The Butcher and the Fox -- a film by AJ Brooks
- Thread starter AJ Brooks
- Start date
Ryan E. Walters
Well-known member
Nice job!
Finally time for some reviews (think everyone else has had a fair turn). Bt as usual pretty short and direct.
AJ, some really unforgettable moments. Nothing Im going to ding you on. Some beautiful images.
"I want my liver". Fantastic.
Top marks over here.
AJ, some really unforgettable moments. Nothing Im going to ding you on. Some beautiful images.
"I want my liver". Fantastic.
Top marks over here.
Matt Harris
Veteran
You did the brunt of the work, i just made it vertical, but it does look sweet!
lawriejaffa
Veteran
Lawrieeees Feedback!
Hi there AJ, i was delighted to see that you had produced an entry for the festival! Normally when i think of an AJ film, I expect to see something caught between very pretty Red/type slick as polish shine, with a story bordering a little on the abstract. Almost like a European-esque/Yankee hybrid which is a kind of rarity here in dvxfest! However I also recalled in past feedbacks, a difficulty sometimes in being able to access the story underneath - not unfortunately for lofty artistic reasons either, but sometimes for weak structural storytelling. (Not necessarily from the script I should add either, but sometimes the edit.)
So its interesting that this film should start with a story being very clearly told by Tom Sizemore to Charles Dicken's Oliver (poor kid!) Lush cinematography, pretty and sounding great etc. In fact the visuals are actually particularly effective and evocative of the kind of semi place between realism/fantasy your films like to occupy!
Now we get that the father is a 'bad guy' the kid is the innocent - but we are flung from this set up to an extended dream sexy/sequence. Whichi s great (for the first 20 secs...) but it lingers too long, its a bit like... having to sit in front of your friend - face to face, coaching your friend out of a bout of haggis supper. (Ie. it gest a little uncomfortable/semi comical) forever staring into the chaps glazed face. At that point the film is poking at you to either giggle... look to your friend beside and go (er) or... to cock your head and go.... yeah i get it.... really? its still happening - okay.
Meshes of the Afternoon gets away with repetition, but i think the length of the sequence weakens the strong start.
From this - we get pops waking up - now i should add its not clear that this lady in the dream was a babysitter? There is a bunch of expositional stuff some have criticised this particular film for lacking (which in fact i dont think is relevant - the exposition teat remark by Callaghan was particularly amusing BUT....)
Neither can you tussel your wig of hair to the side AJ and presume these philistines to be ignorant of your metaphorical genius (its my metaphorical genius their ignorant of - remember 'So Brightly in the Dark' http://exposureroom.com/members/lawriejaffa/f9de24b97f344c3481067ade5014c4c5/
The fact that the boy is in fact the fox and that the mum is the protector/psycho - whatever - isn't essential for us to understand (in a perfect expositional world) for the film to be entertaining (and with some artistic merit to boot.)
However i think the ever increasing sophistication of your work reveals ever more clearly the ceiling you need to lift beyond, and that is structural storytelling - ie. how to incorporate these artistic elements within a 'more' not a dumb as **** transparent, but more accessible presentation.
No particular film blew me away completely but a clutch of them were very noble, ambitious efforts that are (like most good short films) imperfect but well worth watching.
Hi there AJ, i was delighted to see that you had produced an entry for the festival! Normally when i think of an AJ film, I expect to see something caught between very pretty Red/type slick as polish shine, with a story bordering a little on the abstract. Almost like a European-esque/Yankee hybrid which is a kind of rarity here in dvxfest! However I also recalled in past feedbacks, a difficulty sometimes in being able to access the story underneath - not unfortunately for lofty artistic reasons either, but sometimes for weak structural storytelling. (Not necessarily from the script I should add either, but sometimes the edit.)
So its interesting that this film should start with a story being very clearly told by Tom Sizemore to Charles Dicken's Oliver (poor kid!) Lush cinematography, pretty and sounding great etc. In fact the visuals are actually particularly effective and evocative of the kind of semi place between realism/fantasy your films like to occupy!
Now we get that the father is a 'bad guy' the kid is the innocent - but we are flung from this set up to an extended dream sexy/sequence. Whichi s great (for the first 20 secs...) but it lingers too long, its a bit like... having to sit in front of your friend - face to face, coaching your friend out of a bout of haggis supper. (Ie. it gest a little uncomfortable/semi comical) forever staring into the chaps glazed face. At that point the film is poking at you to either giggle... look to your friend beside and go (er) or... to cock your head and go.... yeah i get it.... really? its still happening - okay.
Meshes of the Afternoon gets away with repetition, but i think the length of the sequence weakens the strong start.
From this - we get pops waking up - now i should add its not clear that this lady in the dream was a babysitter? There is a bunch of expositional stuff some have criticised this particular film for lacking (which in fact i dont think is relevant - the exposition teat remark by Callaghan was particularly amusing BUT....)
Neither can you tussel your wig of hair to the side AJ and presume these philistines to be ignorant of your metaphorical genius (its my metaphorical genius their ignorant of - remember 'So Brightly in the Dark' http://exposureroom.com/members/lawriejaffa/f9de24b97f344c3481067ade5014c4c5/
The fact that the boy is in fact the fox and that the mum is the protector/psycho - whatever - isn't essential for us to understand (in a perfect expositional world) for the film to be entertaining (and with some artistic merit to boot.)
However i think the ever increasing sophistication of your work reveals ever more clearly the ceiling you need to lift beyond, and that is structural storytelling - ie. how to incorporate these artistic elements within a 'more' not a dumb as **** transparent, but more accessible presentation.
No particular film blew me away completely but a clutch of them were very noble, ambitious efforts that are (like most good short films) imperfect but well worth watching.
Imaginate
Well-known member
I like this story a lot, for me the scariest stories are those domestic stories like these turned nightmare. I love how you connected the stories and the dreams with what was actually happening, that was brilliant, because I think that reflects how we interpret life happening around us. Our dreams are interpreting what is happening at the subconscious level. I think its such a challenge to write short films that resolve like this and contain irony and you nailed it. For those who didn't catch it first time, I think thats great... if 100% of the audience catches it all first time it might be too "on the nose". With the direction it was really transparent, all the performance from the actors totally drew me in. each one superb in their own right, cast to perfection. The choices you made with the butcher story was very minimalist was was exactly what was needed... let our imaginations work with what you showed us... showing less was better and of course kept budget on course too.
I loved sound design on the first story and fx his voice was excellent as was the whole sound design.
Improvements: Maybe one too many cut backs to the fathers face during the drug trip and I wasn't entirely sold on the glow effect on the baby sitter during the ACID trip, but that could be a compression thing too... I'd love to see a less compressed version of this... congrats to your team and Ryan Walters, the details that he puts into your shots is amazing. Very cool team you have there in Portland.
I loved sound design on the first story and fx his voice was excellent as was the whole sound design.
Improvements: Maybe one too many cut backs to the fathers face during the drug trip and I wasn't entirely sold on the glow effect on the baby sitter during the ACID trip, but that could be a compression thing too... I'd love to see a less compressed version of this... congrats to your team and Ryan Walters, the details that he puts into your shots is amazing. Very cool team you have there in Portland.
Rodney V. Smith
DVXFest Promo Guru
Small break in my schedule while I render this file, so wanted to drop in and say congrats on making the finals (as if there was a doubt) and for making an excellent film. Oh and nice poster, finally. I'll bug you about it earlier next time.
Although the story did leave me asking questions with a big "huh?" moment from me with the final scene and the mom killing the dad, all in all it was solidly told and was a gripping and truly scary story. Excellent shot selection, especially isolating the dad and the boy so they were in completely separate worlds... (the push in shot of the boy is ****ing brilliant, so brilliant I used it in the fest trailer), the direction was pretty damned good and I ****ing LOVE your actors. Everything combined to make a visually stunning film (love the lightiing) and a complete story that works on many levels. The only downside was the climax with the mom and the dad and the ecstasy pill, which was a little confusing for me.. but here's the thing: I watched with my wife and she absolutely loved it and more than anything: she GOT it. I sat there asking "what just happened" and she gives me the "you're an idiot" look and then had to point out areas of story that I had missed especially the fact that if that is how it ended and the mom had no real "reason" for killing the dad, then what's really scary here is the fact that the kid is left with a psycho parent, and he's just fine with it.
So yeah, my wife got it and I didn't. There's my confession. So in lieu of my usual exclamation of excellence, here's the alternate: MY WIFE ****ING LOVES THIS MOVIE!
Well done gentlemen. Now get me a poster early on next fest! Good luck in the finals.
Although the story did leave me asking questions with a big "huh?" moment from me with the final scene and the mom killing the dad, all in all it was solidly told and was a gripping and truly scary story. Excellent shot selection, especially isolating the dad and the boy so they were in completely separate worlds... (the push in shot of the boy is ****ing brilliant, so brilliant I used it in the fest trailer), the direction was pretty damned good and I ****ing LOVE your actors. Everything combined to make a visually stunning film (love the lightiing) and a complete story that works on many levels. The only downside was the climax with the mom and the dad and the ecstasy pill, which was a little confusing for me.. but here's the thing: I watched with my wife and she absolutely loved it and more than anything: she GOT it. I sat there asking "what just happened" and she gives me the "you're an idiot" look and then had to point out areas of story that I had missed especially the fact that if that is how it ended and the mom had no real "reason" for killing the dad, then what's really scary here is the fact that the kid is left with a psycho parent, and he's just fine with it.
So yeah, my wife got it and I didn't. There's my confession. So in lieu of my usual exclamation of excellence, here's the alternate: MY WIFE ****ING LOVES THIS MOVIE!
Well done gentlemen. Now get me a poster early on next fest! Good luck in the finals.
AJ Brooks
Well-known member
Thanks Imaginate and Rodney for the comments.
I think I've said this before, but it's never my intention to be confusing. It is NOT my intention or some artistic choice to be vague or "hide" story elements so viewers have to pay attention to every detail of every frame else they won't get it. I'd like everyone to get every layer that's in there.
However, it is a balance because I hate movies that are so painfully "on the nose" that you can't help but *face palm*.
I find myself erring on the side of "less is more" when striking that balance. Personally, I'd rather get to the end of a [shortfilm] with a feeling of "that was cool, but I feel like I missed something important, I gotta watch it again!" rather than "I got it all, figured it all out, and if I didn't understand something, I DON'T CARE!" lol
Darkline
Veteran
That's precisely why I rated yours the highest AJ. To tell a story with images rather than heavy handed dialogue is a much greater discipline and requires more talent.
To use the dialogue as a metaphor when told as a kids story (no matter how obvious it may be) is what screenwriting is about. The old Robert Mckee saying 'if the scene is about what the scene is about, you're in deep poo poo' is fitting for this short as the real meaning of the scene is buried underneath the characters dialogue.
I think a lot of film-makers get too bogged down with hitting their audience with a breezeblock of clarity through excessive dialogue in static scenes. It can be thrown up like vomit right a the start of the short in an effort to 'get it out of the way so we can get on with the story'. It's true all films need a set-up, but how you handle that shows your mastery over the medium. Your set-up had none of that awkwardness and you held back the information and used it as a source of antagonism later in the short.
If you don't win I'm packing my bags
To use the dialogue as a metaphor when told as a kids story (no matter how obvious it may be) is what screenwriting is about. The old Robert Mckee saying 'if the scene is about what the scene is about, you're in deep poo poo' is fitting for this short as the real meaning of the scene is buried underneath the characters dialogue.
I think a lot of film-makers get too bogged down with hitting their audience with a breezeblock of clarity through excessive dialogue in static scenes. It can be thrown up like vomit right a the start of the short in an effort to 'get it out of the way so we can get on with the story'. It's true all films need a set-up, but how you handle that shows your mastery over the medium. Your set-up had none of that awkwardness and you held back the information and used it as a source of antagonism later in the short.
If you don't win I'm packing my bags
Rodney V. Smith
DVXFest Promo Guru
I think sometimes we just have to take ourselves out of the analytical and just enjoy. My wife wasn;t analyzing anything, and I was so she got to hit me with the "you're an idiot" stick.
lawriejaffa
Veteran
Yep and i think you still need to get a better balance there than in this film (but its still mostly there), and i too share your desire for making films that don't bluntly throw everything to their audience.
AJ Brooks
Well-known member
If you don't win I'm packing my bags
lol. Greece would be nice.
Yeah, I agree. The balance is not all there. I have a few small remedies that could work without having to add in the babysitter's scene.
In improv classes we had an exercise where we would make up a scene having to do a specific action (like washing dishes, folding clothes) while having dialog that had nothing to do with the action. The idea being that you come up with different dialog than the action you are doing to train your mind that just because you are washing dishes doesn't mean your conversation has to be about "washing dishes," in fact it makes an exciting scene if it is about how you think the neighbor kids keep stealing the paper.
I think improv is a great exercise for writing, because it really is writing with the addition of having to immediately act your writing.
lawriejaffa
Veteran
Btw AJ bro have you got a feature on the plan at all? Looking at the resume of shorts you have developed, can't be far off one now!
It took me a bit to understand what you were saying, but after I deciphered it I agree with you.
This statement is a great summation of a lot of the feedback on how confusing it was for a grip of us. Of course, like you said (phrased differently) brushing it off is all well and good, I suppose.
Shawn Philip Nelson
Veteran
That's precisely why I rated yours the highest AJ. To tell a story with images rather than heavy handed dialogue is a much greater discipline and requires more talent.
To use the dialogue as a metaphor when told as a kids story (no matter how obvious it may be) is what screenwriting is about. The old Robert Mckee saying 'if the scene is about what the scene is about, you're in deep poo poo' is fitting for this short as the real meaning of the scene is buried underneath the characters dialogue.
I think a lot of film-makers get too bogged down with hitting their audience with a breezeblock of clarity through excessive dialogue in static scenes. It can be thrown up like vomit right a the start of the short in an effort to 'get it out of the way so we can get on with the story'. It's true all films need a set-up, but how you handle that shows your mastery over the medium. Your set-up had none of that awkwardness and you held back the information and used it as a source of antagonism later in the short.
If you don't win I'm packing my bags
I used to think that way, then I learned to love my audience
Lol, okay, sorry, thats a bit cheeky (btw, loved your short Negative Image). No diss against you or AJ. I do agree that we dont need On the Nose Dialogue, nor do we need radio'sque volumes of verbage, but at some point if enough of your audience doesnt 'get it', at least at some level, you're not really communicating as a filmmaker. I struggle with this like crazy. My current short 'Grid Down' has some confusion due to the brevity, and my earlier shorts like 'Aetas' and 'Ossian' confused the hell out of most reviewers it seems. It's a tough balance to find, lets not lean one way or the other, if we want to have an audience that is.
Why I learned to Stop Worrying And Love My Audience :-D