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

Or it didn't come with the one we bought at home depot. D'oh!

"toilet seat sold separately" lol

that was on a fine line of justification along with our poorly done and hard to maintain wallpapering job, meaning yeah we can justify that in this world "they're too poor to buy a toilet seat ... yeah that's it ... sure Clovis might fix peeling wallpaper with a staple gun ... yeah that's it"
 
Funny you should mention that.. I was going to suggest it would have been a little more believable and scary had the mother been maiming the victims. The root of the story really isn't the child, but the womans transformation from the submissive Christian backwoods emotionally abused wife desperate for an escape (via motherdom) to a monster -in order to get there. To me the chucky baby brought me out of the story by being so self-sufficient. It would have lent itself better to the story by appearing as completely evil while at the same time extremely vulnerable and needing of it's mother. (which was her motivation)
 
Jack Daniel Stanley said:
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.
Click to expand...

Maybe you also got the idea from "Little Shop of Horrors" :)

Feeding the plant people... hehe
 
Great job Jack! I really think this was great and would have won had it been entered. You constantly are improving and showing that you're worthy of the big leagues. It doesn't hurt to have some of the best cinematography on the friggin planet.

Question: How'd you do the monster baby gag? That thing was truly creepy.

Tim.
 
leenewton said:
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.
Click to expand...

If you do get to work with Jack be prepared to want to spit the last day but then look back and figure he got you to push it to the wall like very few directors ever can!

Honestly...Jack even took some weaker moments of mine and made them look strong in the final edit....that was him not me! Hope you get to work with him and if he ever needs me I would be there in a heart beat....

he was easy to talk with....he understands the process for the actor and was willing to let the crew wait while he got us where we needed to be....even talked to me during one scene that sound could be edited...and honestly....when i see that reaction shot from it....it is my favorite moment in the whole thing because i have never seen that look on my face....

THAT was Jack working with the actor!
 
Last edited:
Jack Daniel Stanley said:
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.

That's what Flora and the baby come to eventually, after the credits role.
Click to expand...


Jack....tell me when....lol it will be nice to put make up back on and not look so haggard!

M
 
David Jimerson said:
Everything was shot in "studio" except for the graveyard scene (and the bookend establishing shots of the house).

As for the actors, we held auditions here in Wilmington; lots of great local actors to be found. Michele Seidman (Flora) put some GREAT effort into additional casting for us.
Click to expand...


and she was very happy to do it....let me know if i can help anytime....it was so worth any effort and time consumption....
 
dag nab it you make me feel good when you say nice stuff about my acting cause i think you direct so darned well.....

if anyone is lucky enough to work with you, you are one of the rare directors who can talk to tech and talent....

trust me on this....been doing camera work for 30 some odd years and worked with some names too...don't have to be famous to know a good director when you see one....

thank you for the opportunity! i don't even mind some of the folks who have bashed the acting or project because i can honestly say i am proud to have been part and proud to have worked with you and Mac, Barry, David, Shaun and everyone else too....Doug and Patty made the job easier too!

Got to give Doug props for pulling it out! the acting i mean...not his...ehem...
 
Ming said:
Funny you should mention that.. I was going to suggest it would have been a little more believable and scary had the mother been maiming the victims. The root of the story really isn't the child, but the womans transformation from the submissive Christian backwoods emotionally abused wife desperate for an escape (via motherdom) to a monster -in order to get there. To me the chucky baby brought me out of the story by being so self-sufficient. It would have lent itself better to the story by appearing as completely evil while at the same time extremely vulnerable and needing of it's mother. (which was her motivation)
Click to expand...

my fear is the darned child is going to grow big enough to not need me anymore....dang...i like your suggestion now...
 
Jack,

First off, I thought this film was really great, so hopefully I can write you some very specific notes, not necessarily things that need to be changed, just stuff you can roll around in your head.

1. "this one'll end up just like the others" - unfortunately, this line took the impact that awesome pull back in the graveyard of babies for me because I already knew there were going to be A LOT more dead babies out there already. i know it's hard to change anything, a little less info there would have made the payoff greater for me.

2. flora barren ... just got that ... awesome little touch.

3. The cutting together of the wine bit bothered me, it's seems rushed in comparison to the rest of the film (like you were trying to get under that 5 min) I mean, you didn't make it under anyway, why not just cut it? Or just allude to the fact that she's drinking, I don't know, they just don't seem like wine people to me anyway ... maybe ... a little jack?

4. I really liked your explanation of how these people are stuck in time, but even through two views, that didn't come to me naturally, and it was a little bothersome for the people that i watched it with as well. So, just so that you know, it was more than just a refrigerator question, and to be weary, cause you don't want your audience to even potentially be focused on that instead of the rest of the film.

5. Can we see like a technically bad take from Mac so that we know he's human and not a robot sent from the future to save all cinematography?

6. Anywhere you post-zoomed, it's always kind of bothered me, i don't like 'em or use 'em, i keep asking in my head ... why didn't they just dolly out?

But thanks again Jack for another kick ass short, I think I would have voted for your film over mine ... again. Hopefully some of my random thoughts can help in the future.
 
hybridtheory said:
Jack,

First off, I thought this film was really great, so hopefully I can write you some very specific notes, not necessarily things that need to be changed, just stuff you can roll around in your head.

1. "this one'll end up just like the others" - unfortunately, this line took the impact that awesome pull back in the graveyard of babies for me because I already knew there were going to be A LOT more dead babies out there already. i know it's hard to change anything, a little less info there would have made the payoff greater for me.
Click to expand...

I hear you. Tough call. I wonder what that scene would be like without that line. Could probably be cut since it's standard TV coverage. Closeup, Closeup, Wide.

I wonder if I could get away with that. Right now I feel like it justifies his anger. Again with this baby stuff when will this woman learn. Would "Don't you know by now, god'd sooner grow a potato in a rock pile than a baby in that dried up little apricot you call a womb" make sense without the previous line ... if so would it not telegraph the crosses just as much?

Just wondering - I am open to cutting it you could be right.

hybridtheory said:
2. flora barren ... just got that ... awesome little touch.
Click to expand...
heheh yes the barren flower ...


hybridtheory said:
3. The cutting together of the wine bit bothered me, it's seems rushed in comparison to the rest of the film (like you were trying to get under that 5 min) I mean, you didn't make it under anyway, why not just cut it? Or just allude to the fact that she's drinking, I don't know, they just don't seem like wine people to me anyway ... maybe ... a little jack?
Click to expand...

Yeah I want to look at that section again. I had already though that it should be moonshine or whiskey and have kicked myself a few time for not doing an alternate take. As it is I thought maybe it was justified because of the religious thing - wine you know? maybe?

Problem is I'm not sure what to use there now. The wine kinda has to stay in. It's the emotional lubricant that allows her to sleep with her awful nasty mean husband.

As for the paciing -- like I said I think I want to recut that sequence if I can. Was it just the wine, or through the baby's birth that felt rushed to you?

hybridtheory said:
4. I really liked your explanation of how these people are stuck in time, but even through two views, that didn't come to me naturally, and it was a little bothersome for the people that i watched it with as well. So, just so that you know, it was more than just a refrigerator question, and to be weary, cause you don't want your audience to even potentially be focused on that instead of the rest of the film.
Click to expand...

Ok ok, "Uncle!" already. :) Yeah I know it is a weird choice. But at this point oh well. Don't know how it can be fixed. I was just following the "vision" in my head on this as much as possible within our production budget. I'd do it again though. The payoff is greater than the problem for me.

If anyone can think how this problem can be dealt with in post, or with getting like one additional shot, please shout it out.
hybridtheory said:
5. Can we see like a technically bad take from Mac so that we know he's human and not a robot sent from the future to save all cinematography?
Click to expand...

Haha, I will look for one if I have some time here and ask Mac if it's OK to post it. It happens rarely but he does occasionally say "Nope, bad for me, can we have another one please". But very rarely. And you know it will only be bad due to a bad focus pull or something, which is inevitable without a crew.


hybridtheory said:
6. Anywhere you post-zoomed, it's always kind of bothered me, i don't like 'em or use 'em, i keep asking in my head ... why didn't they just dolly out?

But thanks again Jack for another kick ass short, I think I would have voted for your film over mine ... again. Hopefully some of my random thoughts can help in the future.
Click to expand...

No, hopefully this will be a good discussion that can help me fix what I can, like maybe cutting that "this'n'll wind up spent same as the others" line.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top