String Theory - ***NSFW***

CB_Radio said:
I've read the whole thread

You're clearly upset about what people have said about your film. You're defensive, accusatory and upset. You made a bad film that some people think is nothing more than 'shock' 'trash' and when sombody might imply that "your work isn't art" your response is
Click to expand...


I just don't think this is fair. I think the film was interesting, and it provoked a reaction from me (albeit an uncomfortable one) when I don't make it to the end of most short films on this site. I'm not talking about 'Art' however, and neither was Matt Hoss!

See...the third post in the thread didn't really come out and directly say anything about the short...it was sort of a general shot that opens a whole can of worms, isn't in response to anyhting the OP said, and doesn't critiize the film directly.

Let me put it too you this way. Let's say I go right now to any one of a dozen threads on these forums posting their first 'T2i footage' or 'I just got my 7D thread.' If I posted, 'test shorts aren't art', I might have a point, but is really relevant feedback? I could have done the same with Monsterfest 'horror isn't art' or most films on this site, 'shorts aren't art'...um...okay...thanks for the response but did you enjoy/hate/squirm/laugh/cry/or feel indiferently towards my movie? Did you watch the whole thing? Was it well shot, were the actors convicing?

I think the first response in this thread started an approachable line of discussion. The idea that it was interesting, but the dancing is awkward. OP comes back that the akwardness was intentional. Maybe we don't like it anyways as has been suggested...or did it work to kind of foreshadow the weirdness of this chic? At what point is this guy not going to want to get laid, etc.

Obviously, it's not my place to try and put any sort of limit on what can be discussed about a film posted. I just think love it or hate it, something film relevant makes sense. If you're so offended by it (and this is not directed at David Jimerson) that you don't even think it should be here, perhaps you should realize that a short with 'x-rated' in the title probably isn't your cup of tea!!!
 
Cranky said:
Flat over the top lightning, unnatural. The playback is way to slow with my connection, there is no way to pause the player to buffer up the movie, there is no way to skip forward.

To me one of the benefits of web video is capability to skip to whatever point I like (Vimeo sucks and YouTube rules in this regard), and your video/player do not allow me doing that, thus I closed that page 30 seconds after I started watching. So I will never know what the fuss is about. I might have given it another chance if it were porn.
Click to expand...

Sorry to keep writing on this thread, but I'd just like to say...seems to me this is the sort of feedback, that, while somewhat negative, the OP should be okay with or might be able to learn from...

But then, I don't know the OP at all...
 
CB_Radio said:
I've read the whole thread

You're clearly upset about what people have said about your film. You're defensive, accusatory and upset. You made a bad film that some people think is nothing more than 'shock' 'trash' and when sombody might imply that "your work isn't art" your response is

You either want to hear opinions or you don't. And it's clear that you don't want to hear opinions that your work is trash. You've said as much yourself.
Click to expand...

You cut off my quote:

"Everyone is free to share their thoughts, but so am I. It's a two way street here. If someone makes a pompous declaration that "your work isn't art" or "that it's trash", I'll point out their narrow minded arrogance."

It's narrow minded and arrogant because it fails to recognize that one man's trash is another man's art. That's the point I've been trying to make all day.

I won't repeat myself anymore. If you wish to continue this debate, you can do so without me.
 
Kellar42 said:
"Pornography or porn is the portrayal of explicit sexual subject matter for the purposes of sexual excitement and erotic satisfaction."

The definitions vary, but they seem to be fairly similiar to this across the first eight search results or so. As such I don't think this qualifies.

And I think Sullivan's Travel's 'stopped before it got to the good stuff too.' (Veronica Lake doing almost anything, being 'the good stuff'.) My point with that, is that nearly every movie ever made that featured sexual inuendo between a man and a woman that 'stops before it gets to the good stuff' isn't pornography...that's why the censors let it through. It's the NOT SHOWING 'STUFF' that keeps it from being porn, as the moderators said earlier in the thread. No porn is allowed on this site.
Click to expand...
I was referring more to the quality of the cinematography / writing / acting as being something you would see in a porn film than to the explicitness of the video.

Obviously it is not technically "pornography," but in terms of the overall qualities of the video, it is a porn film minus the good stuff.
 
I can't help but wonder if, given how forward both characters are, if there's not an obvious solution to the problem...
 
Kellar42 said:
See...the third post in the thread didn't really come out and directly say anything about the short...it was sort of a general shot that opens a whole can of worms, isn't in response to anyhting the OP said, and doesn't critiize the film directly.
Click to expand...

Sure it did. It was a) my very first "thought" after watching it, and it b) went straight to what he said was the "design" of the piece. Exactly what I meant by it was explained in full. Could I have unpacked it more in the first post to be more clear? Probably; mea culpa. But if you can make a purposely-offensive adult film, you can take criticism without it being wrapped in a bow. It wasn't personal, though his responses to it were.

And if he refuses to comment on his film, instead letting it "speak for itself," then everyone watching is free to decide what they think he was trying to do and comment thusly. I don't see how there can be a wrong or irrelevant interpretation of it. He leaves it entirely in the eye of the beholder. You can't say "my work speaks for itself" and then complain that people aren't hearing it right.
 
chapelgrovefilms said:
I heard "a cow jumped over the moon". Didn't believe that either.

And excuse me, but the original title of this thread contained the word 'porn', if I'm not mistaken.

And I didn't call YOUR work trash -- all I said was trash isn't art. Which it isn't, in my opinion. I haven't seen your film and don't care to, based on your own description of it. Didn't much want to see the toilet either, but you gave me no choice in that matter.

Everything is up to the interpretation of the audience. Simply everything. In EVERY kind of creative expression. If a significant segment of the audience supports your vision, so be it. But ridiculing and chastising those who simply don't like it is not a good thing. No one will ever produce anything that is loved by every person on Earth.

If the film is as described, then it does offend me. And I'll gladly move on.
Click to expand...

Dude. You should watch it before you comment.
 
Okay, I've got a couple of questions.

First, how did you manage to change the subject line of your thread? I can't seem to do that with threads I start.

Second, people help me out here -- I remember the OP being MeAgain. I remember thinking it was curious that suddenly Matt Hoss was posting as if he were the OP. Now I see the OP listed as Matt Hoss, and the toilet pic post as being from MeAgain. Is my memory really that bad???
 
And FWIW, I haven't said one word about the film itself. All of my comments have related to the discussion of what is and isn't art, and whether or not the audience makes that decision for themselves.
 
Matt Hoss. said:
What qualifies you to declare what's art and what's not?

Get off your imaginary high horse, oh great ambassador to the arts.
Click to expand...


wow...for a 'film' that was.....meh...kinda funny...but waaaaaaay too long, you sound way too arrogant about it.

seriously dude, you need to get a grip on your reaction to the comments. You sound like a recent whiney grad from film school who thinks he knows it all and everyone else is wrong, or you're just plain arrogant about your work...and believe me, you can't justify that by any means - not with this piece anyway.

Either way......this short comes off as cheesy, lowbrow, and amature....but the chic had nice tits.
 
I'll say it again: My debate pertained to the "what is art" topic, not the film itself. I never defended or debated the merits of the film and I'm not complaining about people's criticism. On the contrary, I welcome it.

I'm thoroughly enjoying everyone's comments: "crap", "porn, "lewd", "lowbrow", "awkward", "shock", "amateurish", "best thing about it was that it's in focus"... I love it!
 
no personal insults. critique the film, not the filmmaker. it's a fine line, but when its crossed, it's obvious. i deleted the offending post. any more will result in a temporary vacation.
 
I like that you went for something with some edge because life at times is edgy. My criticism would be more technical. First, the scene is flooded with light and the set ups felt video-ish. It is presumably late at night, we don't need to see every crevice in the room. The mood needs to be set and the key felt too bright.

Also, since there is drinking going on, and these conversations that dare with language are more likely when booze infused, your actors should have played it a bit more inebriated. they seem far too awake and sober given the circumstances. The dance scene was a bit silly and didn't build the sexual tension. It was far too fast and a bit detached from the other actor. It also went on too long with out varying the shots.

The payoff wasn't there for me and I think it would have played better if they had played this more affected by the alcohol where emotional swings are established earlier and become more likely. The guys reaction shot to the payoff was a bit unnatural. Thanks for sharing and keep keeping true to your sensibility.
 
Last edited:
bosindy said:
First, the scene is flooded with light and the set ups felt video-ish. It is presumably late at night, we don't need to see every crevice in the room. The mood needs to be set and the key felt too bright.
Click to expand...
That was definitely my biggest issue with the piece overall - made it much harder to get into because it was so obviously lit. There was no reality to the look of the scene.

they seem far too awake and sober given the circumstances.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I had no idea they were supposed to be drunk at all until one of them said "How much did we drink at the club?" If a scene is well constructed and well acted there should be no reason to give us that exposition via dialogue, I should be able to tell they've been drinking heavily just by watching the scene.
 
David Jimerson said:
Sure it did. It was a) my very first "thought" after watching it, and it b) went straight to what he said was the "design" of the piece. Exactly what I meant by it was explained in full. Could I have unpacked it more in the first post to be more clear? Probably; mea culpa. But if you can make a purposely-offensive adult film, you can take criticism without it being wrapped in a bow. It wasn't personal, though his responses to it were.

And if he refuses to comment on his film, instead letting it "speak for itself," then everyone watching is free to decide what they think he was trying to do and comment thusly. I don't see how there can be a wrong or irrelevant interpretation of it. He leaves it entirely in the eye of the beholder. You can't say "my work speaks for itself" and then complain that people aren't hearing it right.
Click to expand...

Fair enough.
 
bosindy said:
I like that you went for something with some edge because life at times is edgy. My criticism would be more technical. First, the scene is flooded with light and the set ups felt video-ish. It is presumably late at night, we don't need to see every crevice in the room. The mood needs to be set and the key felt too bright.

Also, since there is drinking going on, and these conversations that dare with language are more likely when booze infused, your actors should have played it a bit more inebriated. they seem far too awake and sober given the circumstances. The dance scene was a bit silly and didn't build the sexual tension. It was far too fast and a bit detached from the other actor. It also went on too long with out varying the shots.

The payoff wasn't there for me and I think it would have played better if they had played this more affected by the alcohol where emotional swings are established earlier and become more likely. The guys reaction shot to the payoff was a bit unnatural. Thanks for sharing and keep keeping true to your sensibility.
Click to expand...

Some very valid points there. I made the mistake of not directing the actors to be more drunk. I was afraid they would overact so I told them to play it straight. I also made the mistake of overlighting because I wanted to show off more of the colorful set, but that clearly came at the expense of mood and atmosphere, as some other commenters have also pointed out. I'll try to avoid such mistakes in the future.
 
a good note to give actors when a scene calls for them to be under the influence is to ask them to slow things down and to play like they are drunk but trying to show their partner in the scene that they are not. the primary goal of concealing how drunk they are, rather than playing wino smashed caricature of a drunk, lets it be more subtle and that is what most people do in real life. I don't think your actors are bad in this, I just think they were doing actorish performance of your lines and you could get them in a more natural head space.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top