OTHER: Trailer for our love story narrative

Michael Williams said:
To call this short/trailer, whatever it is, pretentious is a total failure to understand what they're trying to portray - in my honest opinion, and I mean no offense by saying this. I felt very moved within from watching this, as if you tried to take on a philosophical examination of what love is, why it occurs, and what it means to everyone else who doesn't experience it, almost like - does the world change from someone else's' experiences? I really enjoyed it, through the elements and cinematography story telling through colors and lighting and grades were spot on. This is the sort of indie film I watch thinking "oh great another love story" and I finish the film questioning the bounds of genre. I'm 'geeking' this thread out, so I'll stop now!
Click to expand...


I'm glad you liked it, but to say that those of us who didn't simply don't understand what the trailer was trying to say, is absurd. I understood perfectly well what it was trying to say, and it stuck me as pretentious. The trailer is nothing but people moaning about how much they're in love and how they want to be happy. I don't care if a character WANTS to be happy. What makes people relate to characters is what they DO to be happy, and these characters don't seem to DO anything. Even in a film as unorthodox as The Tree of Life, the characters (with the exception of Sean Penn's character) actually do things, there is physical action, etc. This strikes me as a film made by someone that learned about love from poetry, and not from actually experiencing it.
 
jghenderson said:
Even in a film as unorthodox as The Tree of Life, the characters (with the exception of Sean Penn's character) actually do things, there is physical action, etc.
Click to expand...

Tree of Life had a better trailer for this sort of thing (and far shorter)


And even with that talent, most people still referred to it as a glorified cinematography reel.
 
Um, not too successful for me, I'm afraid.

My blunt 2c:

1. Some individual shots look superb (not just the camerawork but the whole deal).

2.a) the overall look, plus the music plus the dialogue that seems to lack a sense of humor or irony kinda makes it sound like a commercial. I expect that after she says "I'm not interested in money, I just want to be wonderful," she's going to hold up a smartphone that allows her to buy groceries without a wallet or something.

2.b) Maybe the movie is selling an idea. I don't know?

3. NO NO NO to the red tailed hawk echo at 2:14. You can't pretend to be a fresh and original film while using a super-cliche sound.

4. The trailer is long and boring and some of the shots in it have low production value. Like the shot of the hands catching water in front of a black background. As the audience, I get the feeling that if these are in the trailer, the filmmakers are especially proud of them and that there are going to be a lot of really boring parts in the movie when we hear narration and just see water splashing on someone's hand for 10 minutes. Do not want.

5. I know pretty much nothing about what the characters do from the trailer. There appears to be no drama, just some vague rambling about life.

6. Less is more. The fact that whoever made this trailer thought that their movie was SO IMPORTANT that it needed to be 2min51sec makes me want to avoid watching it because I'm sure that the some arrogance will exist in the edit of the finished film.

There you go. Sorry.

Thing is: the movie looks really good. If you make a nice snappy trailer with great music, you could kick some ass with it - seriously.

Good luck!

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
 
For all the "ney" sayers... Why do you think I have the characters asking "Where are we going? And why?" Then the other one answer "For no reason, just to follow the sun"...? Other then to say that don't expect traditional story or typical arch - there is no goals here (the characters say so in the first 25 seconds!) Or that i have "The Film" flashing on colored background... Why do you think that is? Clearly not just an editing mistake.

My point is that i'm clearly (or so i hoped) establishing the canon of the trailer and thus the ground rules for which it should be judged against: no, it's not a traditional film, so judging this in context of what the story is is missing a point - don't you think?
 
Patryk_Rebisz said:
My point is that i'm clearly (or so i hoped) establishing the canon of the trailer and thus the ground rules for which it should be judged against: no, it's not a traditional film, so judging this in context of what the story is is missing a point - don't you think?
Click to expand...

I think you have a misconception about what setting the rules for your film means. I applaud your attempt to step out of the norm, but I think by making what looks to be an empty film devoid of story, you're not going to have much interest.
 
Patryk_Rebisz said:
For all the "ney" sayers... Why do you think I have the characters asking "Where are we going? And why?" Then the other one answer "For no reason, just to follow the sun"...? Other then to say that don't expect traditional story or typical arch - there is no goals here (the characters say so in the first 25 seconds!) Or that i have "The Film" flashing on colored background... Why do you think that is? Clearly not just an editing mistake.

My point is that i'm clearly (or so i hoped) establishing the canon of the trailer and thus the ground rules for which it should be judged against: no, it's not a traditional film, so judging this in context of what the story is is missing a point - don't you think?
Click to expand...

You should push boundaries, but I believe you should still have them. Someone who defies rules just to defy rules is what I interpret as pretentious, and this trailer just seems like the whole film will ignore the architecture of a dramatic narrative. I know you don't want to make a formulaic film - totally get it - but it still has to work. I'm not saying it doesn't - this is just a trailer, after all, so the film may strike me differently - but realize your audience may be very limited because you are departing from the norm to such a degree that there is little for the audience to root themselves in. Audiences want to lose themselves in a story and be entertained, I believe, and if they can't find a footing, it's hard to care about the rest of the film; and you appear to have what is a very character-driven drama, so it's very important to have interesting character, conflict, etc.

Not saying someone won't like what you have made - just know your audience may not be as wide, even if you tell them you're right or argue your point about nonconformity.

Just my 2c. Best of luck in all you do - I agree there are some nice visuals. It could be shorter, for sure. After about a minute, I feel like the rest is piling on.
 
Patryk_Rebisz said:
My point is that i'm clearly (or so i hoped) establishing the canon of the trailer and thus the ground rules for which it should be judged against: no, it's not a traditional film, so judging this in context of what the story is is missing a point - don't you think?
Click to expand...


That's all fine and dandy, but unfortunately artists don't get to set the ground rules for which their work is judged. All we can do is create, and everyone else gets to judge it. Think of it like this. A man gets a microphone and makes random noises. No rhythm, no care for tone, just random whatever comes to his mind noises in a nonsensical order. He then claims his work is "music", but tells everyone else that they can't judge his music by the standards of other music, because his music is clearly different. Pretty crazy right?
 
Patryk_Rebisz said:
For all the "ney" sayers... Why do you think I have the characters asking "Where are we going? And why?" Then the other one answer "For no reason, just to follow the sun"...? Other then to say that don't expect traditional story or typical arch - there is no goals here (the characters say so in the first 25 seconds!)
Click to expand...

OK, it's clear that I'm not the target audience then.

I kinda agree with Greenaway's famous statement that cinema is too important to be left to the storytellers... but if you're going to take out story and goals, you're going have a pretty big void in your film and that void needs to be filled with awesome. Your trailer did not communicate that the void was satisfyingly filled - to me, for my personal taste.

It's super-subjective, of course. When I say filled with awesome, I don't mean it needs to be packed with stuff, but filled with something original and meaningful and powerful... if even very simple. Heck, I have been known to stand and stare at metal cubes in art galleries for ages... so even super super simple is fine with me. But somehow I got a kinda arrogant vibe from your trailer and I think that, combined with my perception of a lack of anything new being said, is what turned be off. I guess it's just a personal taste thing.

Anyway, all the best and don't take any of this criticism the wrong way! We're just giving honest reactions.

Cheers and happy weekend!

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
 
Gary Huff said:
I think by making what looks to be an empty film devoid of story, you're not going to have much interest.
Click to expand...
Except you can't use relatively limited definition of what the content is. Story is not only: lets get from A to Z with some opposing forces (conflict) preventing us. It can also be "There are two ways through life, the way of nature and the way of grace" (from my Tree of Life trailer link) and then simply watching how the filmmaker develops this idea or - even better - how he chose not develop it as this would be the "easy" thing to do.
 
Jordan Scott Price said:
but realize your audience may be very limited because you are departing from the norm to such a degree that there is little for the audience to root themselves in. Audiences want to lose themselves in a story and be entertained, I believe, and if they can't find a footing, it's hard to care about the rest of the film
Click to expand...

This forum has countless of treads where filmmakers try to second-guess what the "audiences" want and yet so few films of much merit get produced... Because ultimately nobody knows. I 'm not naive to think that i'm making the next blockbuster but at the same time trying to stay true to what i personally enjoy i believe i'll find a limited audience of people who are bored with traditional devices. As long as we define "entertainment" using traditional terms - a roller-coaster ride then we'll keep on harping on the lack of entrainment value here. I believe, though that the personal definition is what entertainment is is actually much broader (at least for a small part of the viewers).
 
jghenderson said:
That's all fine and dandy, but unfortunately artists don't get to set the ground rules for which their work is judged. All we can do is create, and everyone else gets to judge it. Think of it like this. A man gets a microphone and makes random noises. No rhythm, no care for tone, just random whatever comes to his mind noises in a nonsensical order. He then claims his work is "music", but tells everyone else that they can't judge his music by the standards of other music, because his music is clearly different. Pretty crazy right?
Click to expand...

That's incorrect. Filmmakers do it ALL THE TIME. You turn on TV and see a sit-com and the lighting is all flat and yet when you turn HBO drama it has many different shades of darks - clearly you didn't think it was because the drama didn't have enough lights to illuminate their sets?
 
Patryk_Rebisz said:
That's incorrect. Filmmakers do it ALL THE TIME. You turn on TV and see a sit-com and the lighting is all flat and yet when you turn HBO drama it has many different shades of darks - clearly you didn't think it was because the drama didn't have enough lights to illuminate their sets?
Click to expand...


You're comparing Rock to Electronic music. I'm comparing Classical music to random noises. The man who makes random noises does not get to tell the audience that we have no right to judge his noises in comparison to other music.
 
jghenderson said:
You're comparing Rock to Electronic music. I'm comparing Classical music to random noises. The man who makes random noises does not get to tell the audience that we have no right to judge his noises in comparison to other music.
Click to expand...

You mean like, for instance, John Cage's "4'33""?
 
Patryk_Rebisz said:
Except you can't use relatively limited definition of what the content is. Story is not only: lets get from A to Z with some opposing forces (conflict) preventing us. It can also be "There are two ways through life, the way of nature and the way of grace" (from my Tree of Life trailer link) and then simply watching how the filmmaker develops this idea or - even better - how he chose not develop it as this would be the "easy" thing to do.
Click to expand...

You still have "conflict" in your second example.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top