Blaine
Mr. Hollywood
Sorry, I missed the new shot. It definitely sets the time frame as current. BUT I prefer the one you used...it's much more ominous. You gave enough information in the original to show it wasn't a period piece.
A Little Mouth to Feed: MACGREGOR, BARRY GREEN, JIMERSON, HUDSON & JDS
- Thread starter Jack Daniel Stanley
- Start date
hmmm ... I think/hope the lack of ominousity in the new one is due to it not really being graded for night ... there's like 5 power windows in the shot I used masking different areas.
... the midwife. If there were more time to establish her family history as being tied to the family history of Flora,... or let her (even slightly) represent the "reality" that is outside these folks walls. If that makes any sense at all
Mind not clear... newborn baby... food poisoning... movie with evil baby...
hahaha no no no
I did not say her family was tied to Flora.
What I said was ... the real life person. The actor. Is from a line of midwives ... talks like that - even more so than what was in the movie ... and all her clothes are new .... nothing about what my imagined world or her relationship to Flora is, I was telling you that that was the "reality" outside the movie, that it does exist out there ...
again, I can't argue anyone's experience watching ... but all that does factually exist out there right this second
what is probably confusing is that it is not a 100% real world. If it felt like a documentary, then you would have no choice but to buy this woman in the sticks in North Carolina or in the Appalachan(sp?) mountains as real and now, but it does feel makebelieve ... still if I show you the truck and you know it's not period, and you just won't go there with me then you just won't go there.
Maybe if I make more of an effort to say this is contemporary with the truck then it will seem less cloudy at least, if not dissonant.
That's what I want. Dissonance with no cloudiness. "These two things indeed do not go together and the resulting dissonance is intentional."
Last edited:
Well the midwife would look pretty weird getting out of her Hyundai in that outfit ... or maybe not ... shed did have some clothes like that but all brightly colored prints
... which is another thing that makes it feel period ... restricting the colors to black brown and tan in the art direction gives it a sepia feel.
and what I want is to effectively communicate with as many people as possible ... so if I loose nothing by changing a shot that can potentially do that, then I'm all for it ...
and thanks for being there for the as is version, BTW
... which is another thing that makes it feel period ... restricting the colors to black brown and tan in the art direction gives it a sepia feel.
and what I want is to effectively communicate with as many people as possible ... so if I loose nothing by changing a shot that can potentially do that, then I'm all for it ...
and thanks for being there for the as is version, BTW
Jason Ramsey
Admin
Appalachian 
In response to your post 163:
I got all that I was just saying that she came across for me as someone who was "stuck" in that same world that the hubby and wife were in. So, I would have liked to have either seen her established as having her family connected to Flora's family, or letting her represent some other perspective just a bit. I'm not saying right or wrong of course. I don't know... I guess I'm just asking is which "world" is the midwife living in? If she is on the same side, I would like to see the connection, the history (time allowing). Otherwise, I would like to see her represent a bit of that "otherside". I like the contrast... the "dissonance".
The house or whatever (the other shot) doesn't make it any more/less clear for me. I think it's in the midwife. With your choice, which I see as putting her (for terrible lack of terminology) from the same general "mold" of the husband and wife, I would like to see some sort of connection between her family history and flora's or the husbands...
bah, nevermind I'm not good with words anyways... Just ignore me. I think it's in the midwife. Either in giving her some history somehow, or giving her the connection to the pregnancy test, outside of house world....
Sorry, I'm just stuck on it, and it's obviously nothing to be stuck on
Later,
Jason
EDIT: I think that was too many smileys
In response to your post 163:
I got all that
I was just saying that she came across for me as someone who was "stuck" in that same world that the hubby and wife were in. So, I would have liked to have either seen her established as having her family connected to Flora's family, or letting her represent some other perspective just a bit. I'm not saying right or wrong of course. I don't know... I guess I'm just asking is which "world" is the midwife living in? If she is on the same side, I would like to see the connection, the history (time allowing). Otherwise, I would like to see her represent a bit of that "otherside". I like the contrast... the "dissonance". The house or whatever (the other shot) doesn't make it any more/less clear for me. I think it's in the midwife. With your choice, which I see as putting her (for terrible lack of terminology) from the same general "mold" of the husband and wife, I would like to see some sort of connection between her family history and flora's or the husbands...
bah, nevermind
I'm not good with words anyways... Just ignore me. I think it's in the midwife. Either in giving her some history somehow, or giving her the connection to the pregnancy test, outside of house world....Sorry, I'm just stuck on it, and it's obviously nothing to be stuck on
Later,
Jason
EDIT: I think that was too many smileys
No need for apologies, trying to figure out how to make it best and I'm willing to listen to the vocal minority.
I can't add history to the relationship, it would be superfluous to a story that just needs to go ahead and move along at that point, we need a functionary character to show up, get that baby out, and get eatin - that's it, and its not in the budget to fly back to wilmy and reshoot scenes. So all I can do is work with the footage I have and that seems to equal: show more trucks.
If no one feels our interior wouldn't fit in that exterior in terms of size, then I will go with the new shot since that was the only reason I didn't.
I can't add history to the relationship, it would be superfluous to a story that just needs to go ahead and move along at that point, we need a functionary character to show up, get that baby out, and get eatin - that's it, and its not in the budget to fly back to wilmy and reshoot scenes. So all I can do is work with the footage I have and that seems to equal: show more trucks.
If no one feels our interior wouldn't fit in that exterior in terms of size, then I will go with the new shot since that was the only reason I didn't.
Blaine
Mr. Hollywood
Get the color grading correct and you should be gold. The writer in me says stick with the original, but the producer in me says do what it takes to make it accessible by the majority. The producer in me almost always wins out since you always have to be cognizant of the concerns of your "money". This is more a concern of the producer than the director but I know you are one of the new breed of directors...
rogar-BigGrin(DBG)
rogar-BigGrin(DBG)
The producer in ME, being one of the producers of the film , isn't all that bothered by the dissonance, because the more people talking about the film makes all the more people want to watch it.
, isn't all that bothered by the dissonance, because the more people talking about the film makes all the more people want to watch it. 
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
I think the new shot is more effective in setting up the location Jack; I like it, it is a wider shot that establishes a world.
Michael Anthony Horrigan
More Cowbell Pictures
Darkline
Veteran
Hey Jack,
I don't see it as being a big problem either, but if you want to open the discussion, my thoughts would be that this shot does help to explain visually that we're not in the 1800's so I'd probably keep it.... but it does raise in the audience a question of 'why'?
I guess if you do something so distinct in your scripting/cinematic choice (people living out of time), it's going to be a question the audience will want to have answered at some point. We're almost thinking this is somehow integral to the story itself, maybe like 'the village' (or hopefully not!). We're waiting to find out why that is important to the story.
But if you wanted to clarify futher, perhaps theres a section near the opening where you could have the man listening to the TV in the other room while she takes the test. Something that hints at modernity from the start as audio only. He could switch it off before he comes knocking on the door... It might not work but could help to establish period.
I dont want to rain on your entry at all, or sound like I know what's the best thing to do, but you seem someone who's always open to all kinds of feedback to his work so I'll be totally honest with what I thought if that's ok.... just what my gut reaction to the piece was.
For me, the most distracting element was the ending. I just felt once we had the reveal of the devil eating baby, well, it wasnt enough to have the end being another eating baby scene. It didnt really provide us with anything new... The fact she was content to see the midwife get eaten was enough to know she was a changed character and she had a 'bad' baby. So the final scene seemed to be an extension of the previous scene rather than an 'ending'.... am I making any sense? It's like 2 endings which were back to back with the same values. Maybe if he changed at the end (into someone who embraced the devil child, like he always wanted one), or there was another reversal of some kind, but to play it the same as the previous scene left me feeling flat.
Or if you had some set of circumstances where the father had to deliver the baby instead of the midwife, then you'd get the reveal and death all in the same scene, perhaps making it tighter and more dramatic ending.
But I know what it's like, people give you advice and you think 'well what do you know'. At the end of the day if you listened to all advice you'd have a very unfocussed and meandering story. I actually really liked the short. I loved that you set it in an older period. There's so much about this short film that actually works really well. The pacing, editing, sound design...all excellent Contrary to others I loved the baby fx and thought you did a subtle but good job.
Hope the comments didn't seem harsh, I guess I'm more ciritcal because I was with you all the way up tp the final moments
I don't see it as being a big problem either, but if you want to open the discussion, my thoughts would be that this shot does help to explain visually that we're not in the 1800's so I'd probably keep it.... but it does raise in the audience a question of 'why'?
I guess if you do something so distinct in your scripting/cinematic choice (people living out of time), it's going to be a question the audience will want to have answered at some point. We're almost thinking this is somehow integral to the story itself, maybe like 'the village' (or hopefully not!). We're waiting to find out why that is important to the story.
But if you wanted to clarify futher, perhaps theres a section near the opening where you could have the man listening to the TV in the other room while she takes the test. Something that hints at modernity from the start as audio only. He could switch it off before he comes knocking on the door... It might not work but could help to establish period.
I dont want to rain on your entry at all, or sound like I know what's the best thing to do, but you seem someone who's always open to all kinds of feedback to his work so I'll be totally honest with what I thought if that's ok.... just what my gut reaction to the piece was.
For me, the most distracting element was the ending. I just felt once we had the reveal of the devil eating baby, well, it wasnt enough to have the end being another eating baby scene. It didnt really provide us with anything new... The fact she was content to see the midwife get eaten was enough to know she was a changed character and she had a 'bad' baby. So the final scene seemed to be an extension of the previous scene rather than an 'ending'.... am I making any sense? It's like 2 endings which were back to back with the same values. Maybe if he changed at the end (into someone who embraced the devil child, like he always wanted one), or there was another reversal of some kind, but to play it the same as the previous scene left me feeling flat.
Or if you had some set of circumstances where the father had to deliver the baby instead of the midwife, then you'd get the reveal and death all in the same scene, perhaps making it tighter and more dramatic ending.
But I know what it's like, people give you advice and you think 'well what do you know'. At the end of the day if you listened to all advice you'd have a very unfocussed and meandering story. I actually really liked the short. I loved that you set it in an older period. There's so much about this short film that actually works really well. The pacing, editing, sound design...all excellent Contrary to others I loved the baby fx and thought you did a subtle but good job.
Hope the comments didn't seem harsh, I guess I'm more ciritcal because I was with you all the way up tp the final moments
Last edited:
hmmm ...
well the midwife eating scene just could end with Flora having a stunned look on her face ...
So she demands to see the baby.
She sees the baby.
"Oh he's beatuiful."
Baby attacks.
Flora gasps and looks stunned.
Midwife is yanked out of frame
So we end not knowing exactly what she thought about the eating ... maybe when clovis comes home we think she's just gonna hide the fact that baby ate the midwife ...
What do you think?
MY only flip side to that would be ... that unlike establishing the world better with a different opening shot, this may start to get into schizo-directing where I'm not fully committing to one path - you are supposed to see the end coming ... I thought it would be fun and satisfying with a bit of suspense to see the old jerk, finally get eaten ...
But maybe it is OK because in the next frame after we cut she could supposedly say "goodness he's a hungry little thing" as she does in the scene now, and even not hearing that wouldn't mean that I had showed anything inconsistent with how the end played out. ... but then again everything is directed and scored after that moment to say "look what's coming" not "I wonder what's coming."
It has surprised me when some people said that they saw the ending coming .... well yeah, you'd have to be on the short bus not to see it coming, her expression, the way its scored, everything, are neon signs that blink "here it comes. he's gonna get it. it's not gonna be purdy" So I was trying to show you the bomb on the bus then build some suspense as to how exacty it would go off. I mean how many people does Norman bates kill, are they uninteresting after the first? We know Peter Parker now has and embraces his super powers. When he finally gets the big bad guy at the end are we surprised that he uses them and wins?
I've wondered if this "story fell apart for me" or "saw the end coming" experience some people are having is somewhat contextual - meaning they think, and they think that I think, that Rod Serling has to come out at the end of everything I do and present a twist ending.
BUT .... Maybe the audience is just 1% too much ahead of the movie here. And maybe it is her complete complicity withe the baby eating the midwife. Maybe that says so/too resoundingly - OK she will feed anyone and everyone to this thing without blinking, no question. So maybe if I can end ambiguously there ... then I can buy that 1% back and keep some kind of question going for the audience ....
Posts on writing strategy for short films aside, I don't thin a twist ending is the only viable ending for a short.
And I don't think her character arc is over after the baby shows up and she loves it. God (the character in the story) is an oppressor. She loosens that shackle, (for now). But what about Clovis? Will he be Okay with the fact that she finally had a baby? Will she still be under his thumb? Because she is down with baby does not explicitly say she will be able to step out of the cycle of abuse with Clovis.
Plus the story is not complete until she trades one monster for another. Plus it's not like the movie goes on for 20 minutes after the world has changed (baby born, midwife eaten). Its like a minute out of 8, and while the world has changed with the baby being born we have not seen HOW the world has changed for her - the fallout from that.
Re why people living out of time -
Older times. Smaller minds. Flora is more vulnerable and likeable if her world view is very small and she's somewhat of a victim to that. I don't think it's something people will dwell on as to why if I make the fact that it's not 1800 clearer in the opening shot.
Re TV at the top -
I may explore the idea of having a religious TV broadcast on in the next room which you hear get switched off before hearing Clovis's heavy footsteps in the hall.
well the midwife eating scene just could end with Flora having a stunned look on her face ...
So she demands to see the baby.
She sees the baby.
"Oh he's beatuiful."
Baby attacks.
Flora gasps and looks stunned.
Midwife is yanked out of frame
So we end not knowing exactly what she thought about the eating ... maybe when clovis comes home we think she's just gonna hide the fact that baby ate the midwife ...
What do you think?
MY only flip side to that would be ... that unlike establishing the world better with a different opening shot, this may start to get into schizo-directing where I'm not fully committing to one path - you are supposed to see the end coming ... I thought it would be fun and satisfying with a bit of suspense to see the old jerk, finally get eaten ...
But maybe it is OK because in the next frame after we cut she could supposedly say "goodness he's a hungry little thing" as she does in the scene now, and even not hearing that wouldn't mean that I had showed anything inconsistent with how the end played out. ... but then again everything is directed and scored after that moment to say "look what's coming" not "I wonder what's coming."
It has surprised me when some people said that they saw the ending coming .... well yeah, you'd have to be on the short bus not to see it coming, her expression, the way its scored, everything, are neon signs that blink "here it comes. he's gonna get it. it's not gonna be purdy" So I was trying to show you the bomb on the bus then build some suspense as to how exacty it would go off. I mean how many people does Norman bates kill, are they uninteresting after the first? We know Peter Parker now has and embraces his super powers. When he finally gets the big bad guy at the end are we surprised that he uses them and wins?
I've wondered if this "story fell apart for me" or "saw the end coming" experience some people are having is somewhat contextual - meaning they think, and they think that I think, that Rod Serling has to come out at the end of everything I do and present a twist ending.
BUT .... Maybe the audience is just 1% too much ahead of the movie here. And maybe it is her complete complicity withe the baby eating the midwife. Maybe that says so/too resoundingly - OK she will feed anyone and everyone to this thing without blinking, no question. So maybe if I can end ambiguously there ... then I can buy that 1% back and keep some kind of question going for the audience ....
Posts on writing strategy for short films aside, I don't thin a twist ending is the only viable ending for a short.
And I don't think her character arc is over after the baby shows up and she loves it. God (the character in the story) is an oppressor. She loosens that shackle, (for now). But what about Clovis? Will he be Okay with the fact that she finally had a baby? Will she still be under his thumb? Because she is down with baby does not explicitly say she will be able to step out of the cycle of abuse with Clovis.
Plus the story is not complete until she trades one monster for another. Plus it's not like the movie goes on for 20 minutes after the world has changed (baby born, midwife eaten). Its like a minute out of 8, and while the world has changed with the baby being born we have not seen HOW the world has changed for her - the fallout from that.
Re why people living out of time -
Older times. Smaller minds. Flora is more vulnerable and likeable if her world view is very small and she's somewhat of a victim to that. I don't think it's something people will dwell on as to why if I make the fact that it's not 1800 clearer in the opening shot.
Re TV at the top -
I may explore the idea of having a religious TV broadcast on in the next room which you hear get switched off before hearing Clovis's heavy footsteps in the hall.
Darkline
Veteran
All good points Jack.
I agree that you don't have to have a twist ending, and Peter Parker does get the bad guy, but through an inner insight or revelation of his own character just moments before. So while there might not be a twist, there would be a moment of discovery, even internally, of some kind.... For Flora this moment has already happened in the previous scene. Maybe delaying that moment fully to the final scene would add to the satisfaction. Your suggestion may well work.
So perhaps that's what I'm missing. If like you say, the audience did not see her reaction to the midwife then you'd only see her 'change' in the moments before Clovis's death. However, that is again alluded to when we see she has taken the lightbulb out. Just thinking aloud here but does the baby need to eat the midwife? I know it was a lot of work, but would the ending be more powerful if Clovis was the only death we saw? Maybe we see the babys eyes open and then cut to Clovis arriving home. I guess I felt the midwife scene 'topped' the final scene, both visually and dramatically. Cutting it out would certainly leave the audience asking more questions and save the impact for Clovis.... but is that what you really want or intended?
It's a tough one if your intention was to say to the audience 'here it comes folks' then we must really enjoy the moment when he's killed and not be expecting a twist. Why was I? I dont know, maybe because of the reasons above.
As they say you can give the audience exactly what they want, boy gets girl, hero kills villian, but just not in the way they expected it to happen. Maybe because the death of Clovis happens off-screen could be a reason why I felt less satisfied too. If his death is what we're waiting for, the defining moment, then it needs to be bigger visually than the midwife death scene.
Or maybe if Clovis had been (if possible) more horrible to her previously, we'd hate him more. Personally I was still thinking he wasn't beyond redemption completely. He almost seems to have a change of heart in the final scene before he is killed which makes makes him (slightly) less of a desirable target.
As you say you have to work with what you've got and it might be just perfect as it is. You should only ever try to satisfy yourself. Dont change a thing if you're happy and think the reaction you're getting is 50/50. The best films are often devisive.
But if you wanted you could try a few different cuts on the timeline to see what works. Hide her reaction, or take the midwife death out (as cool as it is!), hide her putting the lightbulb into her pocket so you're saving the moment right till the end where we see the satisfaction on her face. All would give the film a slightly different inflection.
I'll stop now cos it sounds like I think Im a filmmaker - you didnt see anything from me in this fest right? lol....... All your points are valid and there nothing actually 'wrong' with the film at all.
I think it's one of the best of the festival.
I agree that you don't have to have a twist ending, and Peter Parker does get the bad guy, but through an inner insight or revelation of his own character just moments before. So while there might not be a twist, there would be a moment of discovery, even internally, of some kind.... For Flora this moment has already happened in the previous scene. Maybe delaying that moment fully to the final scene would add to the satisfaction. Your suggestion may well work.
So perhaps that's what I'm missing. If like you say, the audience did not see her reaction to the midwife then you'd only see her 'change' in the moments before Clovis's death. However, that is again alluded to when we see she has taken the lightbulb out. Just thinking aloud here but does the baby need to eat the midwife? I know it was a lot of work, but would the ending be more powerful if Clovis was the only death we saw? Maybe we see the babys eyes open and then cut to Clovis arriving home. I guess I felt the midwife scene 'topped' the final scene, both visually and dramatically. Cutting it out would certainly leave the audience asking more questions and save the impact for Clovis.... but is that what you really want or intended?
It's a tough one if your intention was to say to the audience 'here it comes folks' then we must really enjoy the moment when he's killed and not be expecting a twist. Why was I? I dont know, maybe because of the reasons above.
As they say you can give the audience exactly what they want, boy gets girl, hero kills villian, but just not in the way they expected it to happen. Maybe because the death of Clovis happens off-screen could be a reason why I felt less satisfied too. If his death is what we're waiting for, the defining moment, then it needs to be bigger visually than the midwife death scene.
Or maybe if Clovis had been (if possible) more horrible to her previously, we'd hate him more. Personally I was still thinking he wasn't beyond redemption completely. He almost seems to have a change of heart in the final scene before he is killed which makes makes him (slightly) less of a desirable target.
As you say you have to work with what you've got and it might be just perfect as it is. You should only ever try to satisfy yourself. Dont change a thing if you're happy and think the reaction you're getting is 50/50. The best films are often devisive.
But if you wanted you could try a few different cuts on the timeline to see what works. Hide her reaction, or take the midwife death out (as cool as it is!), hide her putting the lightbulb into her pocket so you're saving the moment right till the end where we see the satisfaction on her face. All would give the film a slightly different inflection.
I'll stop now cos it sounds like I think Im a filmmaker - you didnt see anything from me in this fest right? lol....... All your points are valid and there nothing actually 'wrong' with the film at all.
I think it's one of the best of the festival.
Last edited:
Brandon Rice
Distributed Producer
Hey Jack... people dissect these shorts way too much (and features as well for that matter) instead of just watching and enjoying... who cares if you "saw the end coming" or "was that motivated enough?" Sometimes we (as the audience) have to suspend our belief... it's a MOVIE! In the words of George Lucas (who I don't think is the best director, but he's had some good stories) "It's not real" People need to just watch and enjoy Since I've learned that, I've had a lot better experience watching films, be it at home, or the movie theatre.
Since I've learned that, I've had a lot better experience watching films, be it at home, or the movie theatre.
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
Hey Jack... people dissect these shorts way too much (and features as well for that matter) instead of just watching and enjoying... who cares if you "saw the end coming" or "was that motivated enough?" Sometimes we (as the audience) have to suspend our belief... it's a MOVIE! In the words of George Lucas (who I don't think is the best director, but he's had some good stories) "It's not real" People need to just watch and enjoy
I see that side Bricemasta
For me though; this is like film school. I expect growth and great things to happen. Nothing is better than being judged by real filmmaking peers.
Sitting back and enjoying is much easier when the the filmmaker nails it. :thumbsup:
Jason Ramsey
Admin
Jack. My wife just watched your film with our 6 day old baby in her arms
She liked it a lot. She said: "That's wierd.... It's good".
She liked it a lot. She said: "That's wierd.... It's good".
Brandon Rice
Distributed Producer
I know man, but at some point, you have to take yourself away from being a "filmmaker" and just enjoy the show... for years I constantly picked movies apart every single time I saw a new film, and I stopped enjoying them... now if I watch a film I'll just watch to enjoy... if it blows me away, then I'll pick it apart to see what it was about it that worked so well... and if it fails miserably for me, I'll do the same (find out what doesn't work for me) and then some just fall in the middle as well...
I don't know, just sayin...
To me I think there are two things.
1) LOOK AT THE FILM FOR WHAT IT IS & IN THE CONTEXT OF THE FILMMAKER's VOICE:
It's important when watching a piece to view it in the context of
what that piece wants to be / what the filmmaker was going for / what's important to the filmmaker. It would be asinine to go to a Roger Corman screening and tell him that his films are not good enough for Cannes. Nor would it make sense to go to a David Lynch screening and scream at him because you couldn't follow the narrative. It also presupposes that film or art is supposed to fit into someone's definition (yours) and that you're right. And in the case of Lynch, like picasso, he can paint the best damn nudes you've ever scene (The Straight Story / Elephant Man) if he wants to. Thing is, he doesn't want to. Look at John G.'s (Cinealma's) movies. They defy convention. And I am pleased that the majority of DVXusers go to Cinealma and Dale's (Deedive's) movies with an open enough mind to let the movies speak for themselves in a way that challenges the audience be it narratively as with Deedive's last two pieces, or in a host of ways as with most of Cinealma's pieces. Their is a difference between a clueless filmmaker who has no idea of the kind of vocabulary they are playing with or who are just failing to tell a story well and filmmakers who are challenging the audience in some way or who have a unique and idiosyncratic voice.
2) REMEMBER THAT WHEN THERE'S AN AUDIENCE, ENCODING AND DECODING (COMMUNICATION) IS THE NATURE OF THE PROCESS.
It is always film school, it is always test audience, it is always how can I make a film better and be a better filmmaker. My job is to be a communicator. I am concerned with both the ENCODING and the DECODING of the film. If there is a barrier to communication that I have unintentionally placed between the film and the audience I want to know about it and discuss how to remove it or build a bridge around it. It doesn't matter if something really happened to me or really exists in the world or if I meant "Y" and everyone perceives "X".
Everyone here now is providing me, and Barry, and David, a great great service in discussing the impact of various moments where they lead and if they pay off in the way I intended or not.
Jason has apologized a few times. Darkline said I hope I am not being to harsh ... no no no. As I said you are providing a great and generous service and it's what this forum is all about.
That's very different than telling the filmmaker they are wrong and only your way is right and if only the filmmaker would wake up and smell your coffee then one day they might stand a chance of making a movie that doesn't suck.
Tying #1 to #2. David Lynch and John G. (and Dale to a lesser extent based on the two films I've seen) don't care so much if you can explain exactly the plot of their movie afterwards over coffee. They are communication on a different level, going for a deeper truth. (at least IMHO)
I want to make characters you care about. I want the horror elements of my work to be extended physical metaphors that relate to the characters arc or journey in someway. But I also want to have fun. Especially for these small films for this audience - DVXuser. So I care about Flora very much and I hope you feel something for her too. But I cannot resist leaning into the B movie curve with the demon baby.
1) LOOK AT THE FILM FOR WHAT IT IS & IN THE CONTEXT OF THE FILMMAKER's VOICE:
It's important when watching a piece to view it in the context of
what that piece wants to be / what the filmmaker was going for / what's important to the filmmaker. It would be asinine to go to a Roger Corman screening and tell him that his films are not good enough for Cannes. Nor would it make sense to go to a David Lynch screening and scream at him because you couldn't follow the narrative. It also presupposes that film or art is supposed to fit into someone's definition (yours) and that you're right. And in the case of Lynch, like picasso, he can paint the best damn nudes you've ever scene (The Straight Story / Elephant Man) if he wants to. Thing is, he doesn't want to. Look at John G.'s (Cinealma's) movies. They defy convention. And I am pleased that the majority of DVXusers go to Cinealma and Dale's (Deedive's) movies with an open enough mind to let the movies speak for themselves in a way that challenges the audience be it narratively as with Deedive's last two pieces, or in a host of ways as with most of Cinealma's pieces. Their is a difference between a clueless filmmaker who has no idea of the kind of vocabulary they are playing with or who are just failing to tell a story well and filmmakers who are challenging the audience in some way or who have a unique and idiosyncratic voice.
2) REMEMBER THAT WHEN THERE'S AN AUDIENCE, ENCODING AND DECODING (COMMUNICATION) IS THE NATURE OF THE PROCESS.
It is always film school, it is always test audience, it is always how can I make a film better and be a better filmmaker. My job is to be a communicator. I am concerned with both the ENCODING and the DECODING of the film. If there is a barrier to communication that I have unintentionally placed between the film and the audience I want to know about it and discuss how to remove it or build a bridge around it. It doesn't matter if something really happened to me or really exists in the world or if I meant "Y" and everyone perceives "X".
Everyone here now is providing me, and Barry, and David, a great great service in discussing the impact of various moments where they lead and if they pay off in the way I intended or not.
Jason has apologized a few times. Darkline said I hope I am not being to harsh ... no no no. As I said you are providing a great and generous service and it's what this forum is all about.
That's very different than telling the filmmaker they are wrong and only your way is right and if only the filmmaker would wake up and smell your coffee then one day they might stand a chance of making a movie that doesn't suck.
Tying #1 to #2. David Lynch and John G. (and Dale to a lesser extent based on the two films I've seen) don't care so much if you can explain exactly the plot of their movie afterwards over coffee. They are communication on a different level, going for a deeper truth. (at least IMHO)
I want to make characters you care about. I want the horror elements of my work to be extended physical metaphors that relate to the characters arc or journey in someway. But I also want to have fun. Especially for these small films for this audience - DVXuser. So I care about Flora very much and I hope you feel something for her too. But I cannot resist leaning into the B movie curve with the demon baby.
Last edited:
