Funnel... thoughts?

G

GMG802

Active member
Recently watched short called "Funnel" and I'm not sure what to think of it.. https://vimeo.com/125551582
It was part of the official selection of Sundance, SXSW, AFI Fest, and LA film fest. The comments range from marveling at it's genius, to absolutely hating it.

One commenter said, "in a world of expensive equipment, 'cool cinematography', and gigantic crews, these guys accomplished what most people can't on the simple fact that they are funny and they know how to tell a story." Part of me totally agrees with the Dogme 95 barebones theory, but I don't know if Funnel is necessarily that type of short either.

I don't hate it, I'm more confused by it. Why did this short become successful?

Thoughts?
 
It's like Seinfeld meets Blair Witch.

I thought it was amusing, and to me it felt fresh.

The dialog is super natural. I thought it sounded like how people talk, at least how some people talk, with all the nuances: the phrasing, voice, slurred consonants, mistakes and repetition, politely suppressed emotion punctuated by explosion, etc. This dovetails into the acting, which was likewise natural.

The plot is very Seinfeld, which as you know is one of the most popular sitcoms ever. The approach of that show also most stand-up comedy is to take common annoyances, things that we're almost ashamed to mention, and show someone else getting bothered by them. This is not only funny but comforting: we're not the only ones bothered by whatever it is.

The sound is good, at least to my limited taste --- at least compared to your average candid video. It was simple, yes, probably one lav. But good sound goes a long way to keeping you engrossed.

It looks amateurish because of the exposure and highlight handling. But the camerawork itself is not far from Hollywood. Most shots are traditional, even classical. Many are subtly artful. They're just from further away than normal.

So it has this weird mix of amateur and professional. It looks natural, but you also feel a lot is going on underneath. Touches like someone actually going in as he holds the door --- surely that was an actor, even if they pulled him off the street just minutes beforehand. Or the thing where he talks about getting hit by a car just as a car goes by. I don't know, it just has a lot of nice touches that look spontaneous but must have been all set up, which to me makes it more impressive.

And of course, it's about a poor everyday guy having a bad day, which is the foundation of almost all comedy ever.

So, I would say it's a short movie with a very old-fashioned foundation but with a fresh coat of paint on it for the cameraphone generation.
 
Last edited:
I dunno, but I can't help but think the words "Presented by Bob Odenkirk" probably had something to do with its successful entry into the upper elevations of film festery.
 
GMG802 said:
...I don't hate it, I'm more confused by it. Why did this short become successful?

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say that it's successful. Obviously, it depends on how a success in filmmaking is defined. Academy Award is certainly a success recognized by many. On the other hand, many many viewers, call them consumers, don't care about award or nomination and vote with their money - box office. Just search for "Oscar best picture vs box office", and you will quickly find that the correlation between the two is not that significant.

Michael Bay's Transformers can be a good example - huge profits but most professionals don't like what he does (or did since he decided to stop). Equally, there are best pictures with just miserable box office. Moreover, in many cases, winning the Best Picture award, doesn't give any boost to profits.

People are different - tastes and preferences are different. People differ in what is funny or not. I personally don't find Funnel anything close to good or funny. It's just boring - from my perspective, the story, as it is, is more suitable for a radio production. In my opinion, cinematographically, it's just nothing. There is no cinematography at all.

Having said this, I want to stress that I don't hate it. I respect those who think it's a masterpiece. Thanks God, we are different. It'd be even more boring if we were all alike! And I want to add that some aspects of the film are good. I like the guy who wrote and directed and acted as the main and only character in the film. Still, I believe that in terms of box office their short would be a total failure.

Vimeo's staff liked the film - I'm also not surprised. Just look at their "picks", and you will see that they have a very distinct concept of what's good and what's not. I'd say that they are predictable - I don't think it'd be a problem to put together something that they'd "picked" guaranteed. But again, if you read comments, you will see that many have total different ideas of what's good.

There is nothing confusing IMO in all this. My approach - I'm always trying to understand what and why with a simple goal of learning and understanding better what I want to do, and how to tell MY stories (and whether to tell a story or not in the first place).
 
“Suddenly one day some little fat girl in Ohio is going to be the new Mozart… and make a beautiful film with her father’s little camera-corder, and for once this whole professionalism about movies will be destroyed forever and it will become an art form.” – Francis Ford Coppola

We've officially jumped the shark in the independent filmmaking world.
 
Ugafan,
I make the following comments because you were nice enough to ask for further explanation regarding my opinion about "jumping the shark" (and I admit, it's only my opinion). This is not meant to be flip...but I don't consider this a film. At best, it's a staged documentary - a staged/scripted slice-of-life. The film had no camera work, no lighting, no acting, no script (other than a written stream-of-consciousness with occasional humor - no conflict), no art direction, no editing. Whereas Dogme 95 was meant to avoid over-production, this film (in my opinion) has NO production values. It reminds me of when someone gets their first camera and immediately shoots their cat and puts it up on YouTube, asking what others think of their "film." The one aspect that works well for me is the audio. I found it interesting that the audience needed to imagine the other person's dialogue (the only thing that could be considered a "hook") and it was interesting that the entire piece was probably recorded with a lavalier near or in the cell phone giving it outstanding sound quality (as noted above). That's about as perfect a placement for a microphone as I can imagine. Kudos there. The whole thing reminded me of a stand-up routine (something that Stiller & Meara or Bob Newhart might have done) - also noted above. By "jumping the shark", I meant that this was not just considered an exploration of a new angle on story-telling or filmmaking, but it is considered to be a great example of film-making today (based on it's awards and recognition). I'm obviously in the minority, but I don't get it.
 
The film had no camera work, no lighting, no acting, no script (other than a written stream-of-consciousness with occasional humor - no conflict), no art direction, no editing.
Click to expand...

i agree about the cinematography not being impressive, but disagree about the acting and writing. i think his acting is very good. for it to look effortless and natural to the point that it doesn't seem like he is acting at all is the sign of a good comedic actor. the fact that it doesn't seem scripted means means the writing was solid.
 
ugafan said:
the fact that it doesn't seem scripted means means the writing was solid.
Click to expand...
Very good point.
I should have been more clear...by "no script", it was my juvenile, back-handed way of saying that I wasn't impressed with the writing. I absolutely agree with you that the lines that were delivered by the on-camera person were, indeed, written beforehand.
 
i had a hard time watching this short. maybe it was supposed to look completely ametuer as an esthetic but the micro jitters annoyed me from the get go. there are "good" shakes and there are "bad" shakes. this was bad. the audio was the only thing decent. i didnt find anything entertaining about the dialogue in the least. to each their own but this was not for me in any way shape or form.
 
Well, I liked it, so shoot me. SPOILER ALERT (don't read beyond this if you care about the spoiler!!) But I thought it was funny right up to the moment when the phone rang and it was revealed that he was basically talking to himself... I thought it asked just a bit too much in the plausibility department - made it look like a "movie idea", not something real. And then they went and guilded the lily with the keys and the the dropped call again. Too much. It's like they couldn't resist. It would've worked for me a million times better if they didn't try for the "twist" and had a more interesting resolution - because the music was perfect, just exactly the kind of feeling you'd get from a breakout original like something that would've been shot by a rebel filmmaker in France back in the 60's, and these cutesy twists don't belong, but instead make the film more shallow. Seriously, the twists make it shallow. It could've been much more subtle and deeper. Pity.

And agreed the actor was great for this. Parenthetically, I was impressed by the battery life of his phone (I say this as someone whose iPhone has inexplicably poor battery life these past few weeks). All IMHO, YMMV.
 
Loved it! A lot of fun. Low time commitment to watch, but fun enough payoff. Relatable.

From a film making standpoint, i dislike jumping pov when hand held, unless it is the “Office” or “24”, where they are mimicing the documentary crew look. But in general, as a viewer, i am thrown off by handheld jumping perspective like that.

Handheld makes me think it is “real” and in the moment, so as long as the camera is one perspective, it can jump cut and or whatever, but as soon as it goes from behind the action, to all of a sudden in front of the action, i am taken out of it.

Similar to seeing lens flares in deep space. Like, as if there is a camera operator floating in deep space getting that wide establishing on an Angenieux zoom kicking up some gnar-gnar lens flares. Am i right?! ...am i right... am i... ahem.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top