String Theory - ***NSFW***

[David W. Richardson]

People don't much like being called 'narrow minded' or 'arrogant' just because they dislike porn.

 

[David Jimerson]

If someone makes a pompous declaration that "your work isn't art"

I never said that. I said that "shock" isn't "the same" as "art."

You said you were intentionally being vulgar, and that you were trying to make people uncomfortable.

If what you're trying to do is simply to offend people with vulgarity, then no, I wouldn't see much artistic merit in that. It would just be crass and offensive. Fine, I suppose, if you like that sort of thing, but you have to know that many won't.

But if you're trying to do something more than that, if you're trying to convey an idea, an insight, then you need to do more with it, as Zak is suggesting above. Simple lewdness doesn't get the job done.

So, what were you trying to do?

 

[David Jimerson]

People don't much like being called 'narrow minded' or 'arrogant' just because they dislike porn.

It's not porn. If it were, it would have been deleted, as it would be against the posting rules.

 

[Matt Hoss.]

People don't much like being called 'narrow minded' or 'arrogant' just because they dislike porn.

I understand. But that's exactly what they're going to get when they call another person's work "trash" just because they don't agree with it.

If the film offends you, just move on. It's not for you.

 

[MeAgain]

I usually try to stay out of actual discussions around here, but David, I'm sort of curious about your thoughts on difficult artists like Cassavetes or Godard. How fine is the line between presenting difficult experiences and simply tormenting the audience just to mess with them? Is it up to the artist's intent, or is it only how people receive it?

I remember that saying I heard once "Trust the tale, not the teller".

 

[David Jimerson]

I understand. But that's exactly what they're going to get when they call another person's work "trash" just because they don't agree with it.

If the film offends you, just move on. It's not for you.

Matt, surely you can appreciate that some may not particularly see a need to walk on eggshells with someone who produced a short filled with so much . . . adult content . . . and said that the vulgarity was the point?

If you're trying to provoke a response, you're going to get a response. Particularly if you explicitly ask for one. And the more in-your-face you are about it, the more in-your-face the response is going to be. It doesn't seem like you're really in a position to be overly sensitive here. If you're going to make an adult film, you should probably take the criticism like an adult. That's the path you choose when you choose to be a provocateur.

 

[David W. Richardson]

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.

 

[David Jimerson]

I usually try to stay out of actual discussions around here, but David, I'm sort of curious about your thoughts on difficult artists like Cassavetes or Godard. How fine is the line between presenting difficult experiences and simply tormenting the audience just to mess with them? Is it up to the artist's intent, or is it only how people receive it?

I remember that saying I heard once "Trust the tale, not the teller".

I take it on a case-by-case basis.

 

[Matt Hoss.]

Matt, surely you can appreciate that some may not particularly see a need to walk on eggshells with someone who produced a short filled with so much . . . adult content . . . and said that the vulgarity was the point?

If you're trying to provoke a response, you're going to get a response. Particularly if you explicitly ask for one. And the more in-your-face you are about it, the more in-your-face the response is going to be. It doesn't seem like you're really in a position to be overly sensitive here. If you're going to make an adult film, you should probably take the criticism like an adult. That's the path you choose when you choose to be a provocateur.

David, you've got me all wrong. If you go back and read the whole thread, you'll see I made sure to never defend the content or technique of my film. I'm not sensitive and I'm not hurt, believe me. I merely pointed out that art is subjective and anyone who tries impose their own definition is making themselves look like a fool.

I don't like to explain my work because the film should speak for itself. Everything the viewer needs to know is in the film. It's not for everyone and I don't expect most people to like it. I'm not that naive.

 

[BVX]

Pretty weighty discussion all things considered.

I thought the film looked pretty good, though maybe overlit a bit for the situation. I don't find it trashy, arty, shocking, sexy, provocative or funny. Vulger? Porn? It's far, far tamer than even what's on Cinemax at 10 PM.

I just think the ending is rather dumb & juvenile in a Beavis & Butthead kind of way.

You want a twist with awkward humor? Have the guy's parents come home a day early to THEIR condo. Or the guy's cougar mom walks in groping the girl's husband.

You want awkward & provocative? Have the dancer turn out to be a transexual.

 

[Matt Hoss.]

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

The original title had "Rated X" in it, not "porn". My film isn't porn.

I haven't seen your film and don't care to, based on your own description of it.

So all this time you've been judging, debating, and dismissing a film you haven't even seen? Incredible. You have a lot of time on your hands.

Didn't much want to see the toilet either, but you gave me no choice in that matter.

I didn't post the pic of the toilet. Somebody else did.

But ridiculing and chastising those who simply don't like it is not a good thing.

I never ridiculed or chastised people for not liking the film, I ridiculed and chastised the arrogance of those who try to impose their own narrow definition of what is "art" and what is "trash". I never defended or debated the film itself. Go back and read the thread more carefully.

 

[Kellar42]

Interesting thread.

I feel like Matt Hoss has been unfairly thrown on the defensive here.

In my opinion, all of David Jimerson's posts have intelligently and thoughtfully stated his position, except the first.

The one line missive 'shock isn't the same as art' might have missed the target slightly and drawn a response from the OP that might have otherwise been avoided. Yes he asked for feedback, but he didn't set himself up as an artist or particularly pompous...'shock isn't the same as Art' feels like the proper response to cut someone down to size who has gone in asking for it...I do not feel that Matt Hoss really deserved that blow.

But perhaps it's not my place to say.

At any rate, the short was interesting...while the style feels more over the top than real life, it resonates a bit as I know how different one night stands can be from the fantasy one had in mind at the start of the evening.

It's also interesting that it did manage to be shocking...while I'll agree it's no passkey to 'art' status, I find it intriguing that I can be made to squirm in my seat with no graphic violence or sex...especially in an area where so many movies intending to shock with those things fail to cause me to blink.

I frankly wonder abouit 'art' and short-films anyhow...my only mentor in matters of film and video and Hollywood was nominated for an Academy Award for a short film, and I'd be hard pressed to call it 'Art' either...so I wonder how 'art' applies. Then again, something that causes us to think for a few minutes...more so perhaps than a photo or painting in an 'art' gallery may deserve the same title.

But again, it doesn't strike me that Matt Hoss wanted to even get into that. He wanted us to laugh, or squirm, or think, and he warned us it was explicit, and he certainly provoked some reactions, but did he set himself up for or need Mr. Jimerson's warning that to shock is not to create Art?

 

[CB_Radio]

poorly acted. poorly written. generally sophomoric. It's clear to me that Matt Hoss only wanted to hear positive reactions but he asked for opinions and he got them. The best thing I can say about this is that it's in focus.

You don't want to be criticized then don't post a link to your film and ask for opinions. Particularly when your film is crap.

 

[agcohn]

It doesn't really matter how much you say it is not pornography. It is pornography. It just stops before it gets to the good stuff.

And the punchline is not especially "shocking." It's actually kind of confusing. If I didn't know the title of the piece, I wouldn't have got it at all.

 

[Crimson King]

You laughed and felt awkward. I assure you that's by design. The film is intended to be be vulgar, not sexy.

Glad you enjoyed it!

You did very good job if your intention was this film to be awkward, vulgar, not sexy. The joke wasn't funny though.

 

[Matt Hoss.]

poorly acted. poorly written. generally sophomoric. It's clear to me that Matt Hoss only wanted to hear positive reactions but he asked for opinions and he got them. The best thing I can say about this is that it's in focus.

You don't want to be criticized then don't post a link to your film and ask for opinions. Particularly when your film is crap.

I welcome everyone's criticism of the film, including yours. That's why I posted the film.

Your accusation that I'm only looking for positive reactions is false -- I never defended or debated the merits of the film. I think I've made that quite clear by now.

If you had read the whole thread you would see that I was debating something else.

 

[Kellar42]

It doesn't really matter how much you say it is not pornography. It is pornography. It just stops before it gets to the good stuff.

And the punchline is not especially "shocking." It's actually kind of confusing. If I didn't know the title of the piece, I wouldn't have got it at all.

"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.

 

[CB_Radio]

If you had read the whole thread you would see that I was debating something else.

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

If the film offends you, just move on. It's not for you.

Everyone is free to share their thoughts, but so am I

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.

 

[Crimson King]

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.

I completely agree with your post.

 

[Cranky]

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.