"Because of Sex" - Elmer Lang

[Elmer_Lang]

They call me Johnny Provocative. Well, not really. Though one guy did.
Which is too bad since I'd prefer Johnny Provocateur;
it's kinda Frenchy, sexy sounding and...

Because of Sex (5:16)

Elmer F***ing Lang
H2E Productions - "Better Than Water"
http://elmerlang.com - 60+ Films Strong​

 

[A Messenger]

I thought it was interesting. I'm glad I watched it.


I'm not sure I understand the point though. You play these old movies where sex is pushed into the background and then attempt to bring it to the front with your narration.


The narration really didn't have anything that struck me as very insightful. For example, "men want sex like slaves want freedom." It's a seemingly compelling statement on the surface that upon further examination doesn't seem to mean anything at all.


Also I thought the tone you've taken with the narration is overly theatrical. The way you say your name is a good example. I don't like that you chose to inject your name into the piece either. It's like you are trying to make the narration funny on it's own. This tends to undermine the humor of the clips you are showing. If you recorded this deadpan, more like the "mother nature" narration, I think the contrast between the clips and the narration would be more compelling.

 

[Elmer_Lang]

I'm sorry, what did you say?



O, just kidding.

I thought it was interesting. I'm glad I watched it.

Thanks for watching.

I'm not sure I understand the point though. You play these old movies where sex is pushed into the background and then attempt to bring it to the front with your narration.

Huh? O, now I remember why I said, "What did you say?"

There's lots of ways to explain most works of art, but certainly this includes an examination of power, who has it, how they use it, its effect on those who wield it and those in its grasp, yadda yadda sis boom bah. Doesn't seem all that difficult to grasp.

The narration really didn't have anything that struck me as very insightful. For example, "men want sex like slaves want freedom." It's a seemingly compelling statement on the surface that upon further examination doesn't seem to mean anything at all.

Just curiously, what did your "further examination" show, or are you just saying it? Reminds me of that political ad where the guy says "So-and-so has stooped to making personal attacks" and then goes on to attack the opponent without explaining what the "personal attacks" were. Like that ad, just because you say it doesn't make it so.

And no offense (of course), but how seriously can one take comments from someone with a pompous moniker like "A Messenger"? Really. Again, just because you say you're a messenger (with implications of worthiness) doesn't make it so.

Gee, I'm sure you see my critique of your moniker as well intended as your critique of my flick. And if it's painful, just remember, the best advice often hurts the most.

Also I thought the tone you've taken with the narration is overly theatrical. The way you say your name is a good example. I don't like that you chose to inject your name into the piece either. It's like you are trying to make the narration funny on it's own. This tends to undermine the humor of the clips you are showing. If you recorded this deadpan, more like the "mother nature" narration, I think the contrast between the clips and the narration would be more compelling.

But then the Mother Nature narration wasn't funny, simply cute. And did you think the parrot sufficiently deadpan for your funnybone?

Yes, mentioning my name or showing my face as in other movies doesn't seem to jibe well with those immersed in (enchained by?) filmmaking tradition, rules and ethics. But of course in creating a new film genre all those rules don't mean didley to me, and your dislikes seem petty and antiquated. I suggest you toss your filmmaking 101 book, and try making flicks without the backpack of the past inhibiting you. No need to be a film camel when you can be a film eagle. (Wow, look at all them metaphurs!)

Thanks for sharing.

Because of Sex (5:16)

Elmer F***ing Lang
H2E Productions - "Better Than Water"
http://elmerlang.com - 60+ Films Strong
​

 

[A Messenger]

First Name - Andrew
Last Name - Messenger

It's not pompous. It's my name, dude.

 

[Elmer_Lang]

First Name - Andrew
Last Name - Messenger

It's not pompous. It's my name, dude.

It's not the implication of its use though is it. Dude.

Ask a million people if they thought it was your name. Maybe 'disingenuous' isn't in your dictionary, it's in mine.

 

[Mattykins]

What is the point in asking for a critique if all you are going to do is tell the person they are stupid and their opinions simply don't matter because of ones pseudonym in a largely anonymous internet forum...

Really I stopped watching half way though. I didn't get it. I didn't see anything different in it aside from a collection of found footage and a crappy narration. (Just remember, the best advice often hurts the most)

Maybe it is art cinema as you call it. But then again, is it truly art cinema when no one sees it as such aside from yourself?

 

[Elmer_Lang]

What is the point in asking for a critique if all you are going to do is tell the person they are stupid and their opinions simply don't matter because of ones pseudonym in a largely anonymous internet forum...

Really I stopped watching half way though. I didn't get it. I didn't see anything different in it aside from a collection of found footage and a crappy narration. (Just remember, the best advice often hurts the most)

Goshy, mattykins (by the way, from your moniker I take it you're a 3-year-old), like a lot of critics you seem bitter and more interested in put downs than a righteous critique, and this ain't the NY Times review page, it's not my job to just take it.

Maybe it is art cinema as you call it. But then again, is it truly art cinema when no one sees it as such aside from yourself?

Can you prove that statement or are you like that political ad I mentioned above.

This guy seems to get it: http://www.camcorderuser.net/showthread.php?p=1178#post1178

So does that prove you a liar or just ignorant and bitter?

Just remember, the best advice often hurts the most

 

[Mattykins]

Haha, I'm not going to debate about my name on this forum - seeing as my real name is below in my signature.

Let's take a look at your review you mentioned.... one review on one forum - he said it was good. But where is this righteous critique? Where did he tell you what worked and what didn't?

Oh, that's right...he didn't.

It's akin to Gigli ... the worst film of all time. With a budget of 54 million, it pulled in 6. And every review sucked. Aside from one guy with the Philadelphia daily. He liked it...Does that mean every other reviewer was a liar, ignorant and bitter? Guess so.

http://popdirt.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=18564

How'd you know I was lying when I said the film was terrible. What you have is a montage tied loosely together with a narrative, expositive, (poorly written) voice over which makes a lot of comments that don't tie into the footage whatsoever.

If you treated the first reviewer decently rather than rip him apart for a name on an (INTERNET) forum....I would have maybe just passed this over, and not said anything. Really I try to watch most works I see. If I can make a comment, I do. Wether good or bad. I think everyone here does that.

Some take it better than others. Some default to using SAT words to try to limit ones credibility based upon a username on an internet forum...

I'm sorry, I personally was not captivated by this montage. I've seen better. I've heard better narration. I've seen narration and film work amazingly well. I've seen it fail epically.

Like I made note of above. One guy said Gigli was a good film. So naturally that makes everyone else a liar....

You might have tried to break every rule in the book. I do not thing you did it well.

 

[Jon Starr]

A new style of poetic films. Was a fan of your first works, but lately haven't been watching.

Not sure if it's some sort of persona you put on, or it's the way you really are, but taking on a bitter attitude towards negative critiques and throwing out subtle insults is just not an attractive quality. It's the main reason why I stopped watching your work.

It's always the same. You post some video, and anytime there's a reaction that's even slightly negative, you lash back with a vocabulary that puts us all to shame, but you act like a 3 year old.

Go ahead, insult me, comment on my name, my picture, my writing/vocabulary, tell me I'm bitter, turn around what I say, tell me how you're an artist and that you don't care what others think and that gives you the right to react however you want to negative criticism. Say whatever you want about me and about this post. Frankly, I just find it all childish.

 

[Elmer_Lang]

Let's take a look at your review you mentioned.... one review on one forum - he said it was good. But where is this righteous critique? Where did he tell you what worked and what didn't?

You said "no one sees it as such aside from yourself" and I proved you wrong. How wrong do you have to be if you're wrong and why did you say it? Sounds bitter and negative to me.

If you treated the first reviewer decently

I see, so he doesn't have to treat me decently, but I do? Again, this is not the NY Times review page.

SAT words to try to limit ones credibility based upon a username on an internet forum...

What SAT words? Like 'power', 'art', 'wield' and 'yadda yadda'?

I'm sorry,

Now we agree.

 

[Elmer_Lang]

Frankly, I just find it all childish.

So why post? Ganging up in a teen-age way is more your fancy?

 

[A Messenger]

I see, so he doesn't have to treat me decently

I don't think I treated you badly. All my comments were strictly focused on the work.

That's why you posted this, isn't it? Didn't you want feedback? You aren't just looking for a pat on the head are you?

I'm not coming at you with knives out. That piece is the only worth while thing to comment on. Let's keep this civil.

Just curiously, what did your "further examination" show, or are you just saying it?

You point out that women have control over men because men want sex and women have the power to withhold it. It's true but it's not particularly insightful because it's obvious. You say that men are like the slaves of women because they need sex. Then you make the statement "men want sex like slaves want freedom."

The fact that slaves want freedom doesn't really colour the statement that men want sex except as you pointed out that men are figuratively the slaves of sex.

I think I understand what you're getting at. The style of the narration struck me as overwrought. I don't disagree with you that it's an art piece. I just think it should be handled a bit more gently and subtilely than the narration currently does.

 

[Jon Starr]

I see, so he doesn't have to treat me decently, but I do? Again, this is not the NY Times review page.

How exactly was "a messenger" treating you indecently? He never went out and insulted you, nor your work. In fact he praised you:

"I thought it was interesting. I'm glad I watched it."

Then he went on to give you a bit of constructive criticism, his own point of view. He never worded it in a way that was any bit insulting or indecent. He just gave his opinion.

No, this isn't the LA times. If it were we'd be throwing around insults, calling films atrocious. I've been here a while now. On these forums we give our opinions. Most people here are trying to further their studies or just become a better film-makers. So opinions are welcome, both negative and positive. Just not to you, and some members don't know that. You seem to expect praise or nothing at all. Or maybe you like a good verbal fight? Hmm...

Guess this means after this post I'll just stop feeding the fire.

So why post? Ganging up in a teen-age way is more your fancy?

Great job! Like the turn around there. Making it seem as though my post is contradictory to what I had just said. Very clever! I said it was childish, and you called what I did teen-age. Didn't see that one coming.

I felt it needed to be said and I posted to show that I agree with the others in hopes that you'd actually see it's not just one or two individuals and you'd change your ways. But perhaps I'm too much of an optimist and epiphanies just aren't your thing.

I've never given you my opinion in the past because I just knew you'd just slap me in the face with your words like you do with others. So yes, I am ganging up in a "teen-age way."

 

[Elmer_Lang]

@ A Messenger

I have no problem with your explanation of "further examination", though I disagree, my problem was with your statement without explanation.

I, of course, differ in that I'm not willing to go along with the accepted practice of dry, unemotional voiceover that has been the practice of narration for decades. New ideas and styles are for many like drinking beer the first time, they don't like it cause they don't know what they're tasting.

And I forget who said it, Sheep...Shape...Shakes...but someone said There is nothing new under the sun. That was my take on the subject. In my opinion beautifully stated. If anyone says it wasn't well written it's a bet they don't know how to write.

 

[Elmer_Lang]

For someone who claims to think our chit chat childish you do put up a lot of childish blather, no?

And having admitted to ganging up, please return to your cave.

How exactly was "a messenger" treating you indecently? He never went out and insulted you, nor your work. In fact he praised you:

"I thought it was interesting. I'm glad I watched it."

Then he went on to give you a bit of constructive criticism, his own point of view. He never worded it in a way that was any bit insulting or indecent. He just gave his opinion.

No, this isn't the LA times. If it were we'd be throwing around insults, calling films atrocious. I've been here a while now. On these forums we give our opinions. Most people here are trying to further their studies or just become a better film-makers. So opinions are welcome, both negative and positive. Just not to you, and some members don't know that. You seem to expect praise or nothing at all. Or maybe you like a good verbal fight? Hmm...

Guess this means after this post I'll just stop feeding the fire.



Great job! Like the turn around there. Making it seem as though my post is contradictory to what I had just said. Very clever! I said it was childish, and you called what I did teen-age. Didn't see that one coming.

I felt it needed to be said and I posted to show that I agree with the others in hopes that you'd actually see it's not just one or two individuals and you'd change your ways. But perhaps I'm too much of an optimist and epiphanies just aren't your thing.

I've never given you my opinion in the past because I just knew you'd just slap me in the face with your words like you do with others. So yes, I am ganging up in a "teen-age way."

 

[LloydC]

Elmer, I think the best way to take criticism is take it in stride with a thank you. People have their opinions and the worst thing is to take each one personally.

I think the fact that you have to explain your film iterates the need to make it more universal for others... because isn't the point of movies for others to watch and to understand your vision?

 

[Elmer_Lang]

Elmer, I think the best way to take criticism is take it in stride with a thank you. People have their opinions and the worst thing is to take each one personally.

Lloyd, you're right. Though I don't know about the thank you part. But I am a bit of a brawler and could do well to take your advice more often.

I think the fact that you have to explain your film iterates the need to make it more universal for others... because isn't the point of movies for others to watch and to understand your vision?

Egads, not to disagree but, what you say could be true but maybe not the whole truth. People not understanding art? Needing explanations? That's been around long before Beethoven or Wagner or Jackson Pollack or the Beats or Rocknroll or...

Thanks Lloyd, I appreciate your post.

 

[A Messenger]

I of course, differ in that I'm not willing to go along with the accepted practice of dry, unemotional voiceover that has been the practice of narration for decades. New ideas and styles are for many like drinking beer the first time, they don't like it cause they don't know what they're tasting.

And I forget who said it, Sheep...Shape...Shakes...but someone said There is nothing new under the sun. That was my take on the subject. In my opinion beautifully stated. If anyone says it wasn't well written it's a bet they don't know how to write.

I agree with you in principle. Finding a new way of doing something is more interesting.

On the other hand if you are deliberately avoiding using a more typical style of narration because it's been done before, and replacing it with a different style that may or may not work as well, aren't you as much a slave to existing styles as the person who follows the rules blindly?

The freeist way to make art would be to do what feels right regardless of whether it is popular or not, I hope that's what you are doing.

To be a contradictarian isn't to be free.

 

[Elmer_Lang]

I agree with you in principle. Finding a new way of doing something is more interesting.

On the other hand if you are deliberately avoiding using a more typical style of narration because it's been done before, and replacing it with a different style that may or may not work as well, aren't you as much a slave to existing styles as the person who follows the rules blindly?

The freeist way to make art would be to do what feels right regardless of whether it is popular or not, I hope that's what you are doing.

To be a contradictarian isn't to be free.

I would say you're someone who doesn't know what it means to be or to think differently. As human beings some things that are different happen naturally, some not. Sometimes a conscious reaction against what 'is' is as valid as what occurs naturally. Both can be used by an original artist.

 

[A Messenger]

I would say you're someone who doesn't know what it means to be or to think differently. As human beings some things that are different happen naturally, some not. Sometimes a conscious reaction against what 'is' is as valid as what occurs naturally. Both can be used by an original artist.

My work is a pure reflection of me and my tastes. I'm willing to take what happens naturally.

To have the philosophy "a conscious reaction against what 'is'" is to let the outside world inform your work. How is this better than the guy would can't see past the rules?

To my mind both "follow all the rules" and "follow none of the rules" are flawed notions.