orchidsofwrath
Active member
in-frkn-credible. Nothing more to say.
"PLACEBO" - Piatt Films
- Thread starter pia12254
- Start date
Lawsuit_Boy
Veteran
Watching it again, and I liked certain aspects a little more now, but there are a LOT of things still irking me. I was also thinking about the doctor dead in the lead and the woman's room. I was wondering, did the same thing that happened with the SPOILER!!!!!! zombi-fied guy who wasn't actually crazy happen with the doctor, and that's why he was killed? My reason for inquisition here is that I was curious as to why the lead didn't get a little more curious about the situation after some of the FIRST killings. Why did it take him so long, after the first killing (or killings), to decide to hunt for more information?
If he sought the information out in the end anyway, I don't see much reason for him not to look for it after the scientist/doctor was killed. It seems like the scientist was set up to be dead (and seen alive in flashbacks) as a set piece to build the atmosphere and show how wrong things went, but it sort of leaves a hole.
I was also wondering if you're a fan of Tony Scott? I don't mean that in a condescending way at all. I just really compared the flashcuts to some of the cuts in some of Scott's more recent work, namely Domino and Man on Fire. I feel like if this film would have utilized French New Wave-esque jump cuts instead of the Scott-ish flashcuts, it wouldn't have been as tough on the eyes. Or maybe just a little less flash, ya know? It just seems as if the more I think about it, the more it unravels and I can't find the motivation behind certain actions. I'm not sure why the doctor would be in the room. If everyone left him there, I have a hard time believing, in such an inhumane study, he actually wanted to stick around. Perhaps he went back for the data in the room? I feel like some of the flashbacking could have been put to good use and made the doctor's reasons a little more realistic. And I'm still bothered by him merely stumbling upon the info after the second killing. I just feel like someone who can manage to stay alive on the streets would be able to look in the file cabinet.
I know that the red flashbacks at the end portray him murdering people, and that it's just now coming around to his conscious mind, but I still don't buy the other portion not searching for the info. I guess it's a plot device to drive the story, and it works in that way. I'm just really being critical and picking it apart, haha. This almost borders on the psychotropic drug creating a bit of a disassociative personality disorder. I feel like all of this stuff could be answered in the longer cut you're working on, and that's why I'm offering these perspectives, as fuel for the creation of the longer cut.
The film just seems to have a really great concept with good execution that just doesn't maintain internal continuity. A good example of a film that does is The Sixth Sense.
Also, an interesting idea to pursue in the future is the prospect of doing some of these tests, but not having it go horribly wrong with death and violence involved (or maybe a little eventually) and instead, showing some of those in the study released and follow their re-instatement in society. It's certainly something to ponder.
If he sought the information out in the end anyway, I don't see much reason for him not to look for it after the scientist/doctor was killed. It seems like the scientist was set up to be dead (and seen alive in flashbacks) as a set piece to build the atmosphere and show how wrong things went, but it sort of leaves a hole.
I was also wondering if you're a fan of Tony Scott? I don't mean that in a condescending way at all. I just really compared the flashcuts to some of the cuts in some of Scott's more recent work, namely Domino and Man on Fire. I feel like if this film would have utilized French New Wave-esque jump cuts instead of the Scott-ish flashcuts, it wouldn't have been as tough on the eyes. Or maybe just a little less flash, ya know? It just seems as if the more I think about it, the more it unravels and I can't find the motivation behind certain actions. I'm not sure why the doctor would be in the room. If everyone left him there, I have a hard time believing, in such an inhumane study, he actually wanted to stick around. Perhaps he went back for the data in the room? I feel like some of the flashbacking could have been put to good use and made the doctor's reasons a little more realistic. And I'm still bothered by him merely stumbling upon the info after the second killing. I just feel like someone who can manage to stay alive on the streets would be able to look in the file cabinet.
I know that the red flashbacks at the end portray him murdering people, and that it's just now coming around to his conscious mind, but I still don't buy the other portion not searching for the info. I guess it's a plot device to drive the story, and it works in that way. I'm just really being critical and picking it apart, haha. This almost borders on the psychotropic drug creating a bit of a disassociative personality disorder. I feel like all of this stuff could be answered in the longer cut you're working on, and that's why I'm offering these perspectives, as fuel for the creation of the longer cut.
The film just seems to have a really great concept with good execution that just doesn't maintain internal continuity. A good example of a film that does is The Sixth Sense.
Also, an interesting idea to pursue in the future is the prospect of doing some of these tests, but not having it go horribly wrong with death and violence involved (or maybe a little eventually) and instead, showing some of those in the study released and follow their re-instatement in society. It's certainly something to ponder.
Last edited:
pia12254
Well-known member
Kholi...man I really appreciate that! I know you are honest in your feedback/comments so I really appreciate the fact that you enjoyed it (and are not just being polite...right?). :laugh: I actually went and checked out the Rainfall Films website a couple days ago when I saw the link in another thread. I didn't realize it was you and Sam Balcomb and all those guys! WOW! Ya'll (excuse the Texan) are doing TOP NOTCH work! If you guys can ever use a laid back Texan to hold a boom pole or push a dolly on one of your projects let me know! Thanks again for watching!
Ryan/Orchids - Thanks for watching and your encouraging comments as well! Really liked your film Orchids of Wrath! (I feel weird typing that as a name...) :smile:
pia12254
Well-known member
Because you have been very generous in offering specific feedback I wanted to start a separate post to respond to your thoughts in! :beer: As I mentioned before I wanted this short to stand on its own without using the excuse that we are doing a longer version later. That being the case I knew there would be a lot of unanswered questions that would be raised because of it. But because you are asking about specifics I will be glad to answer! :laugh:
There are several scenes involving the Doctor that we had to cut for times sake. We have a number of scenes with him working with the patients, etc. We also have a scene where everyone vacates the site, leaving him behind, locked in the facility (you see it in some of the shots we cut out but the place is surrounded by chain link/razor wire...like a prison). He encounters a guard that has been killed by the deranged patients and rather than suffer the same fate he decides to take his own life...thus the bullet wound in his head (another shot we had to cut shows Cole & Shannon finding him in the room and Cole pulls the gun from his hand...and later his suicide note).
It is funny you would ask that! I wouldn't necessarily say I'm a fan...but I did like some of the editing techniques used in Man on Fire and I wanted to play around with it more than anything. In fact, I had heard there was some similar stuff done in Domino (which I heard also sucked) so I actually watched part of it streaming on Netflix yesterday!
Regarding French New Wave...is that some sort of hair product? :evil: Actually, I would consider myself a bit of a film neanderthal in the sense that I don't watch a lot of movies...or at least not a broad array of films. If you could refer a couple examples of what you are talking about I would honestly LOVE to see what you mean! Now that I've been away from the film for a few days I think some of the flashiness needs to be reduced and/or eliminated from the longer version. So, I might be looking for an alternative "technique" for accomplishing the same thing.I think some of the stuff in the longer version might make this a little clearer. In that setting you realize he has just stumbled upon this room in his effort to find a safe place for he and Shannon to barricade themselves. The Doctor is already dead. It is only a matter of minutes before he is attacked by the zombie-fied gentleman and during the attack the papers on the Doctors desk get knocked to the floor. So, after the tussle, when he is sitting on the ground re-grouping, he glances down and sees the paper. Something on that paper spurs him into looking through the drawers...
Not sure if that makes more sense but I think it should address a lot of what you are wondering... I guess that is one of the challenges of whittling a story down the barest of elements and keeping only the parts absolutely vital to the central theme.
Dude, I totally appreciate your insight! Raising questions like these helps me to know what needs more/less explanation in a longer version! Fortunately, most of the questions raised I think will be addressed more fully in the next version. But I hope even this 6-minute cut was at least entertaining for some people!
rogar-Smoke(DBG):Hmm, that is actually a really interesting idea! I've been kicking some ideas around with Martin (as well as a few in my head I haven't told him about :evil: ) regarding what a feature story might look like... So, that is an interesting angle!
Lawsuit_Boy
Veteran
Thanks for getting back to me, pia! I do appreciate it. I figured that a lot of things were a time limit problem. Your responses most certainly make sense.
I also played around with some Tony Scott style editing techniques in a piece I made a few years back. I'm really not a big fan of the techniques (I kind of feel like it's just a result of the Mtv style generation) but I wanted to see if I could replicate it. Honestly...I'm much less annoyed by it in your film than in Scott's, haha. I'm watch TONS of films, especially those outside of the U.S., and I've just become accustomed to a lot of different periods of film and styles, so my taste has really changed over the years. Nothing against you for liking Scott, though. The guy can certainly direct action.
Yeah, I figured that they had just found the room, but it's unclear that the doctor was already dead and hadn't been killed by the lead because of the time crunch. And because of that crunch, we see the character in this room almost the entire time, which lead me to believe that the character was poorly developed, or just plain stupid for not searching the file cabinet. I think that if we saw him do a little more before entering that room and if you had the audience follow him in there, it would help make him look like less of a mind-warped slug. Because remember, he's on the psychotropic drugs, but he's not a stupid person. He's just become highly delusional and paranoid. So yeah, once again, more time for developing the situation out will NOT spoon feed the audience (I would NEVER advise that) but establish a more grounded and realistic scenario.
I really think that you all can make a really solid film with very tight internal continuity between the flashforwards, flashbacks, and present time with a longer cut that drops the right amount of little hints/clues as to how things happened at the right moments. It's just that after multiple viewings, the six minute cut doesn't really hold itself together.
Glad you like the idea! I just think that it would make for an interesting psycho-social study of the characters' behaviors and interactions with their environment and would raise a lot of interesting questions, both ethically and morally; even scientifically.
I'd definitely like to hear more about the project when it starts to grow. Once again, glad the comments didn't come off as snobbish or too invasive. :beer:
I also played around with some Tony Scott style editing techniques in a piece I made a few years back. I'm really not a big fan of the techniques (I kind of feel like it's just a result of the Mtv style generation) but I wanted to see if I could replicate it. Honestly...I'm much less annoyed by it in your film than in Scott's, haha. I'm watch TONS of films, especially those outside of the U.S., and I've just become accustomed to a lot of different periods of film and styles, so my taste has really changed over the years. Nothing against you for liking Scott, though. The guy can certainly direct action.
Yeah, I figured that they had just found the room, but it's unclear that the doctor was already dead and hadn't been killed by the lead because of the time crunch. And because of that crunch, we see the character in this room almost the entire time, which lead me to believe that the character was poorly developed, or just plain stupid for not searching the file cabinet. I think that if we saw him do a little more before entering that room and if you had the audience follow him in there, it would help make him look like less of a mind-warped slug. Because remember, he's on the psychotropic drugs, but he's not a stupid person. He's just become highly delusional and paranoid. So yeah, once again, more time for developing the situation out will NOT spoon feed the audience (I would NEVER advise that) but establish a more grounded and realistic scenario.
I really think that you all can make a really solid film with very tight internal continuity between the flashforwards, flashbacks, and present time with a longer cut that drops the right amount of little hints/clues as to how things happened at the right moments. It's just that after multiple viewings, the six minute cut doesn't really hold itself together.
Glad you like the idea! I just think that it would make for an interesting psycho-social study of the characters' behaviors and interactions with their environment and would raise a lot of interesting questions, both ethically and morally; even scientifically.
I'd definitely like to hear more about the project when it starts to grow. Once again, glad the comments didn't come off as snobbish or too invasive. :beer:
Lawsuit_Boy
Veteran
Sorry I didn't respond to this. Almost missed it (lilcaro pointed it out to me).
Well, I highly recommend checking out Breathless by Godard. It was one of the first films to implement jumpcutting (since the term was basically coined from that film). Godard originally shot the sequences they take place in as longer takes, but producers wanted him to chop it down. So he just hacked pieces out and made the "jump cuts."
Jump cuts can serve a number of different purposes, but most often they're used to establish some type of subtle change in the film, like a character's perspective, as used in Breathless.
The French New Wave was a result of Truffaut, Godard, Eric Rohmer, Claude Chabrol and Jacques Rivette primarily, who were critics for a film mag/journal called Cahiers du cinema. They were fed up with stagnant eras of french film and were highly influenced by Italian neorealism and decided to start breaking filmmaking conventions in editing, cinematography, acting, music, etc. They wanted to tell stories differently.
So, I recommend seeing Breathless, A Woman is a Woman, Contempt, Pierrot le fou, and Alphaville (all by Godard) and The 400 Blows, Shoot the Piano Player, Jules et Jim (all from Truffaut), and then start working your way through more French New Wave.
Heck, I'd also go back and check out some Italian Neorealism like Bicycle Thieves by Vittorio de Seca and I Vitelloni by Federico Fellini. Also, I HIGHLY recommend seeing "8 1/2" by Fellini.
That should be a good place to start. :thumbup:
Norm Sanders
Script Wrangler
Yikes, I must be on the same plane as Daniel then, because I've never even HEARD of any of the movies Lawsuit is referring to.
Lawsuit_Boy
Veteran
It's not too late for you, Norm! We need to broaden your horizons and introduce you to world cinema! You'll find inspiration in the most unlikely places. Japanese samurai films, French new wave (and now neo-realist films like La haine, which I HIGHLY recommend), German expressionism from Ingmar Bergman and the likes, some Italian works from Fellini, Antonioni, de Seca, etc. toss in some Hong Kong work, some Australian minimalist, and you cannot leave out out great Russian works like you'd find with Tarkovsky. I could go on all day about various film periods, norms and motifs indigenous to cultures, and general styles all day. I freaking love movies, haha.
DerSpieler
Member
This man knows his stuff! I'll see your Bergman and raise you a Fritz Lang!
Lawsuit_Boy
Veteran
M and Metropolis are two of my all-time favorite films. I'm so happy that the full cut of Metropolis was found! Cannot wait for that.
I'll see your Lang and raise you Robert Wiene!
I'll see your Lang and raise you Robert Wiene!
lilcaro
Member
To make things a little simpler, I'd probably start with films by Truffaut, Bergman, and Kurosawa from the 60s. Kurosawa is arguably the best Japanese director of all time, and his stuff is relatively accessible. Lots of great samurai flicks :thumbup: Truffat made highly enjoyable French New Wave films, and Bergman may be a little harder to get into because he's rather bleak and metaphorical, but I think it's important for everyone to watch his best films like "The Seventh Seal" and "Persona".
And pia, if you want interesting and modern films that more fit your aesthetic and that you'll probably enjoy check out the Korean film "Oldboy", the Japanese film "Battle Royale", or any films by the director David Cronenberg. All of these are various mind-bending, violent, and entertaining as hell films that might give you some more inspiration
Lawsuit_Boy
Veteran
To make things a little simpler, I'd probably start with films by Truffaut, Bergman, and Kurosawa from the 60s. Kurosawa is arguably the best Japanese director of all time, and his stuff is relatively accessible. Lots of great samurai flicks :thumbup: Truffat made highly enjoyable French New Wave films, and Bergman may be a little harder to get into because he's rather bleak and metaphorical, but I think it's important for everyone to watch his best films like "The Seventh Seal" and "Persona".
And pia, if you want interesting and modern films that more fit your aesthetic and that you'll probably enjoy check out the Korean film "Oldboy", the Japanese film "Battle Royale", or any films by the director David Cronenberg. All of these are various mind-bending, violent, and entertaining as hell films that might give you some more inspiration
Oh, snap! Caro with the goods. What she said = :thumbup:
Norm Sanders
Script Wrangler
Man, you're not kidding! People are often surprised about certain movies I've not seen (heck, I don't think I've ever even watched Citizen Kane, original War Of The Worlds, Casablanca- even though I made BERLIN - go figure, and countless other classics). I guess I've been kind of a slave to the mainstream, Hollywood Blockbuster type movies ... I tend to also get VERY leery of independent & foreign cinema, although I have of course seen some good ones.
And I just realized, I hope this hasn't been too much of a thread jack for PLACEBO. And now back to our sponsor.....
pia12254
Well-known member
No worries guys! I'm actually quite entertained by all the dialogue (as Norm mentioned...I'm always willing to whore myself out if it increases my thread views). :laugh:
Last night I actually watched the first half of "Breathless" on Netflix. I can understand that for its time it was probably something quite out of the ordinary...but I wonder what application you guys see for it today? Possibly just being slow on the uptake I didn't see anything that made me sit up and go "Wow! Never seen that before!".
Do you watch these types of films primarily just to appreciate where certain things came from? I can appreciate certain things from certain French films for instance...I think they make some STUNNING use of imagery to tell stories that I can definitely learn from. But, I often don't care for the stories themselves.
Just curious what you attempt to absorb from the various world cinema styles you observe...
Thanks guys!
(And I'm glad you and I are on the same page Norm...!) :beer:
Last night I actually watched the first half of "Breathless" on Netflix. I can understand that for its time it was probably something quite out of the ordinary...but I wonder what application you guys see for it today? Possibly just being slow on the uptake I didn't see anything that made me sit up and go "Wow! Never seen that before!".
Do you watch these types of films primarily just to appreciate where certain things came from? I can appreciate certain things from certain French films for instance...I think they make some STUNNING use of imagery to tell stories that I can definitely learn from. But, I often don't care for the stories themselves.
Just curious what you attempt to absorb from the various world cinema styles you observe...
Thanks guys!
(And I'm glad you and I are on the same page Norm...!) :beer:
Lawsuit_Boy
Veteran
Hmm...I'll probably need an entire page to explain what I get from films like that, haha. Breathless is nowhere near my favorite Godard film (one of my least favorites, actually), but it is such an influential film and I think it's absolutely necessary, as a true cineaste, to seek out influential films and learn how they changed the face of cinema in their own way.
there are a lot of great books around on European cinema, Asian, Russian...basically every type of cinema.
Personally, I'm inspired by almost every film I see. I was inspired by a number of fantastic shots in Breathless as well as some of the dialogue. BUT, you must know that Godard was a genius of manipulation and enjoyed testing the patience of his audiences. He was a very enigmatic guy.
If you like political satire, check out his film La chinoise. But otherwise, I'd say check out his later films I recommended. They're all shot in scope and are beautiful!
But you should definitely check out 60's Japanese cinema, especially samurai and even some exploitations films (which are closer in style to placebo than Godard).
I guess I just find a lot to admire about every good film I see, and I consider many of the good films of the world to come from sources outside of the U.S. Sure, we've produced amazing works here (Welles made Citizen Kane when he was 25! and we still have some of the best directors today), but there is a lot of fantastic stuff to find outside. Just search around for different genres of films, find out what countries delve into those genres, and seek out the "critically acclaimed" ones in that genre.
And, I hate to say it, but I think you'd probably just flat out enjoy more modern cinema. I also say that, as Caroline mentioned, you should check out Oldboy. It's visually arresting, highly exciting, and the subject matter is just as devious and gritty as Placebo (although times ten).
there are a lot of great books around on European cinema, Asian, Russian...basically every type of cinema.
Personally, I'm inspired by almost every film I see. I was inspired by a number of fantastic shots in Breathless as well as some of the dialogue. BUT, you must know that Godard was a genius of manipulation and enjoyed testing the patience of his audiences. He was a very enigmatic guy.
If you like political satire, check out his film La chinoise. But otherwise, I'd say check out his later films I recommended. They're all shot in scope and are beautiful!
But you should definitely check out 60's Japanese cinema, especially samurai and even some exploitations films (which are closer in style to placebo than Godard).
I guess I just find a lot to admire about every good film I see, and I consider many of the good films of the world to come from sources outside of the U.S. Sure, we've produced amazing works here (Welles made Citizen Kane when he was 25! and we still have some of the best directors today), but there is a lot of fantastic stuff to find outside. Just search around for different genres of films, find out what countries delve into those genres, and seek out the "critically acclaimed" ones in that genre.
And, I hate to say it, but I think you'd probably just flat out enjoy more modern cinema. I also say that, as Caroline mentioned, you should check out Oldboy. It's visually arresting, highly exciting, and the subject matter is just as devious and gritty as Placebo (although times ten).
Lawsuit_Boy
Veteran
Also, it's not what I attempt to absorb, but what I do absorb. I'm just in love with cinema all around the globe and I really find it all fascinating.
People might not guess it, but I'm a HUUUUGE martial art film fanatic. I also did some occasional obscure art house stuff (depending on who it's from) and I also really like straightforward stuff from anywhere. There are certain genres I'm not so crazy about, but I watch them anyway. It just gives me more information to work from, more inspiration, and more of a wealth of techniques and styles to build my own from.
Plus, many older films focused more on setting up situations, characters, motivations, and tension in a more careful, meticulous manner. The general public has become more and more desensitized and needs over-the-top action and violence in order to give them thrills. But thrills can still be given by careful building of character, atmosphere, etc. through camera work, sound design, and blocking/lighting.
That's one of my main reasons for seeing films all over.
And remember, there are tons of absolutely fantastic films in the world, and many that most critics will consider "great," but for you, it might not be so great. If you're attached to a certain style and genre, you might not want to go too deep. But I still think it's important to have a fair knowledge of the history of cinema, how it has changed over time, and why some older films (like Citizen Kane) are held to the same high standards today as they were when they were released.
Have you ever seen any old Frank Capra/Jimmy Cagney gangster films like White Heat? Do you watch many film noir type films? It's certainly a fun genre and most of the goods in that period are old films. Carol Reed has made a lot of amazing films in the genre.
But I get the feeling you want to stick to horror/action hybrids, am I right?
I have more to say on this and I'll get back to it later.
Last edited:
jessicalsin
Well-known member
I have a weird question....on the Id badge one of the names is Johnny Utah...is that a nod to Keanu Reeves' character in Point Break?...If it is...that's kinda cool....if it's not...just ignore the fact that I know that much about Point Break....
Lawsuit_Boy
Veteran
Heck yes, that had better be a Point Break reference! (awesome example of a good action film).