COLD CALLS by John Whalen featuring Blanchard Ryan (OpenWater) & Ben Bailey (CashCab)

[Robbie Comeau]

Thanks for the comments all. Glad people are continuing to view and enjoy this quirky thing we had fun making.

This flick was awesome! Ok, so you took a few genres and spliced them together, grabbed some shots from other films, but who doesn't. You put together a great little fall comedy/suspence flick that had excelent acting (Ben Ketai has now gone from cool game show host to hilarious comedian and good actor in my book). Great shots and color, with amazing detail to the environments.

This is a well rounded and evenly paced flick that makes me think you are someone to really watch.

great work!

Now, go watch Possible Charlie. heh!

Hey thanks for watching and commenting.
:beer:
First a dislcaimer: I really do appreciate your comments. My response may seem like a challenge, but really I am just curious what you mean and would like to ask some questions about your comments because they interest me from a growth standpoint/how someone else looks at something stand point. In a bar over a beer "whuchu talkin' 'bout?" comes across lively and engaged. On the internet it usually comes across defensive. So please, imagine the following follow up questions in the former more convivial atmosphere.

I'm not sure what you mean by

This flick was awesome! Ok, so you took a few genres and spliced them together ... but who doesn't...

It sounds like you are begrudgingly allowing me to be referential because everybody does it. But I don't get it because for one thing genres are form not content and splicing more than one together would be more inventive than just doing one or the other. Kind of like saying to Jos Whedon "Ok, so you took the western and scifi and spliced them together but that's OK I guess becaus who doesn't mix genres." But nevermind that, that's the whole point of the piece in that it's absurdist parody - you can't be wholly original and parody anything - you have to be like the thing you are parodying. So this part of your comment really confuses me.

As far as ...

...grabbed some shots from other films, but who doesn't....

...as far as I know there are a total of 3 stolen shots. And they are intentionally referential, again as is all parody. I have no issues stealing ("good artists borrow, great artists steal", Picasso/T.S. Eliot) but it's kind of different when that's the entire point (like it is here) vs. when it's done in earnest in a film. Kind of like saying to SNL when doing a parody of Reservoir Dogs "well, you stoled some shots from Tarantino, but who doesn't steal from Tarantino so I guess it's OK" - doesn't make much sense in that context, nor does it to me here.

... nor would it make sense to me to say "Jack, your poster isn't very original"
since, again, that's the point

BUT ... and here's the whole point of my response / post, highlighted lest it get lost in this long thing I've written here: I am curious to know which shots you recognize and from where. Reason I'm asking is, if I'm directly quoting something visually, I'd like to know where so I can more closely examine the source material if it's subconsciously influencing me strongly enough that I'm drawing from it verbatim. So if you could point out some specific moments I'd be really appreciative. Thanks. Again, I hope that doesn't come off as an "Oh yeah? Well prove it comment." More that your comment has me very curious and I'd like to examine the moments where you think I'm stealing shots for my own self examination/growth. It may be that because the whole thing is referential of several different things so it may feel like there are stolen shots and if you were commenting more generally along those lines that's OK too of course.



:grin: As far as I can tell Ben Ketai is the writer/director of a couple of TV versions of 30 Days of Night. Ben Bailey is the longtime stand up comedian who toured all over, was on all the late night shows, and had his own comedy central special before becoming the host of Cash Cab.

Holy crap, nice Basic Instinct steal! (Borrow...)

Dude, that looks so much like it.

Robbie

 

[MOVIE MASTER]

Holy crap, nice Basic Instinct steal!

DUDE THEIR IS NO STEALING! WHATS WITH COMPARING EVERY ONE ELSE IS WORK TO MAJOR FILMS? ??? THEY HAVE SOME SIMILARITY IS ALL! DONT HATE, BE A PLAYA INSTEAd

 

[miamivideo]

wow, really good cinematography. One of the best shorts, good luck!!

 

[Jack Daniel Stanley]

Thanks for the continued views and comments. Enjoying the discussions in the thread and off line as well.
:beer:

DUDE THEIR IS NO STEALING! WHATS WITH COMPARING EVERY ONE ELSE IS WORK TO MAJOR FILMS? ??? THEY HAVE SOME SIMILARITY IS ALL! DONT HATE, BE A PLAYA INSTEAd

Haha. I appreciate the defense (and the photoshop). It can be good to have a demon on your side, but Robbie is just talking about the poster, I think saying I really got what I was going for in copying / parodying the Basic Instinct poster.

 

[RobinFrank]

The defensive or curiosity is justified by the literary actions. -my words; in the three lines of summary- were recognizing that this flick was a unique parody yet I was too quick about it.

Great artists do steal, I hear, is the motto, also, of The Actor's Gang. You played a great card representing some classics of the 1950's thru 60's suspense/horror genre. I can't be so specific to think -or try to research- of any shots which were directly 'taken' but the classic feel to their designs reminds me of several films, including many that are recent. For some reason, ‘Bound’ comes to mind. (I just watched it again the other day)

Your attention to the steadiness of the shots along with the color and distinction between backgrounds conquers the screen while the dialogue and its relevance to modern design, along with its delivery, gave the film a solid presence.

One of my favorite moments was ‘the run’ through the house and how you subjected the shots to a lengthier amount of time than was presented. _IMO_. Color being the most present attribute, along with the intricate set design, you presented a classic style to filmmaking while creating a parody of it.

I am, maybe, still coming across as demeaning to your work, but I really don’t mean it.

~Take a shot, have a beer~

Of course, I saw the flick as a throw-back to many films, the most obvious part being the storyline; one of the most famous of the classic suspense flicks.

To speak more candidly, I am begrudging upon you to b referential, but not for any sake of others but for the curiosity of myself. Where did your inspirations of the shots come from? I’d like to know what you did in post along with production to create such a beautiful series of designs. Basically, I want the commentary on the film.

My favorite moment in the film is the ending (before the ball) when The Caller says “That’s is probably going to be for you” because it opens up a much more sinister turn of events and shuts up all the comedic moments before. If it is a parody, then it should turn into something of its own genre. I think the parallels between classic horror flicks and the uniqueness of present situations can create films that are the future of remembrance.

In Yellow: If I start getting into your subconscious I might poo poo both of us up; I dunno where you got the shots but they looked awesome, and you have twisted a generic plot into something funny, captivating, and cool to look over again. I might have a distinctive dislike for parodies though, I rarely watch them; preferring the original, but when I see a good one it does turn me on.

 

[RobinFrank]

BTW, I stole your profile picture idea. Heh! it is cool looking.

 

[Jack Daniel Stanley]

Robin

I appreciate very much your response to my post. I'm a bit fried right now / enjoying following the election on CNN / Comedy Central so I look forward to responding in depth tomorrow.

thanks.
:beer:

 

[Mark Johnson]

I'm enjoying the discussion as well. Seems like Jack's threads always get elevated to nuanced commentary on filmmaking (while ours, in contrast, seem to devolve into boob shots, comic strips and examinations of Matt Gettemeier's neuroses.)

One thing I would be interested in hearing would be Jack's comments on shooting someone else's script. I.e.,: 1) is this the first time you've shot someone else's script? 2) To what extent did you adapt/revise the script for its shooting version? 3) If you did make substantial revisions, was John Whalen involved? 4) Are you more or less inclined to shoot someone else's script after this?

 

[Mark Johnson]

BRIEF THREADJACK:

I gave JDS and French Quarter Features a plug during the Q&A session after "O2" screened at the TallGrass Film Festival in Wichita. A surprising number of filmmakers from the Midwest attended and were very much interested in how O2 was written and produced.

The screening was at a gorgeous period theater called "The Orpheum":

And here's a shot from the stage of the crowd coming in:

They didn't have awards for the shorts category, but due to my Kansas connection (born and raised in Barton County) I was given quite a reception and included in the "Spotlight on Kansas Filmmakers." Several other very good shorts were made in L.A., including one that was accepted to Sundance and another produced by Alan Arkin.

O2 has been very good for us and we are looking forward to seeing how it does in several upcoming festivals this year and the next.

 

[Jack Daniel Stanley]

thanks for the plug Mark.

Congrats on the screening
:beer: :thumbsup:

 

[Jack Daniel Stanley]

The defensive or curiosity is justified by the literary actions. -my words; in the three lines of summary- were recognizing that this flick was a unique parody yet I was too quick about it.

Great artists do steal, I hear, is the motto, also, of The Actor's Gang. You played a great card representing some classics of the 1950's thru 60's suspense/horror genre. I can't be so specific to think -or try to research- of any shots which were directly 'taken' but the classic feel to their designs reminds me of several films, including many that are recent. For some reason, ‘Bound’ comes to mind. (I just watched it again the other day)

Your attention to the steadiness of the shots along with the color and distinction between backgrounds conquers the screen while the dialogue and its relevance to modern design, along with its delivery, gave the film a solid presence.

One of my favorite moments was ‘the run’ through the house and how you subjected the shots to a lengthier amount of time than was presented. _IMO_. Color being the most present attribute, along with the intricate set design, you presented a classic style to filmmaking while creating a parody of it.

I am, maybe, still coming across as demeaning to your work, but I really don’t mean it.

~Take a shot, have a beer~

Of course, I saw the flick as a throw-back to many films, the most obvious part being the storyline; one of the most famous of the classic suspense flicks.

To speak more candidly, I am begrudging upon you to b referential, but not for any sake of others but for the curiosity of myself. Where did your inspirations of the shots come from? I’d like to know what you did in post along with production to create such a beautiful series of designs. Basically, I want the commentary on the film.

We basically wanted to root ourselves in 80's thriller, then maybe a bit more Hitchock at the end.

But 80's thrillers are a throwback to the glamour days of Hollywood. Everyone / thing looks great. They're often set in houses you can't afford, etc.

In the 90's and 2000's thrillers become more accessible. The leads are still got, but they're hot in a hoody and gap jeans while doing the dishes or taking their kid to soccer practice.

The original When a Stranger Calls (1979) (wiki),

ironically, is of the more accessible this could happen to me variety,

while the remake (2006) (wiki)

is more the glam variety set in a ridiculous house.

So .... we tried to set our film in slightly more opulent surroundings, have an actress that's attractive in a Hollywood glam kind of way / has a Hollywood star feel. The camera work was kept steady with movement where remotely motivated, all to the end of a slick as possible feel, which is typical of thrillers. This goes back to Hitchock who used lots of what I've heard called "dance floor moves" where a smooth floor is laid down so the camera, on a tripod dolly can move multiple directions without dolly track. So this is wht hitchock is famous for two or more camera moves per shot. Such as we follow the guy over to the desk, sit with him in a medium, then the camera glides around to see the ticking bomb under the desk. Anyway - I think that's where the super slickness of thrillers came from. And that's what we tried to emulate.

Along those lines, one of my favorite shots in our film, and it's more subtle than the over the top shots, is in the second bedroom scene where we cut from a master of her changing in the closet to a medium of her looking at the phone, then the camera follows her stare down to the ringing phone and then when she picks it up, back up to her again. (03:25 in the film)
________________________________________________

___________________________

_

___________________________

________________________________________________

SHOOTING THAT SCENE:

In general I think the slickness, back to Hitch, through Basic Instinct, through today, is meant to give the twisting plot and the manipulative world of the thriller a feeling of seamlessness, a more perfect machine than it might otherwise feel, and to position the film to manipulate the audience - the camera can go anywhere, show you a bomb under the desk, and it will do it with a seductive smoothness.

So here we went to all the trouble of setting up this giant jib, etc, to get this super smooth gliding feeling from her, down to the ringing phone, and back up to her again. The storytelling is about her anxiety her trepidation just the moment before stepping off the cliff that is engaging this guy on the phone by going undercover in a sense by pretending to be interested in his wares. So the shot is elongated, taking the time to float between her and the phone before she answers. The moment is thereby stretched out in time and that's where the suspense comes from. And the way it's stretched is, hopefully, smooth and stylish enough that you actually like the fact that we took our time with it, and like the bad guy or gal in a thriller, it seduces you a bit.

My favorite moment in the film is the ending (before the ball) when The Caller says “That’s is probably going to be for you” because it opens up a much more sinister turn of events and shuts up all the comedic moments before.

To clarify, are you talking about the Hitchock terror zoom after his line? Or just about the circumstances more - the phone ringing again and his line "that's probably gonna be fore you."?

If it is a parody, then it should turn into something of its own genre. I think the parallels between classic horror flicks and the uniqueness of present situations can create films that are the future of remembrance.

I appreciate that. Whlie it does have parody running through out it, more than being a parody, it's absurdist cinema. That's more the rules of the universe and what shaped the vocabulary of the shot selection more. Scary Movie = straight parody, just for laughs. Cold Calls, is supposed to do a bit more by juxtaposing things that are serious with things that are either comedic or absurd within the context of our world but seem to have in internal logic in the context of the film. The biggest juxtaposition is the source material, the film(s) When a Stranger Calls, with the idea of a Telemarketing. You put them together and the place where they overlap is that both are an invasion. In When a Stranger Calls, as most know, the gag is that the killer/bad guy who has been calling the babysitter all movie long has actually been calling from inside the house. So screenwriter John Whalen took another kind of invasion, interrupting your dinner to get you to upgrade your calling plan, and put that kind of menace inside the house. But in the case of a Telemarketer in the house - it just makes no sense and that's where the fun of it comes.

But cool, yeah the ending should have at least a tinge of something sinister, unlike a straight parody but not out of line with absurdism, namely - that the caller can still get you, while you're having dinner, sleeping, whatever, there is no escape from marketing in our information age.

In Yellow: If I start getting into your subconscious I might poo poo both of us up; I dunno where you got the shots but they looked awesome, and you have twisted a generic plot into something funny, captivating, and cool to look over again.

Haha, I didn't ask you to get in my subconcious. I asked you to tell me what shots you thought I was stealing since you laid that out there on the table, so I could get in my own subconcious.

I thought if you were gonna say someone was grabbing shots from other movies that you must have recognized shots from other movies. So I didn't think asking you what they were woudl require research.

I get now that the suspense genre was pulled off in such a classical style that that's what you meant rather than actually lifting shots from other films.

I might have a distinctive dislike for parodies though, I rarely watch them; preferring the original, but when I see a good one it does turn me on.

Thanks again,
:beer:

 

[bosindy]

interesting, how much was planned ahead or were you just creating on the set? I don't think I remember seeing story boards, but you might of had them or maybe you had a shot list.

 

[Steve Strickland]

Jack, once again, you come around these parts to show us all how a movie is made. I must have watched CC ten times. Such great subtle camera moves and foley. The actors were amazing. Great fusion of suspense and comedy. There is also no surprise coming from you that the art direction was perfect.

When you catch things only after multiple viewings, I'd say you've succeeded in making an experience, not just a film. Watching CC, my normal movie watching technical critique mechanism is bypassed and delivered straight to the film fan in the back of my brain. That's when I know I've seen a good film. I experience it on a subconcious level.

Timur did an amazing job with the cinematography. Sound was perfect. Everything was no less than I would expect from a JDS film. Thanks for the free film school. Hopefully, I can steal something from you for my next movie.

 

[RobinFrank]

thanks for the in depth analysis of my review, Jack. I am happy to see that I made more sense in my re-evaluation of the flick.

To clarify, I was focasing on the actual line and it's delivery. "Thats probably for you" Where all the previous dialogue seemed absurdist and comical, that moment gave the film a quick twisted edge. I almost feel, IMO, that the film should finish immediately after that line. Let me explain why. Throughout the film I didn't know if this person was sinister or not. I felt like he was just some sad, lonely, man who was simply happy to be talking to a beautiful voice. When the "Stranger calls" parody became clear, I was still wondering if she was going to open the door to find her 'brother', 'ex-boyfriend', or 'wierd uncle' in the room and everything would be familiar. But, in that simple delivery
-kudo's to the actors subtle change in behavior- it let me know that 'this is going to turn out badly', even without the next shot, (which almost took it back to it's parody-style roots.)

Anyway, enough said, i do have to watch some others, but I have really enjoyed this one along with talking to you about it. Thanks again for being so in-depth in your responses.

Cheers!

 

[Barry_Green]

interesting, how much was planned ahead

Everything. Multiple scouting trips to the house, photos taken beforehand, storyboards laid out for every shot based on the actual location.

I don't think I remember seeing story boards, but you might of had them or maybe you had a shot list.

Every shot was boarded.

 

[bosindy]

Everything. Multiple scouting trips to the house, photos taken beforehand, storyboards laid out for every shot based on the actual location.


Every shot was boarded.

should have know Barry with your affinity for boarding. I always find it difficult to do it bc I am a God awful drawer and articulating the shot to someone who can draw, things often get lost in translation. I then just make a shot list with description for the script.

How do you go about it?

 

[Gord.T]

hehe, it's almost intimidating just posting in here. I don't have any spec questions.
Oh, maybe one. What is the composition of Jacks back hair and can it be genetically linked to the Neandethral man? The Inquirerer wants to know.

I haven't read the posts yet, but I envision Barry looking up, semi-smiling, and saying "maybe you should" alla the bts bit. I will ofcourse.

Obviously top notch all around. Kind of a weird comedy though. I honestly didn't quite get why he was in her closet. I know it was explained (outsourcing) but it didn't seem convincing enough. The dog running past is starting to break me up the more I watch it, with the grrrr. So I guess my only harp is in the writing for the ending.

As usuall, I'm learning a lot just reading Jack's, Timur's and Barry's responses to the more 'educated' responses.

Do I understand Herman scored this? I thought I saw that and can't find the credit now.
I know he's been putting out some hi quality stuff this fest and I thought this was him. Strange.

I can't wait to see the horror feature. If it's a good story, you guys should do well.

 

[TimurCivan]

hey... How come you answer everyone's questions but mine?

WHo is this guy? some one call security......

 

[Mark Johnson]

WHo is this guy? some one call security......

If you're not inclined to answer all of my queries I would at least like to know whether there were substantial revisions in the shooting script.

 

[Jack Daniel Stanley]

Mark, you always hurt the ones you love. :grin:

I didn't answer everyone but you. Barry and Timur chimed in.

Robin's follow up was before your question, which I was getting to. I can only do one long post like that a day. Was gonna get to you when I could devote more attention to your question. I'd love to talk about the development process. Maybe we can get John (Xrayspecs) involved as well.

Really appreciate the interest brotha.

... I honestly didn't quite get why he was in her closet. I know it was explained (outsourcing) but it didn't seem convincing enough...

:grin: It's not supposed to make sense. There is no rational explanation. It's absurdist in the tradition of Dada (wiki), Ionesco (wiki), and Bugs Bunny (wiki). The world turns into a place that doesn't make sense once the call is traced. That's the Twilight Fest part of it, it can't be explained. It's silly. You shouldn't take it seriously, he's in there just because it's funny. Same reason the Road Runner can run through the tunnel hole Wylie Coyote paints on the side of a mountain, but when Wylie tries to go after him he smashes into the wall with the hole painted on it.

here's what happens if you try to apply logic too it

... he works for a company that hawks for toupees for toddlers, non exploding gas, chinchilla fancy magazine, long distance calling plans, cheese of the month club, etc. and that said company has recently taken to "outsourcing" which involves either a Star Trek transporter like device or a rabbit tunnel that allows him to manifest in her broom closet at all hours for the last two weeks where he's been calling her completely undetected. No there is no rational expectation...

that's not the actual explanation because there is no actual explanation, just an illustration of how absurd it is - hopefully for most, so absurd and unlikely that it's clear that it ain't supposed to make no sense