TheatreGuy
Veteran
Hell, I'm checking them ALL OUT!!!!
Not going to miss a one!
Not going to miss a one!
Cure for Writer's Block: No. 9
- Thread starter cinealma
- Start date
cinealma
Veteran
TheatreGuy said:
Yes, this community type stuff is great! I've only met a couple of people from DVXUser personally, but I am pulling for everybody. I mean, we all just spent the last couple of months making movies. AND WE FINISHED THEM (mostly)! And now we're all going to watch 'em and discuss them. Is this great or what?
This sure beats film school! :thumbsup: (No offense to HAPPY film school grads).
John G.
Tom Marshall
Actor!!!!!!
Well, I spent the last day and a half on the contest... BUT it led to this major production that we're going to be doing... and the good news is there's no deadline and no length limit...
Tom Marshall
Actor!!!!!!
Sweet poster, John!!
Michael_Petro
Veteran
Can i borrow your type writer i know this guy.... wait nevermind..
all I could think of was twilight zone.. I loved watching that show...
all I could think of was twilight zone.. I loved watching that show...
Cynic821
Carbonite Member
Visually it was really nice, i think the best looking shots were of the kid. But i think everything went on too long.
SPOILER ALERT:
His death was too drawn out, almost like you know it looked cool, but i dont think it needed to be that long, i felt like this could have been 2 minutes shorter. Great lighting though, good to see some highlights instead of blacks and barely mids and natural lighting like ive seen a ton of today.
SPOILER ALERT:
His death was too drawn out, almost like you know it looked cool, but i dont think it needed to be that long, i felt like this could have been 2 minutes shorter. Great lighting though, good to see some highlights instead of blacks and barely mids and natural lighting like ive seen a ton of today.
Charli
cool little "title"
FEEDBACK W/SPOILERS
Script: I'm not a fan again of scripts without dialogue, but because you used
black and white, I could dig this. The inherent problem however is pacing.
Hard to speed things up when no one is talking.
Direction: Solid.
Acting: Without dialogue it's difficult to rate. You either look forlorn or you look
like you want to be forlorn.
Audio: No issues here.
Editing: Good because you had a good base of direction to work with.
Overall: Going outside the box by black and white was outstanding. I like the
tone and overall feel to the short, I was intrigued. I would however like to see
dialogue and have you stretch the actors. A bit faster pace will ensue. For
this type of film, you did alright by it.
Script: I'm not a fan again of scripts without dialogue, but because you used
black and white, I could dig this. The inherent problem however is pacing.
Hard to speed things up when no one is talking.
Direction: Solid.
Acting: Without dialogue it's difficult to rate. You either look forlorn or you look
like you want to be forlorn.
Audio: No issues here.
Editing: Good because you had a good base of direction to work with.
Overall: Going outside the box by black and white was outstanding. I like the
tone and overall feel to the short, I was intrigued. I would however like to see
dialogue and have you stretch the actors. A bit faster pace will ensue. For
this type of film, you did alright by it.
Tom Marshall
Actor!!!!!!
Hey John, nice job man. Very David Lynch-ish 
Beat Takeshi
Two-Hip Shakur
I really liked the style of this. That boy dragging the box was great. All the little vignettes were great. I thought it held too long on the head stuck in the typewriter though. I thought the art direction on this was very good. Great job.
VersuS
Veteran
Ladies and Gentlemen...HERE IS THE GUY WHO PUT DAVID CRONENBERG AND Π IN ONE BOX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
AMAZING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I dont care about no dialogue...you couldnt have a dialogue in here that simple. I LOVED IT and would try and promote it as much as possible. Honestly man, send a copy to Cronenberg and Aronofski NOW!
AMAZING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I dont care about no dialogue...you couldnt have a dialogue in here that simple. I LOVED IT and would try and promote it as much as possible. Honestly man, send a copy to Cronenberg and Aronofski NOW!
penfever
Well-known member
Writer's Block Team;
Congratulations on another film. As always, interesting to watch.
This was one of the weaker films I saw so far in an overall sense, but it also was more ambitious than a number of other films in this festival, so I think it evens out somewhat. The key in a film without dialogue is to have the rhythm so tight, so perfect, that there's no way the audience can lose focus on what the hero is going through. Cronenberg, or Lynch in his Eraserhead/Blue Velvet days, are a good example of this. They don't just give you frightening images - they put you squarely in the space of the hero. The opening eye shot is a reasonable way to attempt that, but we don't get enough sense of who this guy is to really care when he's destroyed.
It's just hard, it's very hard. I think a more violent editing style, and more of a sense of menace from the grate character, would have helped this film along. Also, if inanimate objects are going to take on anthropomorphic characteristics, what is the guiding principle? You know? Why does the mirror zap him? Why is the gate growling at him? Are they connected? Is the whole room 'out to get him'? Why is a mirror electrical, particularly. The gate looks like a mouth, so the growl works, sort of. It's hard to imagine that sound coming out of something that we recognize as a grate in black and white.
This is a bit disjointed, I apologize for that. But I really think that the heart of a great film should be story, not style, and there wasn't enough character at work here for my taste.
Thanks for the film, and good luck in voting.
-Ben
Congratulations on another film. As always, interesting to watch.
This was one of the weaker films I saw so far in an overall sense, but it also was more ambitious than a number of other films in this festival, so I think it evens out somewhat. The key in a film without dialogue is to have the rhythm so tight, so perfect, that there's no way the audience can lose focus on what the hero is going through. Cronenberg, or Lynch in his Eraserhead/Blue Velvet days, are a good example of this. They don't just give you frightening images - they put you squarely in the space of the hero. The opening eye shot is a reasonable way to attempt that, but we don't get enough sense of who this guy is to really care when he's destroyed.
It's just hard, it's very hard. I think a more violent editing style, and more of a sense of menace from the grate character, would have helped this film along. Also, if inanimate objects are going to take on anthropomorphic characteristics, what is the guiding principle? You know? Why does the mirror zap him? Why is the gate growling at him? Are they connected? Is the whole room 'out to get him'? Why is a mirror electrical, particularly. The gate looks like a mouth, so the growl works, sort of. It's hard to imagine that sound coming out of something that we recognize as a grate in black and white.
This is a bit disjointed, I apologize for that. But I really think that the heart of a great film should be story, not style, and there wasn't enough character at work here for my taste.
Thanks for the film, and good luck in voting.
-Ben
VersuS
Veteran
I think that for a 6 minute film, what he decided to do was great. Looking for answers like 'why did the mirror zap him' are not the same as 'why did he kill her' (example). I 've seen some pretty straight forward stories in here, you know, killer, victims, screaming...yet they lacked in story and character and YES you HAD TO KNOW in their cases why some things were happening. But when you go the Lynch/Cronenberg/Aronofski way...as Cinealma did...then you're mostly about style and how style delivers the story (personal opinion). There is a story in this one and a very nice one. Going through details like the gate and the mirror are a perfect example of this kind of cinema. They PUT YOU through this psycho puzzles and that's their power! I d love to sit this one down and discuss the mirror and the typewriter, and the kid...over a cup of coffee, it would be a good mental exercise, a way to see at our perception towards cinema and stories and other philosophical issues as well. But its different to have a girl washing up after killing some deranged crawler that came from nowhere, then calling her bf, then having a bath....(girl next door, sorry about that, needed an example) and having to figure out what on earth is she thinking!!!
What I m trying to point out is that questions like why did the mirror zap him, or why was the dead crawler in Girl next door bald...are irrelevant to the true nature of the story. It's part of the writer's /director's vision, they want it to zap him, so they did it, big deal, maybe they have an explanation that rocks, maybe they dont, but this has nothing to do with the STORY. You have a tree and branches. You cant second guess the nature of the tree just because one of the brances is shorter than the other (or even grows tomatos!). Gee sometimes I crack myself with my metaphors....
What I m trying to point out is that questions like why did the mirror zap him, or why was the dead crawler in Girl next door bald...are irrelevant to the true nature of the story. It's part of the writer's /director's vision, they want it to zap him, so they did it, big deal, maybe they have an explanation that rocks, maybe they dont, but this has nothing to do with the STORY. You have a tree and branches. You cant second guess the nature of the tree just because one of the brances is shorter than the other (or even grows tomatos!). Gee sometimes I crack myself with my metaphors....
Inexistence
Well-known member
I agree with VersuS. This is definitely a film that has life after the fest to be
discussed and constantly evaluated as to what meanings might apply to the
imagery. This is beyond the average film with clear cut-and-dry storylines,
actions and such. I would not dare to classify this as an art film either because
that in itself would be cliche and would mean it was grossly misunderstood.
Technically I thought it was pretty solid. I feel the lighting could use more
drama. But that's nit-picking when compared to the thoughts behind the
visuals.
discussed and constantly evaluated as to what meanings might apply to the
imagery. This is beyond the average film with clear cut-and-dry storylines,
actions and such. I would not dare to classify this as an art film either because
that in itself would be cliche and would mean it was grossly misunderstood.
Technically I thought it was pretty solid. I feel the lighting could use more
drama. But that's nit-picking when compared to the thoughts behind the
visuals.