"New Hire"

I thought your critiques were going to be from a writer's POV...

Charli said:
I'll be watching films this week and giving straight forward feedback without bias. It will be from a writer's point of view and overall storytelling point of view.
Click to expand...

Since all those notes had to do with shots/editing I shall take it as a compliment. :)
 
Here's one for the storyteller point of view. I liked the lighthearted take on this, but ultimately I didn't really care if the applicant got the job. He was certainly an interesting character, he had a clear goal, and a somewhat unwitting antagonist. What was lacking was any sort of jeopardy or stakes.

Why does it matter if he gets this job? What does he gain if he gets it? What does he lose if he doesn't? From what I could see, there was nothing either way. And if there's nothing at risk for him either way, why should I as a viewer care? Give me a reason to root for or against him. Without that, it ends up being just a bunch of clever banter. So while this one had some nice moments for me, as a whole it fell somewhat flat.
 
Not sure if i quite agree with the stakes element, its one of those things more easily said 'oh it should have one of these' than something that necessarily works in this particular film. Imagine if our demondude 'needed' a job? That would make his character appear weaker - while if the interviewer had a snippet of pressure (to find someone/employ them fast) that conflict would have had to be expanded (in the interviewers mind) - ie. **** i hate this scary guy but i gotta fill the job...

It takes us away probably from the films strength - which is a feeling of unexpected infernal serendipity. When I read responses like why should i care... why should i this or that - i say, judge the film for what it is rather than what you think it should be.) It was obviously not a film about us caring whether someone gets a job or a film about caring whether a particular conflict is resolved (what would syd field say hehe) - simply an unexpected and sinister/comic visitation.

(Not picking on you 4100xpb) just taking your point to express an opinin in general about this film :)
 
AJ - That's just it, there wasn't enough story to talk about. It was stale. You're a good filmmaker, this just wasn't a good story.
 
4100xpb said:
Here's one for the storyteller point of view. I liked the lighthearted take on this, but ultimately I didn't really care if the applicant got the job. He was certainly an interesting character, he had a clear goal, and a somewhat unwitting antagonist. What was lacking was any sort of jeopardy or stakes.
Click to expand...

Think about it in a different way... The interviewer is the one who is brand new and taking the place of the old boss. He is equally (and actually more) nervous than the dark applicant. And the boiling water at the end is a clear indication that life will be a living hell for him should he not give him the job.

And I'm sure it will be a living hell for him NOW that he is hired!

Hey! That's a good idea for a sit-com... "My employee is a demon from hell." Hell Secretary on NBC... nice.


Charli said:
AJ - That's just it, there wasn't enough story to talk about. It was stale. You're a good filmmaker, this just wasn't a good story.
Click to expand...

If you aren't a fan of the story, I can't argue with you there, but I have to come in defense when you say there wasn't much story.

Maybe we aren't talking about the same thing when we say "story".

It's on a micro scale, the goals and defeats aren't punches and death, but they are looks and perceptions measured in a fraction of an inch... the way things are in an interview where people have just met and you don't know how to gauge the other person.

The small scale of this story does not mean there is a lack of story. It's just happening at a smaller level.

And there are no guns! I thought you'd enjoy that Charli! :)
 
Think about it in a different way... The interviewer is the one who is brand new and taking the place of the old boss. He is equally (and actually more) nervous than the dark applicant. And the boiling water at the end is a clear indication that life will be a living hell for him should he not give him the job.

And I'm sure it will be a living hell for him NOW that he is hired!
Click to expand...

I agree, from that perspective it's quite a bit stronger. But at least on the first viewing, it felt more focused on the demon than on whether the boss was about to step in it. I'll have a look at it again and see how it feels.

Not sure if i quite agree with the stakes element, its one of those things more easily said 'oh it should have one of these' than something that necessarily works in this particular film. Imagine if our demondude 'needed' a job? That would make his character appear weaker - while if the interviewer had a snippet of pressure (to find someone/employ them fast) that conflict would have had to be expanded (in the interviewers mind) - ie. s**t i hate this scary guy but i gotta fill the job...

It takes us away probably from the films strength - which is a feeling of unexpected infernal serendipity. When I read responses like why should i care... why should i this or that - i say, judge the film for what it is rather than what you think it should be.) It was obviously not a film about us caring whether someone gets a job or a film about caring whether a particular conflict is resolved (what would syd field say hehe) - simply an unexpected and sinister/comic visitation.

(Not picking on you 4100xpb) just taking your point to express an opinin in general about this film :)
Click to expand...

The demon has already shown he has weakness - he got fired once already and he's shown up for this job interview. And what's funnier - an all-powerful super demon who can do essentially anything he wants, or a mostly powerful super-demon with some Achilles heel that keeps tripping him up (just why did he get fired anyway?). I'm all for watching a film and accepting it for what it its (heck, I liked Sucker Punch), but I can still want for it to be better. Yes, this is an unexpected and sinister/comic visitation. I just think it could be more sinister and/or comic with a stronger story behind it.
 
AJ & Hawk - ha ha ha!

I was a manager for over 10 years. I'm sorry, but the interview wasn't believable. We never in management level ever allow anyone to interview for us because as managers we see nuances that others miss, that's why we're the boss.

AJ - you are a solid filmmaker, no doubt, no question. Yes, you had subtext, I give you that. My last short was shot in a kitchen with static actors. But there was more to the story. This did indeed had less. But I think where you missed was the whole concept of the villain fest itself.

It was, for someone like you, not enough. It's hard when you set the bar high for yourself to always stay at par with yourself.
 
Charli said:
AJ & Hawk - ha ha ha!I was a manager for over 10 years. I'm sorry, but the interview wasn't believable. We never in management level ever allow anyone to interview for us because as managers we see nuances that others miss, that's why we're the boss.
Click to expand...
He is the new boss, there was an early bit of exposition that I cut that said strange things had been happening around the office and Mr. Walters was gone indefinitely.But really would you have laughed more if the circumstances had been more realistic? I dont believe so.I think what it comes down to is that I made chicken Parmesan when you really would've liked beef stroganoff much better.Maybe next time I'll make a grilled panini we both can enjoy. :)
 
AJ - you are making films for the audience. It's hard to please them all, but when you do please most of them, you can "feel" it during the filmmaking process. I am sure you felt inside this wasn't true to a solid story, no matter how small. Still, even on the low end of my marks you are higher than others because of the quality of filmmaking. :)
 
Charli said:
AJ - you are making films for the audience. It's hard to please them all, but when you do please most of them, you can "feel" it during the filmmaking process.
Click to expand...

Spielberg thought his career was going to be over when he was getting that so called "feel" during the filming of Jaws.


Charli said:
I am sure you felt inside this wasn't true to a solid story, no matter how small.
Click to expand...

And this is where we disagree 100%. I personally love this idea and the story and feel it is very complete and solid. It has its technical difficulties absolutely, but I feel it is a solid and fun story.
 
Last edited:
Spielberg also had it during the making of "ET." Actually, everyone on the set felt something special about that film during the process. At Cannes it was the last film shown and wasn't part of the competition there. The audience was quiet and still after the last scene. Spielberg didn't know what to make of it. Then in a thunderous roar the entire audience stood up and cheered. Spielberg said it was a moment he would never forget for the rest of his life.
 
No Charli, I think you missed the point.

Everyone was NOT on board for Jaws. Everyone thought it was going to be a failure and Spielberg was an idiot.
 
AJ Brooks said:
No Charli, I think you missed the point.Everyone was NOT on board for Jaws. Everyone thought it was going to be a failure and Spielberg was an idiot.
Click to expand...
This was due to many things. His age for one, Bruce (the shark) not working, delaying production and going over budget. I bet once Spielberg saw how it came together after post he realized he had something special. Not sure what all this has to do with this short though?I love JAWS. :)
 
Okay, so I missed the point on your Spielberg statement.

Directors/producers are always close to their work AJ. It's hard to be objective. That's why critics don't get love because they point out all the flaws. I enjoyed your "Sente" work that I made sure my friends saw it. This feels like a whole different director/producer who did this short. While there is quality in filmmaking, I'm going to agree to disagree with you, the story fell short.
 
Michael Anthony Horrigan said:
This was due to many things. His age for one, Bruce (the shark) not working, delaying production and going over budget. I bet once Spielberg saw how it came together after post he realized he had something special. Not sure what all this has to do with this short though?I love JAWS. :)
Click to expand...

This is why I brought up Jaws:

Charli said:
AJ - you are making films for the audience. It's hard to please them all, but when you do please most of them, you can "feel" it during the filmmaking process.
Click to expand...

I was making the point that you don't always "feel" something is good during the process. Quite often you think it's awful. And quite often you still think it's awful when it's done. And sometimes it isn't until an audience enjoys it (as was the case with Spielberg and Jaws) that you are finally comfortable with it.

I wasn't comparing New Hire to Jaws. :)

And Charli thanks again for the comments and dialogue.

I just took notice of your comment because you were the first to say you didn't enjoy the story and I wanted to delve deeper to understand why.

So thank you and I'm glad you enjoyed Sente Sente.
 
Even though I better much had the joke at about the 30 second mark I gotta give you props on camera work and sound. If the locations were a little better and a few more gags it woulda won me over. Nice little film.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top