The Butcher and the Fox -- a film by AJ Brooks

Michael Anthony Horrigan said:
But when this many people don't get it, maybe it needs some fine tuning. It sounds like there was a longer cut and that AJ had to chop it up to make it fit.
That makes sense. I mean really, she's going off to a Halloween party? Ok. If you say so.
Click to expand...

My point exactly.
Callaghan, when are you going to jump into one of these festivals and show us all how it's done?
Time for this dog to show some bite. :evil:
Click to expand...
That sounds like an appropriate challenge. :D
 
Kholi said:
I also got that Mama Fox needs to be locked up in a psych ward for killing someone because they cheated and did drugs.
Click to expand...

Absolutely! I'm not saying what the mom did was "right," the film just showed her doing it. AND it ended on the face of the little boy because he is STILL a victim, now with his sole guardian being a crazy psycho killing mom!

But it sounds like the film didn't work for ya Kholi. And that's cool. Suum cuique pulchrum est!
 
AJ Brooks said:
Absolutely! I'm not saying what the mom did was "right," the film just showed her doing it. AND it ended on the face of the little boy because he is STILL a victim, now with his sole guardian being a crazy psycho killing mom!

But it sounds like the film didn't work for ya Kholi. And that's cool. Suum cuique pulchrum est!
Click to expand...

That's my disconnect, though (not anyone elses, my fault): your mise en scene is saying that what the mom did is right. The way you present the cut and the point of view in the first third is from the boys, the second from the father's, the third from the mothers.

So when it's from the mother's POV and not the Son's, I get that exactly-- she had a reason to off this guy, because he did drugs.

That probably doesn't make sense, though and I guess it can be settled just by saying "it didn't work for me."

For the record, anyone who takes time to really look at what you're doing with your work is genuinely interested and at least somewhat invested because they care. Not trying to tear you apart, but it raised a lot of questions for me.
 
WOW....and all this time I THOUGHT I understood the film..... :undecided

That was a Halloween costume? I thought he was regularly hittin' the babysitter and she was just dressing-up (or down) for him....hummmm.
 
Kholi said:
For the record, anyone who takes time to really look at what you're doing with your work is genuinely interested and at least somewhat invested because they care. Not trying to tear you apart, but it raised a lot of questions for me.
Click to expand...
Yup. Still getting a high score from me.


Again, I love the DP work on this and the acting was stellar!
 
Kholi said:
For the record, anyone who takes time to really look at what you're doing with your work is genuinely interested and at least somewhat invested because they care. Not trying to tear you apart, but it raised a lot of questions for me.
Click to expand...

Absolutely! And I appreciate the feedback and didn't take it as negative for negative's sake. I enjoy that people have the drive to ask the questions about things that are unclear and not just say "Oh I didn't get and it" and then completely forget about the film.
 
ZazaCast said:
WOW....and all this time I THOUGHT I understood the film..... :undecided

That was a Halloween costume? I thought he was regularly hittin' the babysitter and she was just dressing-up (or down) for him....hummmm.
Click to expand...

It's not clear in this cut that it is a costume. Her scene, where it more or less explains that she is going to a party in a costume, was cut for time.

However, nothing wrong with that being regular babysitter attire! :)
 
Michael Anthony Horrigan said:
I got most of it. :)

But when this many people don't get it, maybe it needs some fine tuning...
Click to expand...
Yeah, but I'd be willing to bet that so many did get it that it takes first.
Michael Anthony Horrigan said:
...Callaghan, when are you going to jump into one of these festivals and show us all how it's done?
Time for this dog to show some bite. :evil:
Click to expand...
I've written three or so (for fests) that ended up being shelved for later.

As far as future fests, if the Cap'n was right, I'd consider buildin' him a ship.
 
Matt Harris said:
I get it now, i really do. I watched it a bunch of times and i kept missing that the babysitter put x on his tongue.

That explains a lot!
Click to expand...

This answer is not for Matt, but it's more about his reaction. Well...Matt can read it too of course :p

"I watched it a bunch of times"... I don't know in the US, but in Belgium we only go see a movie/film one time (with the same ticket)... We don't go watching it 30 times (= 300 $ tickets) because we didn't "get" something.

In my opinion if a viewer didn't see something, it's not because the viewer is stupid, or blind or (well if the viewer is blind of course....). But it's because it's not represented well.

When I read the "xtc thing" I thought:" uuh ?? " Maybe some more action like "taking a pill out of a box/jar/pot, putting it on a table, opening it... And then make the "trip scene" shorter.
 
Kholi said:
Honestly man... if we feel like we need exposition it's because there's something not present in the coverage or the writing.

You know what exposition I did get from his behaviors? That the Mama Fox is dumb-as hell for leaving her kid alone with someone she knew was a bad seed, because obviously this wasn't the first time.

I also got that Mama Fox needs to be locked up in a psych ward for killing someone because they cheated and did drugs.
Click to expand...
One final thematic item for your perusal:

The "safe" story ("...Mom always tells me the one about the fox") is the "most vicious". Now that's beautiful irony.

This story works on so many levels for me...
 
I did not get it either when I watched it. I couldn't understand the psychedelic fantasy part, things just got lost in the translation. If you have to explain your film, then the film itself did not convey the story cohesively, is all I am saying. This short you have to watch more than once to fully understand, which it shouldn't be.

The shots of the kid and the father reminded me of the "interview" style. I dunno. It was just okay, not the worst of the lot but one of the most confusing.
 
It's okay AJ. I've written shorts that had to be explained which means I didn't do my job. That was my bad. No problem. I can take the bites. It's all good.
 
Michael Anthony Horrigan said:
Yup. Still getting a high score from me.


Again, I love the DP work on this and the acting was stellar!
Click to expand...

Ryan E. Walters and Jerry Turner deserve a shout out. We had a variety of in camera gags and they made it all work and look awesome!

They also DP'd and AC'd for Shawn's "Grid Down" the night before, having a very late night and short turn around before my short the next morning.

True pros!

Tony had a late night too, but it's against his contract to publicly commend him or show him in a positive light. :)

They rock
 
The opening scene was insane picked one up and pulled one in right away. The father was lit unique compared to the kid, wow story took yeah. It felt like something you would see on the big screen. Cant give honest opinion on understanding story because read the spoilers after the two min mark while waiting for film to load. So all this after talk helped. Think way outside the box and believe one would have figured out the story if a bit of time would pass. Its like useing gps for years then switching to a paper directions.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top