jump. Take that for what it is. Draw your own conclusions as to whether or not it matters. I think it is a true observation, but that isn't necessarily to say that it changes anything regarding your approach to the subject, etc.

I don't think you meant to offend with your post... and I don't bring this up to be nitpicky, but only to perhaps broaden your thinking of the "other side"... there were things that you said in your response, which could be offensive to others. Such as:

Blake Balu said:
If someone is abused or neglected for a period of time, should they be slowly weeneed off of it so the abuser will feel more "comfortable"?
Click to expand...

I'm assuming the the "someone" "abused or neglected" is the gay population and that the "abuser" is society (at least that part of society which believes homesexuality to be wrong)? If not, without clarification, that's how it could easily be perceived... if it IS how you meant it, the problem I have with that is the broad-brushstroke with which you apply the label "abuser". Tolerance does not mean that we all accept each others beliefs as our own. (If that were the case, there would be very little room for varying beliefs, wouldn't there?) Tolerance is better understood as respecting each other regardless of a disagreement over a particular issue(s). I'd say that the vast majority of people who believe that a homosexual lifestyle is wrong are prepared to be respectful of you and would not level abuse at you in anyway.

The character in your film, Dorian, tells of how his abusive (evil) father forbade toys and gave him a Bible, instead. This might be the "truth" of the story, but it is probably also likely that it is the worldview of the writer seeping through this character's experience: that Bible-believing parents abuse their children with their religion and somehow inhibit children from becoming free individuals, by tying them up in religious dogma, etc. First off, that view is expressed over and over again in film -- when are we going to see more tolerance in film toward Christians by actually representing them fairly, rather than as the fundamentalist characture? The vast majority of Christian parents do not abuse their children. I'd even bet 99.9% of all children raised by Christian parents don't become serial killers. :)

It is an interesting topic in horror, however, to show the evil antagonist to have some sort of religious background or inclination. I believe it is because evil juxtaposed to the antithesis of evil (Christian faith, religion, etc.), one, makes for a character who is not simply black & white... two, it is scary to see the perversion of Good (generically, religion) into something soooo Bad. To think, this family read their Bible and probably attended Church, and still... they were SOOO BAD that they just twisted it and warped it into monstrous weapon to abuse with. Is this interesting? Sure, to me it is... but I fear that more and more often the "evil religious character" is just becoming another convenient way to bash religion. When that's the case, it is just as insensitive as bashing gays.

Another possible offense which is committed often is that of comparing homosexuality to race. You have made this comparison. I know that in your mind this is a fair assessment, because you believe people are born gay just as they are born black, white, etc. But why do many blacks object to this comparison (and find it offensive)? A few different reasons, but one is because they MORALLY object to homosexuality as a lifestyle. For them, it is offensive that their race (no choice) would be put on par with an "immoral" lifestyle.

There is NO DEBATING that racism is wrong. It is abusive by definition. It certainly violates my definition of tolerance (above). However, for one to believe that homosexuality is an immoral lifestyle is not on par with racism, because this position can be held harmoniously alongside a tolerant heart.

Is it wrong of me to believe that it is wrong for a man to cheat on his spouse? He certainly has that biological drive, doesn't he? Wasn't he "born" wanting to have sex with multiple partners? In BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN it is apparantly okay for a man to cheat on his spouse, as long as he does so with another man. This is applauded, but I find cheating immoral no matter who the cheater is having sex with.

Is it immoral of me to think that way? If you believe so, please don't be intolorent of me just because you perceive that I am immoral... that would be abusive. :)

Anyhow... I hope you followed my rationale. I guess my main point is that sensitivity goes both ways in this debate.
 
Last edited:
Good story.. change the ending ?

Good story.. change the ending ?

Hey there

First of all let me say that I enjoued the movie.
I would however think about re cutting the ending where he cuts the boys' thoat. At this stage we understand that he has killed her sister and that he is going to eat her. That is planted with the wicked witch thing (very nicely done bythe way)

I even think you can lose the head in the fridge but that's just me.

I asumed you're swedish since the dialect of the boy and the song indicates that so...

bra jobb, men lite overflodigt slut. Lucka till dar ute i filmbranchen.

/ fredrik
 
telebay- Interesting comments, and I agree with alot of it. But I do not deal in morality. This is dangerous ground as it is so subjective and it differs with many religions. I deal in healthy behavior for ones self and environment and all that it includes. As far as cheating is concerned. Not sure why this was brought up. It is unhealthy abusive behavior.
Nowhere in Brokeback does it say its ok to cheat. These are men struggling with their sexuality. This is the sort of thing that happens in a society that frowns upon homosexuality. People are may engage in unhealthy behavior because they feel suppressed. Thats part of what I though was so sad about what the movie was saying.
I believe there is nothing unhealthy about homosexuality. Thank you for your comments, as I respect your opinion, and am glad you shared. :)
 
Last edited:
freddy74 said:
Hey there

First of all let me say that I enjoued the movie.
I would however think about re cutting the ending where he cuts the boys' thoat. At this stage we understand that he has killed her sister and that he is going to eat her. That is planted with the wicked witch thing (very nicely done bythe way)
Click to expand...
Thanks. I won't be re-cutting as this film has long been finished for me (except a song replacement I'm working on).

freddy74 said:
I asumed you're swedish since the dialect of the boy and the song indicates that so...

bra jobb, men lite overflodigt slut. Lucka till dar ute i filmbranchen.

/ fredrik
Click to expand...
Nah, I'm not Swedish. All I understand of your last comment is that you may or may not have called me a slut. :D
 
Nice work Kaz, I kinda knew what he was "cookin" when he first told the kid about dinner, but the good news is that I was still interested in watching the whole thing. I thought the talent was EXCELLENT, both of them. I agree with Hudson, I would have liked to see more dolly shots, especially at the beginning but still u get an A :)
 
I'm just curious who was he really cooking for... It seems obvious that he was expecting a guest from the get go, though it turned out to be the wrong one.
 
MOVIE STUNTS said:
I'm just curious who was he really cooking for... It seems obvious that he was expecting a guest from the get go, though it turned out to be the wrong one.
Click to expand...

The answer is: There wasn't supposed to be a guest for dinner.

Dorian knew William would be coming (because he left the message about his sister being there) but looks at his watch because he didn't expect him so soon.
 
Last edited:
Everything looked good to me , I enjoyed the short film. Kaz what program are you using to edit your films on?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top