If you've ever been in a hurry then this is the film for you.

http://zed.cbc.ca/go?POS=8&CONTENT_ID=253606&c=contentPage&FILTER_KEY=154227

If you decide to watch the film it is best to do so before reading the comments below as they discuss the twist of the film.

I'd love to hear what you think.

Best Regards,

Geoff

The first couple shots are great. I think the first shot of the guy getting into the car is way too long. It should feel more frantic and the static shot doesnt help that feeling. Inside the car I would like to see a few more close-ups... the guys face, the shift knob, etc. also, the color inside the car is a little drab. The two people waiting scene always looks very good.

As far as the story, I wasnt real sure what the point was. Just that he was in a hurry and rear-ended someone? If you are going for funny there needs to be a lot more gags.

I would say a pretty good job that with some tweaks can get better....



ash =o)

As previously stated, "The two people waiting scene always looks very good," otherwise, why is it even done?

Mike

Thanks guys I appreciate the comments.

The colour was tweaked to add more red for the people waiting and more green-blue for the car scenes. The idea to make the scenes of the people waiting more warm and the car more cold.

I've had a number of complaints about the lack of franticness of the car scenes and will try to do something there. The earlier scenes might be cut somewhat. The closesup of the guy in the car with the sky in the background was complained about elsewhere as there was no perspective (the sky doesn't move so you don't have the idea he is racing down the road). I'll have to consider if it is worth redoing some of these shots.

As for the question why. Hmmm not a good sign when people don't understand the film. I'm not so depressed though as on another forum someone said they liked the idea behind the story and people I've shown it to here seemed to like it.

The premise behind the story is fairly simple. Essentially it is meant as a comedy about road rage. The gag comes in the twist at the end which from everyone I've shown it to here didn't see coming.

Let me just add to be more substantial: the film is based on a true story and I felt this story was a good metaphor for life. We all develop goals which are very ambitious and difficult to achieve. We encounter problems and often in the solution of a problem are so pleased with ourselves that we don't see the next problem until it is too late. Death will eventually prevent us from achieving our ultimate goal.

First of all, European audiences are different from American audiences. That's neither good nor bad, just different. The two see things differently. That being said...

If you have to explain to your audience what your film was trying to say, then it didn't work, for any number of reasons. Based on your explanation, it seems rather grandiose, compared to your film. Personally, I feel you've put far too great a burden on your film, at least for American audiences, and this one member in particular.

As was said, if it was a comedy, there were not nearly enough "gags" that would indicate such. We should have seen no less that three situations that were 1) funny, and 2) indicated outrageous road rage. It needs to be built up to. In most good comedy, things come in threes!

The ending was not a "gag" per se, but simply an event, nor was it a "twist" in the true sense of the word. The reason it was neither was because there was no build-up to the ending. We were not led to anticipate one thing, then have another happen (a twist)--it just happened.

"We encounter problems and often in the solution of a problem are so pleased with ourselves that we don't see the next problem until it is too late. Death will eventually prevent us from achieving our ultimate goal." I didn't see this in the film.

I think better planning (scripting), better acting, better shots, and better editing would have brought this out more fully. As it stands now, it falls short of your ultimate goal. Yes, it's a good and worthy idea, it just hasn't been fully realized yet.

Jay

First of all, European audiences are different from American audiences. That's neither good nor bad, just different. The two see things differently. That being said...


Perhaps they are also different from Canadian audiences. Being that I'm Canadian, eh! ;-)

But thanks for the comments nonetheless.

Best Regards,

Geoff

Your name thingy says your location is Switzerland. What else was I to think?

Jay

I live in Switzerland and work in an international business with colleagues from all over the world including a few Americans. In my experience the differences you refer to are not so large.

It was a chap from Toronto in the other forum that said he liked the story of the film. So I figure there is more variation of opinion on one continent than there is between continents.

Regarding the film: Admittedly if you know the film will end abruptly in an accident before watching it then you are right there is no twist. Of course I'm not sure why if you started watching it that that would be what you would expect. It would be more interesting for me to hear from you why you expected the film to be cut short by an accident and were not suprised by it.

Like I said I've shown it to a number of people here and they all responded with laughter when the accident occured - which was exactly what I was after. And when I asked them they all said they hadn't expected the accident. I don't argue with you as three responses on this thread said the same. I just wonder if the first response gave away the ending spoiling the film for the other two or if there really is something about the film which makes the story obvious from the outset?

I appreciate constructive critisism as this is only my fourth film and I am learning the hard way by doing.

Best Regards,

Geoff

I'm Canadian, and I didn't even realize that the film was supposed to be funny until I read the comments. I also had no idea what the point was...

... As for Switzerland! I've always wanted to go! How is it there? The closest I've been is just through pictures man...

Glen Chua
www.moonlitefilms.com

I think the problem is that the "twist" is not a twist... a speeding guy gets in a wreck? That is almost expected. We are not sure why he is speeding, apparently to pick up the waiting couple but there is no motivation for the urgency. In order for the wreck to be a twist, there would have to be a sense of irony or something.



ash =o)

this video definitely has a theme if you couldnt tell... patience makes perfect or something to that effect. i know here in dallas, everyone drives like a bat out of hell, and that person that rushes always ends up in a wreck because they dont pay attention. maybe im the only one that sees this... oh well.

i agree, the shots could have been more fast paced to enhance the theme of the story even more... possibly add in more stuff that would distract the guy like a cup of coffee, cell phone, and all that other stuff to where he almost hits a bunch of cars... just some ideas.

Thanks again for the comments guys.

The twist is that the film ends abruptly without closure of the situation with the couple. You're meant to expect something to happen between the guy speeding and the couple and nothing ever does because the accident prevents it.

I'm thinking of modifying the ending a little (after the accident that is) to make it more of a rabbit versus tortoise story. Then at least there will be an obvious twist (i.e. the guy speeding wasn't going to pick up the couple it was the slow driver) and it will be a recognisable story.

Hmmmm. It is only my fourth film. And I like it. You guys are a tough audience.

PS Glen I didn't mean to imply that all Canadians like the film beacuse one other Canadian did. I was just angry about the cultural slurs about Europeans.

Thanks again for the comments guys.


I'm thinking of modifying the ending a little (after the accident that is) to make it more of a rabbit versus tortoise story. Then at least there will be an obvious twist (i.e. the guy speeding wasn't going to pick up the couple it was the slow driver) and it will be a recognisable story.



I'm going to agree with the above comments made by others. Good job on actually finishing a film, however. I might think about having the red car he past driving by the two people waiting at the very end if you wanted to show some irony, or something.

I will say that I new he was going to crash. The shot of the car fading in the rear view mirror was too long and gave it away I think.

i am from Turkey. even though i grew up watching american movies and tv shows, i feel that i am inclined to british humour. i can also say that I have experienced american, european and eastern humour as a spectator until today.

Even though I consider myself as that, I also did not get what this short was about.

first of all the hurry in the traffic is for the sake a waiting couple but when you hurry in the traffic for a reason anything can happen. that's something common.

but if the short was about a guy who did all the stuff for nothing, that could be funny to a degree. so i guess it would be better if geoffrey made us think that the guy was a person who acts aggressively in the traffic just for the fun or to satisfy his ego.

but i have been to switzerland, geneva. I can say that anything unorderly is regarded as extraordinary, new and original. i dont know how canada is but it seems that geoffrey has become a swiss already.

"clean" was your short until now. eventhough it was the best it is hard to ignore improvements in your technique in the eyes of this humble psectator.





in this short the reason is two waiting people.
the encounter with the red car (first one) is so short we don't feel a delay or a problem

I like your new idea and that is maybe where I thought it would go... he is in a hurry and some granny on a moped beats him there or something... still needs motivation for why there is such a rush... maybe some radio audio at the beginning about a contest for who can pick up the mystery couple and bring them back to the studio...


ash =o)

I was just angry about the cultural slurs about Europeans.

What "cultural slurs" are you referring to?

Jay

First of all, European audiences are different from American audiences. That's neither good nor bad, just different. The two see things differently.


Look I don't think this is the place to bicker about this and I will not respond after this on this topic. I wanted your comment on the film, which I appreciated. Not to discuss cultural differences between American and European audiences which bares no relevance.

Try to put yourself in my shoes: Assume I was critical of a film you made and started out by saying that perhaps for an American audience your film, which I didn't like, was good enough. Not only am I being critical of you but also American audiences which really has nothing to do your film.

Having lived in several countries I'm not one to generalise and I certainly do not represent the European way of thinking. Nor do I think you represent anything more than yourself. Which I value otherwise I would not have posted to this group. However people are people wherever you go and everyone is different and yet also not so different as we all want to believe.

Maybe I misread your intent. E-mail is certainly not the best way to communicate.

Regards,

Geoff

PS the Swiss are sterotyped for not feeling comfortable with difference and change, but Geneva as one Swiss told me is not part of Switzerland - meaning it is very cosmopolitan and very open to change. When you really get to know the Swiss they are just ordinary people. I've also lived 5 years in the UK and 23 years in Canada before my 10 year stint so far in Switzerland.

in this short the reason is two waiting people.
the encounter with the red car (first one) is so short we don't feel a delay or a problem

Thanks for the comments everyone!

I hope I don't sound to unappreciative. It is always hard not to take things personally. However I do get the reaction from people here that I show it to in person that I had expected. I also learnt with Clean on Triggerstreet that not everyone has the same opinion (some loved the cinematography others hated it, some loved the music others hated, some loved the twist and others thought the story was too simple and that the music gave it away). That being said there is enough consensus here to emphasize that this film is a long way from getting its point across.

I think a number of the comments are helping to focus me on where the problems are.

I do not want to do a significant refilming and replanning for this short. I will take onboard all your suggestions for the next. However I have shot a new ending this morning which I will edit tonight and add in which I think will bring more closure to the story with the couple and emphasize the fact that the speeding guy doesn't interact with them which was the aim of the twist.

It was not meant to be a comedy in the traditional sense. I'm trying to be a little original but clearly have some way to go to be successfull.

Thanks again.

Best Regards,

Geoff

Geoff, yes, you totally misread and/or misunderstood my comment regarding audience differences in Europe and America! That was not mean to be a slur in any way, shape, or form.

If you were to study the history of cinema, one of the things you'd study is the differences between European cinema and American cinema, and part of this difference includes the audience's preferences in "story" and "structure." This same subject comes up again in the study of screenwriting--what constitutes a story.

For example, in the U.S. audiences have a greater preference for stories that have a well defined beginning, middle and end. Too, more often than not, the story needs to have a "happy ending." This is not so with European audiences. It was, I think, Italian director Michelangelo Antonioni who said something like, "Yes, films ought to have a beginning, middle and end, but not necessarily in that order."

European audiences have far broader tastes in cinema than do Americans. That's to their advantage! This is why American films are successful in Europe. It is also why European films are not successful in America. It is not, necessarily, a fault of the European films as it is a fault of the American audiences for their narrower taste in what makes "a good story."

The hardest thing for any of us to learn, especially in the visual and/or performing arts, and I would include filmmaking in the "performing arts" too, is to take criticism. First of all, I did not criticize you. I made critical comments about your film, which is not you, based upon my 35+ years of experience and knowledge. If you continue to make films and show them to people, you will have to learn how to deal with remarks that you don't like or don't agree with. Such is the nature of the beast--good, bad or indifferent.

Instead of taking such comments personally, try to step back and look at the film through the eyes of those making the comment. Evaluate their comments based on what is factual. Standards and conventions, whether we like them or not, have been established in cinema and story telling. It is by these standards and coventions that most of us judge and by which our works are judged. Too often the filmmaker has knowledge regarding the story that the audience member doesn't have. Therefore, as he watches his film, with his insights, he, the filmmaker, fills in the holes that are there with that knowledge. To the audience, the story has holes--they don't have any of the backstory or know the intent of the filmmaker. The film doesn't make any sense. It happens to all of us! The better filmmakers among us have learned how to step back and look at their work objectively, not assuming that the audience has the same understanding of the subject that he has. A perfect example of this is the technical manuals that are written for software. The technical writer, many times, is the same one that developed the software. They write for an audience with the writer's level of understanding. That's why technical manuals are hard to follow!

The bottom line is this: If we have to explain to our audience what our film meant, then we failed to tell the story adequately. The audience should, for the most part, be able to walk away from the viewing saying, "Ah, I understand." They may not agree, but at least they aren't puzzled as to what they just saw.

Yes, you're right e-mail and forums "are not the best way to communicate."

Jay

Just found this and wanted to throw in my positive feedback.

Congratulations for finishing a film. Lots of us shoot tape, not everyone finishes nor puts it up on the web.

I liked Bennis' idea of the irony of having the red car pass the waiting people by.

I for one understand that it was just meant to be a gag or a lighthearted goofing-around deal. It reminds me of a comedy sketch done at summer camp or school - no deep meaning, just a simple "haha." For this reason I do think, again, that it should move much faster. I bet each camera shot or clip could be cut shorter, to the point where it built up the mystery and then the twist, very quickly, to more effect, rather than eliciting the above confusion.

I think not having it fast-paced enough is a normal mistake for us beginners. I'm guilty of it and I'm still recutting and reshortening some of the stuff I'm making.

The only thing I want to throw in is that I would have switched the color scheme - more hot, more active on the frantic guy and more cold, "we've been waiting here forever" on the couple.

Good job, keep it up!