Thoughts?

[Andy Graham]

Originally Posted by Jarrod Whaley

I still don't think you're really seeing this for what it's supposed to be.

OK, I said i liked it but please explain to me what i am missing in the plot/storyline. You obviously have a more fundamental underlying story that i'm not seeing. What is it supposed to be?

Andy.

[Jarrod Whaley]

Andy--

Forgive me if it seems like I've implied you didn't like it; I'm just saying that we seem to be looking for different things when we watch and/or make movies. I'm not trying to entertain is all, and so if my work isn't entertaining, then that's no evidence of failure on my part.

As for your request that I explain what I was after, well... I made the movie to say what I wanted to say. If I could say it as well with words, I would have have written a story or a poem. :) I'm sorry, but I don't like to explain myself when I feel like the images are perfectly capable of doing so to an attentive viewer. Verbal explication and analysis are for film critics, and I've never claimed to be one of those.

Forgive me if this sounds obtuse or anything, it's just how I like to approach this kind of stuff.

I like the quote in your signature, by the way.

[Andy Graham]

The if's and butts don't matter. Your right ....express yourself in whatever way you feel.

As i said I liked it and that's all that matters.

Your a strong minded guy (much like myself) and I respect that.

So all the best and good luck in the future man.

Andy.

[Jarrod Whaley]

Originally Posted by Andy Graham

Your a strong minded guy (much like myself) and I respect that.

So all the best and good luck in the future man.

Good luck to you as well. Again, thanks for having taken the time to watch and to comment.

[Don Donatello]

"Can you expand a bit on your comment re: the voiceover? I know you said you can't put your finger on it, but you've got me curious. By the way, it's my voice. :)"

at the end of viewing .. if i had to say how could one make this more effective ? the voice over comes to mind ? i would like to see/hear what a different tone or how person says the same lines just slightly different or different person voice sounds like ?... i feel we are viewing this person without them knowing we're watching them ( just as he's viewing/listening thru floow/walls and his neighbors don't know) and i feel the current voice over takes that away some ?? ?? maybe if the voice over had a slight whisper quality to it at times ?? - now of course if one listened to 2-3 different ways one might pick the way the voice over is now as the best ...

bottom line - it's a good piece and is ready to send to out to festivals ...

[Jarrod Whaley]

Originally Posted by Don Donatello

i feel we are viewing this person without them knowing we're watching them ( just as he's viewing/listening thru floow/walls and his neighbors don't know) and i feel the current voice over takes that away some

That's a good point. I rarely use voiceovers, but I went with one here because I thought it made what he was doing somewhat easier to grasp. The point you're making about the voiceover making it seem like he's telling us a story when we want to believe he doesn't know we're looking is part of the reason why I have him speaking some of the voiceover on camera at one point, in fact. Also, the fact that this moment comes right as there are two of him (one on either side of the wall) listening to each other is a subtle touch I think some people might miss if they're not paying attention--I guess the way I saw it was that he is talking to himself and listening to himself the whole time.

Originally Posted by Don Donatello

bottom line - it's a good piece and is ready to send to out to festivals ...

Thanks. I plan on doing so.

[Ash Greyson]

I think the idea is solid but you can pull it off much better. As far as audio, you are most the way there but you need some ambient sounds in there, computer monitor hum, air conditioning, water running, etc. it is too clinical much of the time. This could also enhance the long shots and give you a chance to be very effective after "now I dont hear anything" by going 100% no sound. I think your performance can be better on the VO which seems too compressed, try a different mic.

The visuals, mainly the lighting, just dont do the mood justice. The framing in generally good but the flat lighting just doesnt work and confuses the character. I would assume a guy like that would want it dark, not stark.

As far as visual tips, I would mix in more ECUs with your wides, I never really got a good ECU on the characters face, the glass he used, etc. That would really help.




ash =o)

[Jarrod Whaley]

Thanks, Ash. I think the biggest point you've made here is the suggestion to drop in some more ambient sounds. It makes sense that a busier sound mix would make the silence at the end stick out more. I'm giving this idea some thought. I have to say that I consciously went for the "clinical" feel you mention, because the idea was to separate this guy from the rest of the world and put the viewer into this same frame of mind where the muffled voices are the point of focus (beyond the obvious artificialities of music and voiceover, of course). He even says right off the bat that the voices were all he could hear. That's why the limited amount of ambient sound and foley (very distant background traffic sounds and the squeak of the chair when he gets up, to give a couple of examples) are so low in volume. I still think your point is a good one though, and I'm turning it over in my mind a bit.

As for some of the other things you mention (lighting, mic for voiceover), quite a bit of that is limited by what I have to work with at this exact moment. I've got some much more flexible stuff to look forward to working with pretty soon. In the meantime, I've kind of evolved a style that takes my limited amount of equipment into account and sometimes gets close to making virtues of these limitations, I think. Why not wait and shoot this later when I have more stuff? I prefer to go ahead and work whenever the idea and the occasion arises. I can make another movie later. If I sit around and wait until I have the perfect array of equipment, I'll never make a movie again. :)

All of that said, I do see this guy in stark light. I can definitely see him in the dark as you do too, but for me this simple naked bulb look just seems right for this guy.

The static takes comprised of wide shots versus intercutting those wide shots with close-ups is, you have to admit, a purely aesthetic choice (as in: it's a matter of taste) to a large extent. But even still, I guess I want this guy to seem distant and detached from everyone else. That's quite a bit of the overall point.

I guess I've rambled enough. Thanks for the input, Ash. And Andy, if you're still reading this: I guess I do talk about my intentions sometimes after all. :) I guess it's just easier for me to do so when addressing specific points.

[Ash Greyson]

Jarrod you should know that if I dont like something at all, I just wont comment at all. You are familiar enough with the XL2 to use the custom settings to help cover limitation in the lights/gear you own. Use some normal lamps, etc. gain up little when needed, crush the blacks, boost the coring, etc. you know the drill.

I understand your points but find that ECUs cut with super wides actually enhance that distance you are after, just avoid the middle shots. I think with just some sound work it can be good and with a reshoot it could be something that gets into festivals, etc.



ash =o)

[Jarrod Whaley]

Originally Posted by Ash Greyson

Jarrod you should know that if I dont like something at all, I just wont comment at all.

I do know that, and I thank you for taking the time to do so. I've come to really respect your opinion since I started hanging out around here a few months back. I don't want you to think I'm blowing off your suggestions with defensive rationalizations... I just have a very hard-won aesthetic that differs from most people's.

Originally Posted by Ash Greyson

You are familiar enough with the XL2 to use the custom settings to help cover limitation in the lights/gear you own. Use some normal lamps, etc. gain up little when needed, crush the blacks, boost the coring, etc. you know the drill.

Fair enough. I'm usually the first to say that "I don't have good equipment" is a poor excuse. But I guess I was basically trying to say that this "poor man's lighting job" effect is something I've come to like--not because it looks cheap and unimaginative to the general eye, but because it can be cold and inexpressive, which suits a lot of the oppressive solitude I'm often trying to convey in my work. I just didn't want to inject a lot of "mood" into this, because the lack of obvious mood is the mood I wanted. If that makes a lick of sense. :) We disagree on how this thing should be lit, but variance of opinion among shooters is a good thing in the long run, I think. It's worth noting that I don't light everything I do this way. I've done plenty of more expressionistic lighting when my personal sensibilities have called for it.

Originally Posted by Ash Greyson

I understand your points but find that ECUs cut with super wides actually enhance that distance you are after, just avoid the middle shots.

I don't necessarily disagree with you... I think it could work that way, but again, this is just the way I like to shoot and edit things. I like to get really close only on very rare occassions, because I personally feel like closeups are generally overused, and also that when they are overused, the essential emotional impact of them gets watered down. There are a few very close shots in there, by the way--one of each of his ears and another of his mouth. In a piece about talking and listening to oneself, these seem like appropriate choices to me, and any additional close shots would just be a kind of emotional manipulation to my mind. I'm not being disagreeable, I just think differently than you do it would seem.

Originally Posted by Ash Greyson

I think with just some sound work it can be good and with a reshoot it could be something that gets into festivals, etc.

I appreciate your saying so. I think it's good and worthy of being shown to people as it is, but I am absorbing your comments and filing them away in my "things to think about" file for sure. Thanks again.

[Jeff Cottrone]

Jarod,

I liked your film, and I've liked your thoughtful posts in other threads, so I guess I went into this liking you as a human. With that said, let me disagree with you on something philosophically.

I don't think we can use the argument that you must judge a work of art on its own terms. Not because it's impossible, which it is, but unless you take the Emily Dickinson route of filing away your art in a drawer that will one day be discovered, the moment you show your art to anyone you are entering 'their' world of standards and reference points. If all someone has seen is MTV their whole life, they might turn your film off before the credits were over. But if all someone has seen is...Kurosawa, they might think your film moved too fast.

If I make a film that is one steady 20-minute shot of my kindergarten self-portrait, and I don't show anyone, to me, it may be the best piece of art that was ever created. And I could die thinking that way. But the moment I show someone else, I enter their world and lose my piece on its own terms.

A friend around here made your same argument recently. I didn't think his film was effective, but he claimed I didn't 'get' the film he made. But the art of story has evolved and developed over millenia. There are certain expectations people have when entering a story. One being that it must progress, and it should progress with a certain underlying rhythm. Which your film does, although a much slower rhythm that most people are used to nowadays, but you break that rhythm in the middle when he just waits. And while I understand the reasoning behind this decision, that doesn't mean you can do it and expect people to stick around. It's a risk/reward trade-off scenario. Is it really worth stubbornly sticking to your "it's the way I like it" argument and losing viewers, when you could simply shrink that part down just a little and make more friends? What really are you losing? I get the idea of his waiting, I feel the waiting, in fact I felt it so much that I didn't feel like waiting anymore. But after reading these posts, I went back and watched it again, and I really like everything after that waiting part, even more than the first part. Like Don said, this is a case of if I was in the theater and didn't have a radio, TV, and the rest of the internet to switch to the moment I felt like I was wasting time, then it may work better. But I'd still cut it down. Just a little. There's a fine line we all face of sticking to our guns the way we like it and opps shooting ourselves in the foot. IMO, in the middle, you knicked your pinky toe.

And, btw, I agree that a darker lighting scheme would have been more effective in creating the mood you're going for.

Oh, and why the fade to black at 3/4 mark? That just seems to draw attention to itself and break the illusion of the story, which is another way of saying what I didn't like about the waiting part. Anytime that happens, it's like, oh yeah, just a movie, later. Granted, this is what I bring to movies, but I want to forget I'm watching a movie, which I'd say is way more the rule than the exception.

[Jarrod Whaley]

Jeff--

You make some good points here, and I wouldn't say I disagree with quite a bit of what you say. There are some things in your comments I'd like to address, however--not because I want to be hard-headed or argumentative, but because I feel like this is a fruitful and interesting conversation.

Of course people bring something of themselves and their experience to anything new that they see. When I say that work should be judged on its own terms, I'm speaking on a very practical level. Take again my Titanic example. If I look at a movie like that and base my personal judgment of it on my expectations of what an "art" film should look like, then I'm not really looking at the thing for what it is. Taken as an entertaining and unabashedly melodramatic spectacle, it does what it's supposed to do; in this, it is successful. Taken as a work that is supposed to be expressive of its makers' inner condition, or if viewed with the hope that it will challenge the boundaries of the cinematic medium, I would argue that it fails miserably. But it is intended to entertain a mass audience, and so I am saying that you have to take that intention into account when you pass judgment on it. This is what I am talking about. The movies I make are personal and expressive in nature, and so I don't feel that you can hold them up next to a Hollywood blockbuster and expect to judge the two by the same set of standards. They are apples and oranges. They are practically entirely different media altogether, as far as I see it.

As for my being stubborn, well, I won't disagree with you there. :) I'm proud to say I'm stubborn. I am trying to say something when I make a movie, and I am trying to say it the best way that I can. What I am trying not to do is to say something as simply as possible for simplicity's sake, or to say it in such a way that there is no nuance or subtely in the saying. The scene you mention in which the character sits in a chair for a long time with nothing happening is meant to convey much more than the simple idea that the character is waiting. I want to show you how he is waiting, and I want to show you with an image. I want to construct a very particular mood around that act, feeling as I do that the mood says more than the act itself could ever hope to say. No less important is the simple fact that I wish to challenge the expectation that things in a movie are supposed to happen quickly, with a rhythm like that of a drum solo as opposed to a rhythm like a series of gong hits. :) If I were to cut out 75% of the running time of that shot, it would change the effect of the scene at a very fundamental level. An entirely different thing would be said--a much simpler thing, with a broader and more crudely defined stroke, with less humanity and with more showmanship. In fewer words, a more quickly unfolding scene would be more in line with a Hollywood Spectacle kind of filmmaking. There's nothing wrong with that style, it's just not what I'm doing. And in light of the fact that I make no effort to entertain you, saying my work is not entertaining is an irrelevant comment. This is a judgment that misses the point entirely (not that it's your judgment Jeff, but one that seems to be at the heart of almost everything that others have said in this thread).

If you feel this movie would have worked better with more shadow and darkness in it, that the long takes are unnecessary, and so on, then by all means think whatever you want (turn it off if you want--I'm not out to seduce people into paying attention; that is something you're suggesting I should do, but I'd suggest that some, like myself, find that kind of seduction to be both dishonest and manipulative... if you turn my movie off, at least I know I haven't tricked you into "wanting" to watch it). And by all means tell me what you think. But if I disagree with you and say that I had my own reasons for doing these things, then that is my right as well. I happen to feel that when a piece of work is structured and presented in such a way as to impact the greatest number of people possible, then something very fundamental to the creative act is lost. I would rather say personal things in a way that fits what is being said. If it doesn't resonate with you, then you don't have to watch it. And likewise, if it does resonate, but there are some things about it that seem less than harmonious to you, well all that I can say is that they seem harmonious to me and that I have to listen to my own judgment. If I tried to make the harmony work for everyone in the world, then the melody would end up being something entirely different from the song I want to sing. :) I'm not trying to speak to everyone at once. I'm trying to say things with subtlety and with honesty, because that's the kind of cinema that has an effect on me personally. The only way that kind of work can be made is for the maker to do what feels right to him or her. These are very unpopular beliefs in the twenty-first century, but they're my beliefs and I stand by them.

Now, having said all of that... I want to say that I am not going to reject out of hand a suggestion as to how a thing might be better accomplished. When I hear an idea from someone else, some suggestion or some bit of feedback--if it makes sense to me and "fits" the piece in question, then I am very open to it. I just haven't heard much of anything in this thread that would feel right to me. :) That doesn't mean I'm saying that "people don't understand my work," or "I am so ahead of my time," or "I am the great AHHHH-tist and you are mere peasants." :D I find that kind of thinking as repulsive and as passive-aggressive as you do, I assure you. It just happens that a more "lively pace" that "keeps people interested" in this piece (and others like it) would feel as ridiculously out of place to me as a thirty-minute extreme closeup of Leonardo DiCaprio's left eye, if spliced into the middle of Titanic, would feel. The two pieces of work are coming from entirely different places, and are pointing in entirely different directions.

Maybe your point is that I can't expect anyone to look at something like this without comparing it to the spectacles they've seen at the multiplex. Maybe that's true, but that doesn't make it any less absurd to say that my work moves "too slowly" simply because it doesn't move as quickly as The Matrix.

To me, that's like saying that cars are better than bicycles. I suppose they are better if speed and convenience are what you're after. But if you look at a bicycle as a way to get some exercise, to breathe some fresh air, to take a little time to live within your thoughts--and these things are what is important to you--then a car ride will only get you from point A to point B.

OK, I guess that's about enough from me. :) I'm glad you liked the movie, Jeff, if not entirely... :D ...and thanks for taking the time to discuss your impressions of it with me.

[Brian Duke]

My two cents below:

Originally Posted by Jarrod Whaley

Andy-- I'm not trying to entertain is all, and so if my work isn't entertaining, then that's no evidence of failure on my part.

Then what are you trying to do? Isn't "entertain" just another fancy word for "interest." I mean when people say I want to be entertained, they are just saying they want to be kept interested regardless of the medium they are being "entertained" in.

Originally Posted by Jarrod Whaley

As for your request that I explain what I was after, well... I made the movie to say what I wanted to say. If I could say it as well with words, I would have have written a story or a poem. :) I'm sorry, but I don't like to explain myself when I feel like the images are perfectly capable of doing so to an attentive viewer. Verbal explication and analysis are for film critics, and I've never claimed to be one of those.

I am not sure what you are trying to accomplish then. Usually I hear actors say they don’t like to work with directors who can’t explain themselves, as it makes for a poor director. If you can't explain what your work is about by captivating someone's attention to be even interested (entertained) to possibly watch your work, then why do what you do in the first place. I believe Orson Wells stated that success is measured by the amount of people enjoying your work.

I would argue that contrary to your statement that verbal explication and analysis is for the filmmaker, and interpretation of the work is for a film critic. A filmmaker should scrutinize and analyze his work through himself and others. It really doesn't matter if there is confusion, as long as there is pay off. We all heard about people watching Syriana and being totally confused without any explanation. Is that the accomplishment they were after? I doubt it. I don't think I have ever heard anyone seeking to make a movie that isn't comprehendible, until now.

Don't you want people to "get" your work? I'm not saying it is easy to plant your thoughts onto paper, and then translate those words onto the screen, but it seems to me that it should be the ultimate goal for a filmmaker.

I watched your film, twice, and I am still not sure what it is about. That is generally not a good sign. However that doesn;t mean you shouldn't continue making movies. You absolutely shopuld. We all make mistakes, but if you don't think there is a mistake you will have a difficult time moving ahead. Again, if you are so confident that you are right and others are wrong, then stick with it. In the end, if you are right, it will find a market and you will have your success.
Good luck!

[Jeff Cottrone]

Jarod,

Yes, my point was that anyone who watches your films can not watch it without the awareness of everything else they've seen, which they will at least subconsciously make reference to in evaluating your work. In a way, you are exploiting this very notion by playing against what mainstream viewers of today are used to. I just think you went slightly too far.

I think your intentions and your "making movies for yourself" is noble, especailly in this age of money driven art, and especially that you are choosing to break the "rules". I make movies with a balance of "for myself" and "for others to like it too", oh and also "hoping to get paid". Cause despite all the justifications in the world, the fact is that there are certain "rules" and "expectations" for the art of film to be effective on a story-based level. You have all the right in the world to ignore or play against those rules. The trade-off is risking alienating potential viewers who give you their sacred time.

And now that Brian brought it up, while I think your movie works on a sound/subconscious/mood level (although a few tweaks would improve it), I don't really know what its about either. Why should I care about this guy? I have a billion things going on in my life that I care about. Why should I include your film in that? Not that you need to worry about that when making decisions, but if I feel like the filmmaker isn't honoring their end of the contract, by acknowledging that someone is going to actually watch their film, then I probably won't waste my time in the future (not saying you did this, just as extreme example--although, I actually hope some of this gets through and you loosen that rock hard stance just a little, cause I think you have talent).

Here's the thing, man. I am with you. I was more like you a few years ago (although, maybe not as extreme), but I feel I'm an artist first. And I don't want my vision to be compromised by the process, but I love this creative medium so much that I'm willing to bend a little to actually try to make a living at it, which means acknowledging the realities of: working with other people, all who have ideas (some of which are good); money; and the general reference points of the audience who gives me their time.

If you have no desire to make a living in the medium, then you can do whatever you want, especially if you are making movies only for yourself. Not only can you ignore the money thing, but if you cast only yourself, you can ignore the people thing, and if you care only about your own expression and "pushing the bounds" then you can ignore the viewer/critic/peer thing.

The stories in my heart that I want to tell cost more money than I can afford on my own. And they are bigger in scope (although not Titanically so) to pull off with the size of crew I could rustle up around here. If that's not your situation, then you can ignore everything else. To me, the bigger challenge is trying to get as close to your vision on screen as you can within the context of the money, the on set politics, and the modern day viewer....

And btw, the few suggestions that have been mentioned in this thread are all minor, bro. If you feel a little tightening is too much a strain on your artistic integrity, then stick to your guns. As I wrote in another thread:

It's just a matter of choices based on your preferences. Then you hope your preferences resonate with other people, or as Yoda would say: paying jobs, for you, there may not be. And if that happens, the million dollar question becomes: how long will it take before your preferences start to look eerily like traditional techniques. Which isn't bad. They're traditional b/c they're effective. IMO, the best thing you can hope for is to get paid to do what you love, and find a way to bring some originality to it while not pushing the bounds so hard that you lose the paying part of the equation. Le balancing act of ze artiste en ze modern culture.

[Mathieu Ghekiere]

There are good arguments on both sides here.
For my opinion, I don't like arty farty movies, half hour movies that only show a door going open and closed.
But I thought this movie wasn't arty farty at all, it was just somewhat slower than most films, but it fitted the story.

And I think a filmdirector should be wanting to make the best film that HE can and WANTS to make, but not make too much compromises for the audience, even if you loose some viewers with that.
Look at Kubrick and Lars Von Trier, for instance, or Sergio Leone.
They are both very good filmmakers, but they made NO compromises, they made the movies THEY wanted to make as artists, and they got their following as they got their opposers too.
And I like those filmmakers all, and I'm not an arty farty kind of person, to be honest: my favorite filmmaker of all time is Steven Spielberg!
But even he makes the movies HE wants to make, but his movies appael to a large audience, but it doesn't make him less as an artist.