"The Missionary Position" - Short Film

E

ExFilms

Well-known member
Here is a six minute short film I recently directed, shot, and edited.

http://www.exfilms.com/missionary.html

Please let it load all the way before pressing play to avoid audio sync problems.

This was shot in one weekend with an xl2 and a dvx100, the budget was $250 (mostly make-up and food). It wasn't much of a production, just some friends having a good time.

Anyway it's been a while since I posted anything on here so i'm really interested to hear your questions, comments, and critiques.

Thanks for watching!

- KC -
 
I thought it was OK. Technically quite competent. The concept had promise (rival relgious proselytizers in conflict), but it was not brought to it's full potential. When they met, it looked like they were spoiling for a fight, and that's exactly what they did - sort of a letdown. I kept expecting there to be some kind of twist, like for example they are actually rival burglary gangs using the cover of religion to rob homes, or some other kind of a twist, but it never came. The music during closing credits was great, with the preacher - what is it?
 
This is one of the most refreshing things i have seen in a long time. I loved it.

Dude, your langauge has just grown tremendously. This was great. Very effective, great use of time and cuts, the gags were very realistic.

When the girls top gets yanked open; awesome.

I loved the handoffs you did with the camera

Great job
 
OldCorpse said:
I thought it was OK. Technically quite competent. The concept had promise (rival relgious proselytizers in conflict), but it was not brought to it's full potential. When they met, it looked like they were spoiling for a fight, and that's exactly what they did - sort of a letdown. I kept expecting there to be some kind of twist, like for example they are actually rival burglary gangs using the cover of religion to rob homes, or some other kind of a twist, but it never came. The music during closing credits was great, with the preacher - what is it?
Click to expand...


Thanks for the feedback! All the music from the title card on was by Greg Reese (out of Austin I think). We put an ad in Craigslist for composers and had a great response. The underlying thought (aside from just having fun) was for it to be a microcosm of world religion, so a twist like you were thinking would have distracted from that.
 
Cool. I see your point, and appreciate it (and agree on an intellectual level!)... however, I'm not sure in this instance you were served by an ambition as lofty as that - to try to satirize the historical role of religious conflict the world over given the scope of your particular story... I think that's more than your framework could bear... I think your framework (short film based on your particular sequence of events) was better suited to something smaller (where a twist would've been appropriate). I think one would have to search your story too deeply to get to that meaning. Example: imagine someone makes a 60 second short which is just filming an apple sitting on the table... then he says "my intent was to show the origin of life in a biblical context"... sure, you can get that, but it's looking for too much. Now, I'm exaggerating for the sake of being understood, but my point is that your particular story falls about 60% short of having your meaning be clear to the audience.

Anyhow that's just my opinion. I liked it OK overall, just thought it should have gone slightly differently - but, that's just my take. And this Greg Reese guy seems to have talent, I really enjoyed his work.
 
I disagree OC

I thought the entire execution was superb and in hearing the spin on it being a microscosm of world religion, like it even more.

Each religious group was shown spreading their word, one came upon the others territory (Maybe Gaza ?), they exchange diplomacy and war breaks out

I found not a single frame wasted and particulary enjoyed Exfilms chosen compositions

Leave the twists for M KNIGHT SHAMMALAMMADINGALONG

Burglars ?

Why ? I would think that scenario would leave us thinking 'So what?'. INstead, we're left thinking even deeper; religion, war, human loss ........

It was a light hearted take on a deeper issue, perfect for it's parodic portrayal
 
Well, John, I guess we have different opinions. I see what you're saying, but I'm not convinced. My main test here is: "didn't you see this coming?". Any action which takes a significant amount of time, and which you saw coming, which has no surprises, is an artistic failure. When they met, it was clear (to me) that they're spoiling for a fight. Now, you have two options. One is to then deliver a twist, so that the viewer is not ahead of you, but instead is delighted by the twist. Or two, go ahead and do what is expected, but do it in such a way that it's rewarding to watch - f.ex. it's amazingly well done, or unexpectedly cool, or whatever. Now, the execution of the fighting sequence was totally competent (I never once winced about some mistake) - which is saying a lot... staging realistic fights is very, very, difficult, especially when you are dealing with as many actors. So totally props for that. Still, it didn't go beyond competent - there was no interesting twist to the fight.

So this is the problem as I saw it: action which I anticipate, and which does not go beyond my expectations. A viewer should never be in that position.

And regarding the subtext: that's a bit trite. I mean, we all understand that religions are like that - we didn't really see things in a new light, or learn anything new nor was it a particularly witty illustration of that issue. As such, I thought it was expecting too much for folks to pull that moral out of this short.

It is easy - particularly on this board - to be so appreciative of technical prowess that we forget the most important issue: content. The reason it's easy, is because most stuff out there is so poor technically speaking, it's refreshing when something is well executed - as this short was. So, an audience of film tech geeks tends to go wild over such stuff. The reality though remains: audiences care about the story, story, story. It does a disservice to the artist not to focus on that, even as one gives props for the technical stuff.
 
That is a well thought out take on it

I wasn't looking for a deep twist or serious content, merely to be entertained; and I was.

At the end of the day, I can't frown on that.

-
 
ExFilms said:
Here is a six minute short film I recently directed, shot, and edited.

http://www.exfilms.com/missionary.html

Please let it load all the way before pressing play to avoid audio sync problems.

This was shot in one weekend with an xl2 and a dvx100, the budget was $250 (mostly make-up and food). It wasn't much of a production, just some friends having a good time.

Anyway it's been a while since I posted anything on here so i'm really interested to hear your questions, comments, and critiques.

Thanks for watching!

- KC -
Click to expand...

I thought it started well and looked very promising. The scrap was a bit too bloody , and (as another poster mentioned) there was no tiwst...no real payoff. Also, the nu-metal was a bit heavy, but that could just be my reaction to a couple of years spent interviewing generic sounding bands and reviewing crappy CDs.
 
I loved it too. Maybe the fight scene was a homage to "They Live". They all should've put the glasses on and seen each other for what they were. ;)
 
That was awesome! Definitely entertaining - the fight scene did seem to drag though. Would've like to see more of the stereotype come out in the fight, like the beating with the bible and ripping open of the shirt, just more over the top. Well done though.
 
I totally understand what you guys mean by no twist or payoff at the end. It's something we considered and actually thought about adding one, but all our ideas felt too "tacked on" so we stuck to the original story.

Personally I think jw's and mormons fighting to the death is a pretty good twist, it just comes in the middle instead of the end. On the other hand I'm kind of tired of short films having to have a twist. It felt kind of good to finish a short without some cheezy joke or gimmick to tie off the ending.

Thanks for the comments on the fight scene. This was a fight choreography experiment for me as much as anything else. I've never shot one before, it was a lot of fun! It's interesting to learn that the fight dragged a little for some of you, I kept thinking I should have shot more.


ELTON!! - Bingo! The fight scene was definitely inspired by "They Live". One of my favorite movie fight scenes.

And the standoff between the two groups was kind of an homage to the OK Corral scene in "Tombstone". Though that's a lot more obvious I think.


OldCorpse - I agree with almost everything you said. As I said above we were concerned with the same things you mentioned. Regarding the subtext of world religion I'm almost sorry I mentioned it. It was just a thought that motivated how we told the story (in response to your burglary gang example). Don't make it out to be an "ambition" or a "moral" we expect the audience to walk away with. It wasn't that serious. :) I really appreciate your comments and totally agree that most forum critiques let people off too easy. Comments like yours are the ones filmmakers can learn from. But there was one thing you said that really bothered me: "Any action which takes a significant amount of time, and which you saw coming, which has no surprises, is an artistic failure." I don't think action has to have a surprise in order to be artistic (not defending my film, i mean in general). 'Art' just isn't that black and white to me.
 
ExFilms, thank you for your kind words, and may I say, that your attitude is refreshing, and will always benefit you - criticism is never an attack, it is always valuable information (though sometimes it says nothing about your work, but much about the critic <wink>). Listening to criticism does not mean accepting it wholesale, but being willing to think and learn and pick from it what you need. Your attitude will serve you well in art and in life.

Yes, indeed I could have worded this better: "Any action which takes a significant amount of time, and which you saw coming, which has no surprises, is an artistic failure." What I meant is that it has to hold interest in some way - not necessarily through the use of "surprise". For example, the great sequence in Rashomon, of the peasant walking through the woods (and discovering the body of the Samurai) - there is nothing "surprising" happening in the beginning of that walk, but it really holds your interest, even though it's quite a lengthy sequence of a guy just walking in the woods. My point was that even in the most mundane sequences, you should never settle for simply a boring "seen it a million times" one. Some months ago, I criticised a short film here for a cliched transition. First we see an airplane , flying overhead and the very next shot is of a guy walking out of the terminal. This bothered me a great deal, exactly because this was what I was expecting - it's a tired cliche, and especially when you only have a few minutes in a short, it's crazy to waste your screen time with lazy, dead boring, totally unimaginative tropes. Why not show a more interesting transition from the airplane shot to the airport terminal - all you wanted to convey is that the guy arrived - do it in a FRESHER way... the viewer will appreciate it at least on a subconcious level - what value is there in a short film to show sequences we've seen a billion trillion times? All it says is "the guy has no imagination".

Now, obviously, you got to calibrate your effects - you don't want to overwhelm the viewer with inappropriate levels of attention requests for unimportant things, because that can be distracting. But when you are doing a "set piece", you gotta deliver. So, if the set piece or mini-climax is advertised (say, a fight), then you gotta deliver by making it interesting - otherwise you'll get a "seen a million of 'em" letdown.

It's funny how little this particular issue is understood by many aspiring filmmakers. Good recent example of a discussion on these boards - there was a huge thread (I think in DVX Cafe), where people were bagging on Eli Roth. Now, one may like him or not, one may be into his kinds of films or not, and you are welcome to make any criticism you like - however, don't make silly criticisms which only expose your lack of understanding. One such silly criticism was that Roth has "no technique" - funny, because that is just totally not true, and merely tells me that those watching can't tell what he's accomplishing because they're not even aware of the issue in the first place. Specifically, some bagged on Cabin Fever - yet that film constantly showcased Roth's understanding for and appreciation of how you should take every sequence and imbue it with the appropriate level of effect - and the example here is another walk in the woods - the beginning of the movie we see a man walking through the woods... again, simple walk. I can just picture how 99% of the critics would shoot that walk - dead boring, zero imagination - simply because they think "it's just a walk". Now watch how Roth shot it - shows that he understands, that just because a sequence is mundane, it doesn't have to be shown in a mundane way.

Bottom line: always be aware of your audience expectation, and take that into account - sometimes by playing against it, sometimes with it, and so on - thoughout every sequence of your film. Never let things just be "blah". Have you noticed how many technically competent short films are shown here, but for some reason which is hard to pin-point, they just leave you going "meh"? If you really think about it, the reason for this is exactly what I said before: poor management of audience expectations... delivering nothing beyond what one would expect at a base level. We watch films because they are supposed to go beyond our expectations, not merely match them - otherwise we would just sit and look out the window for two hours, instead of sitting in a movie theater.
 
Start off here by saying I do not agree entirely with OldCorpse or John_Hudson on the merits and construct, though both present things I do agree with.

It was technically sound, the handheld works well (aside from when it looks like Final Cut Pro SmoothCam was applied hehe) and when the shots were locked down, it added to the aesthetic and overall effect of the fight.

Other technical things that I enjoyed were blocking and framing. You managed to put the two sects in this tiny ring where they battle it out, confining them to their own personal Religious War which is pretty darned nifty, IMO. Overall, I like it yet it feels short in places.

I disagree with the idea that you needed a twist to make this better, and feel that a twist would've outright ruined the experience. All to often do short films rely on some quirky twist to get by, and sometimes it works-- oft not. There was no twist needed here, and the production showed that it was mature enough to handle the subject without backpedalling into one.

What SEEMS to be the issue, on second viewing, is the lack of a "main character". There's no certain side to follow, no real bad guy or good guy to root for or dislike... they're on the same level as groups and individuals so there's no reason to care who got the snot beat out of them and who walked away the victor. Which detracted less from the fact that there was ONE left and ONE side did in fact sort of "conquer".

The focus sat in more than two places. You had a good four or five focal points that this story came from, including one for each group as an entirety, the group leaders a piece makes four, and the guy with the sleeveless pullover. Of those five focal points, I'm not sure who or what is important and that's the point where I become lost once the fifth is established.

If the fifth, the guy with the pullover sleeveless sweater, was supposed to be the main focus as it seems in the end... why was he not the one we followed through the story? I'm not telling you that it should be this way, I am asking why or why not. To me, it seems that if the story is so contained and small yet big in this world, there's benefit in singling out an even smaller conflict to give the audience someone to root for by the end of it all.

Overall, I think it's pretty good technically, and might have fallen short on a prime focal point and an overall "goal".

Grain of salt here. But, it's good enough to really think about and comment on.

Good job.
 
OldCorpse -

Well put, thanks for going into more detail for me and you're right. I think I'm ready now to take on more ambitious/creative shots.

Honestly my first goal when I started filmmaking was a little different than most. So many people coming right out of the gates trying to go crazy with stylized tarantino or aronofsky knock offs that look like crap because they don't know what they're doing on set (unless you have money, then its a different story). I wanted to achieve a level of competency where I could be confident under different situations to get the shots I wanted. To show a finished film in which there aren't any technical distractions. It's kind of funny that the compliment you gave me in that respect was EXACTLY what I wanted to hear.

I've never put a lot of effort into wowing anyone with my shots, as bad as that sounds (some effort, just not a lot). Instead I've focused on getting films done right with no money, just trying to make them look and sound presentable (or sometimes just get finished). Now that I know I can do that, it's time to play. :D Don't get me wrong, I still have tons to learn. But now I'm comfortable enough to move on to the next step.

Filmmakers usually grimace when I explain my plan to them but I think I'm doing it the right way (for me anyways). I'm personally not in it to win anything or get paid, so there's no hurry. I'm hoping my approach will pay off (visually) in the long run. :)

Hope that made sense.



Kholi -

Wow, good point. Creating a focal character would have helped the story and it would have been easy to do. I think most scripts I come across already have that built in so I didn't consciously notice. I'll definitely pay attention to that next time.
 
ExFilms said:
OldCorpse -

Well put, thanks for going into more detail for me and you're right. I think I'm ready now to take on more ambitious/creative shots.

Honestly my first goal when I started filmmaking was a little different than most. So many people coming right out of the gates trying to go crazy with stylized tarantino or aronofsky knock offs that look like crap because they don't know what they're doing on set (unless you have money, then its a different story). I wanted to achieve a level of competency where I could be confident under different situations to get the shots I wanted. To show a finished film in which there aren't any technical distractions. It's kind of funny that the compliment you gave me in that respect was EXACTLY what I wanted to hear.
I've never put a lot of effort into wowing anyone with my shots, as bad as that sounds (some effort, just not a lot). Instead I've focused on getting films done right with no money, just trying to make them look and sound presentable (or sometimes just get finished). Now that I know I can do that, it's time to play. :D Don't get me wrong, I still have tons to learn. But now I'm comfortable enough to move on to the next step.

Filmmakers usually grimace when I explain my plan to them but I think I'm doing it the right way (for me anyways). I'm personally not in it to win anything or get paid, so there's no hurry. I'm hoping my approach will pay off (visually) in the long run. :)

Hope that made sense.



Kholi -

Wow, good point. Creating a focal character would have helped the story and it would have been easy to do. I think most scripts I come across already have that built in so I didn't consciously notice. I'll definitely pay attention to that next time.
Click to expand...

There is NOTHING wrong with the method you have outlined here. Not a single thing and don't let anyone tell you, in this stage, that you're doing it wrong. This is the kind of attention that needs to be paid to the craft and you're reasoning is most certainly logical.

Do what you can with what you have, then bump it up a notch or four each time.

On the focal character-- Yes, I agree that it would've been easy to do and you've actually pointed out a great focal character already. I, as an audience member, needed someone to sort of guide me through while being an omnipotent eye as well.

It's something to keep in mind next time as you bump up your production. Right now, I'm pretty envious of you and I hope to see more from ya soon.
 
Loved this. You're a real filmmaker. I too missed a twist or payoff at the end. But the whole thing had a consistent tone and showed great craft. Loved it.

I certainly didn't miss any "wow" shots. I thought the camera-work was superb. And anything too arty or "different" might have just taken me out of the whole thing. I just really enjoyed the telling of your story, and the performances you got. The fights were awesome too.

I didn't miss a focal character, because to me it was the two worlds/the two groups colliding. They were characters as groups. The Mormons in their bike helmets and ties made a great character. Maybe some are missing a "focal character" because it took a minute to realize that these two groups were in fact distinct until they met each other on the street.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top