A Little Mouth to Feed: MACGREGOR, BARRY GREEN, JIMERSON, HUDSON & JDS

Kholi said:
I thought it was visually bad-ass, dunno though it bored me. BUGS or whatever that one was... now that was freaky.

Again, though, everyone sees something different.
Click to expand...

It was slow as hell but just to think of what it took to choreograph all that in one take is an amazing feat if you ask me.
 
Barry, what's The Unawakening?
Click to expand...
The Unawakening is the other film we did with Jack and Mac. (hey, if you had that combo, would you stop at just making one pic?)

It's still in post; it was shot on an HPX500. It was also intended to be a Hallows Fest entry, but there simply wasn't enough time to get 'em both done in time. It also features a cameo by one of our most well-known DVXUser personalities in his acting debut... :evil:

And no, it has nothing to do with Movie Master. If it did, I would have insisted on there being a tupperware scene.
 
Well, been thru most of the films, have not been scared yet and a little dissapointed. This one was very fun to watch, thanks for submitting it, and fantastic work everyone. The sound of the baby was very erie. Acting.. cinematography.. everything was very enjoyable. Great casting too. They look like they would fit the bill with that painting that has the farmer with his pitchfork and his wife. Great job and what a crew on this one.
 
haha American Gothic - the painting you are referring to, was research for the Art Direction.

And actually, along those lines ... Mac and I make very subtle cameos in this movie. Maybe too small to tell on the internet, now that I look at it mine is mostly cropped out (mac you bastard) :)

1:55 & 4:23
 
StefanHaynes said:
[SIZE=-1]You need to stop assuming character traits, and instead create some of your own. Since you're a man of the theatre, you'll get this: More Mee Less May.*
[/SIZE]
Click to expand...

I tend to disagree with this. By your logic, one should never deal in archetypes. That obviously isn't true as we see archetypes all the time. Jack Bauer is an archetype. Tim Robbins in Shawshank portrays an archetype. The soldiers in Saving Private Ryan are archetypal. And to plug our own film, the husband and wife in "How to Get Away With Murder" are archetypal.

The cinema language. We as film makers leverage over 100 years of cinema history along with centuries of storytelling history in general to convey thoughts and ideas. Utilizing this shorthand is a GOOD THING(tm). Rather than waste time re-inventing the wheel, we can actually examine the characters in a novel way since the skeletal framework comes pre-built for us.

I challenge you to list examples of wholly original character traits. It's simply not possible. I'm sure you know there are only a basic handful of stories to be told. It's all in execution.
 
I just brought home our newborn baby today and then watched this... Luckily our baby doesn't look like that :)

Aside from the fact that you stole my idea.... only kidding (slightly inside unfunny joke).

My only observations on one watch may be easily chalked up to lack of time, resources, etc... But, when the play goes up, it goes up.

Firstly, there seemed to be some issues with what time frame this was set in. The costumes and the set design of the inside of the house, the characters and the execution of the characters, etc would suggest perhaps the early 1900's at the latest.

The pregnancy test, and the house in the background of the outdoor shot would suggest otherwise.

On the acting. It was effective, except for the delivery of the first line (to me). I found myself being more pulled into their performances as it went along, but disconnected from them in the very beginning. I thought their exchanges together were very good and there was some strong character development and/or direction of the performances. The intention, the beats, the "status" of their relationship were all there and of pro quality.

As far as the execution of the performances though, I felt they lacked a bit of.... punch for lack of a better word. As I said, it was apparent that you were working with some skilled actors. I found the performances to be very strong for a DVXFest. But, I found them not to be terribly dynamic in the execution. Everything else about them was pro.

Everything else about the flick was great, of course. And, of course I really dug it, and would loved to have been a fly on the wall during that process.... or an actor in one of your pieces some day.

Now none of this may make any sense at all.... But, having a new baby and no sleep and a super jealous toddler will do that to you...

Great as always.

And, for the record, I didn't feel disturbed at all by the content, even with my current situation.... But, maybe I'm just twisted like that.

Later,
Jason
 
mentatDUKE said:
I tend to disagree with this. By your logic, one should never deal in archetypes. That obviously isn't true as we see archetypes all the time. Jack Bauer is an archetype. Tim Robbins in Shawshank portrays an archetype. The soldiers in Saving Private Ryan are archetypal. And to plug our own film, the husband and wife in "How to Get Away With Murder" are archetypal.

The cinema language. We as film makers leverage over 100 years of cinema history along with centuries of storytelling history in general to convey thoughts and ideas. Utilizing this shorthand is a GOOD THING(tm). Rather than waste time re-inventing the wheel, we can actually examine the characters in a novel way since the skeletal framework comes pre-built for us.

I challenge you to list examples of wholly original character traits. It's simply not possible. I'm sure you know there are only a basic handful of stories to be told. It's all in execution.
Click to expand...



This is one of the most succinct examples of character development I've ever heard/read. This storytelling technique allows the author/filmmaker to compress a great deal of data (data that the audience needs to be given credit for already having) to move the story forward. Archetypal characters aren't necessarily executed as stereotypes and it becomes redundant and a little insulting to the audience to re-explain the concept of villainy (for example).

Nice one mentatDUKE!!




dmc
 
Barry_Green said:
Just got the latest rewrite of the script a couple of days ago; planning to read it on the plane to India.

LMTF and The Unawakening were part of furthering the feature plan, so it's coming together, just slower than we ever anticipated.
Click to expand...

Awesome! :) Really can't wait to see this thing off the ground!:Drogar-BigGrin(DBG)
 
I'm glad this wasn't in competition, because I don't think it would have been as great had it been only 5 mins. long! Loved it! Thanks, for bringing the Halloween spirit!:zombie_smiley:
 
Man, you guys are so good, you make me sick! LOL.

I do agree with Jason a little about the whole time period thing (didn't think about any of this until I read his post), but I just thought that they were some small town country folk. The actors did get better and better as the film went along and I thought the shot of the girl outside burrying the baby and the pan out to see the rest of the crosses was FREAKIN' FREAKY!!!!! Great shot.

Great job and so glad you weren't in the competition. LOL. Please, keep me in mind for any acting roles in the future.
 
Yep that was far and away my favorite shot too, the crosses. My main criticism was that the ending was just a little too campy relative to the beginning. It should have taken itself more seriously. A pinch more "the omen" a pinch less "evil dead." Everything was visually thumbs up though.

As for archtypes... by definition they're static. They're the primary colors of the character palette (of humanity of course, but let's keep the conversation focused on writing) and no amount of irony escapes them. They're embedded -crossing cultural lines as easily as rivers on a map. We can twist and mold and pull and blend as we will- but a character will always be nothing but a mixture of hero, saint, savior, villian, martyr, ruler, begger, sage.. etc.

Stereotypes are not the same as archtypes. First off, they're external. They're the expectations "of the people" of which properties (the term "archtypal" quickly becomes redundant) a character will exibit based upon prior experience.

Just felt the need to distinguish.
 
leenewton said:
...
I do agree with Jason a little about the whole time period thing (didn't think about any of this until I read his post), but I just thought that they were some small town country folk. ...
Click to expand...

Yeah that's it. The show was costumed entirely from things you could find in a thrift store in 2007 except for the overalls which were from a department store. The wall paper was purchased at home depot.

So there is nothing in the movie that could only be before X date.

So why let Jason sway you to the dark side when you had it right from the beginning :)

Seriously though my take is that they are just backward people stuck in time, probably not even in a small town but in the boonies outside a small town.

The house belonged to FLora's parents.

So there's nothing in it that's impossible to exist in a home or closet in 2007. But it should feel anachronistic - they are from another time in a sense.

Most of all, the "period feel" helped define the characters and set the mood. I might have gone ahead and set it in 1910, but for one thing I think it's a touch more powerful and creepy if they are walking around dressing and talking this way - and they are folks, meet Dexter Elliot from my home town, or some of the little old ladies in the Appalachian mountains I met on a highschool mission trip. Secondly its low budget. To really pull off period then we would have to worrry about the flip side of the coin - Flora's blouse at the end is polyester ...., her brown sweater at the top is a shawl collar v-neck with a woven pattern that didn't show up until the 1980's, Clovis's overalls are Carharts, the midwife's turbin is spandex - so what we've done is technically far less anachronistic than if we had done the same thing but gotten a different house and had some other device to expediently tell she was in the early stages of pregnancy at the beginning. Also it would have stuck out more I think if we presented it as period, then you see all of these little wardrobe details that aren't quite period, it would have felt false even if you couldn't identify exactly why.

They're just backwards people that don't watch MTV that buy the things from Woolworths in the next town that look most like what their parents wore.

If it was a feature I'd show them driving through McDonalds or buying groceries at the Hoggly Woggly and have some kid or the cashier with a nose ring looking at them funny.

I realize it may be a tad confusing to the critical viewer, but at worst I think its what Hitchcock called a "refrigerator question" meaning if we are doing our jobs properly and the viewer is "with us" its not something that should bother them until they are home making a sandwich after the movie and as they pull open the door of the refrigerator they think "would an oxygen tank really explode a whole shark like that if you shot it?" And again, better than trying to actually pull off a period look.

Also ... I would love to do a scene in a feature where to get more food for the baby, FLora has to update her wardrobe and start wearing makeup to lure men back home.

Part of the inspiration for her and the story came from Hellraiser 1, where the woman has to keep going out to get bodies and blood for her partially physically reincarnated lover - whose body forms slowly back system by system ... bones, muscles, nerve endings, flesh ... so she brings guys back an hits them in the back of the head with a claw hammer while her lover "Frank" slithers on all fours, dripping and oozing out of the darkness and gobbles them up.

That's what Flora and the baby come to eventually, after the credits role.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top