Objects in mirror are closer than they appear

Jay Gladwell · June 28th, 2005, 05:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geoffrey Engelbrecht

I was just angry about the cultural slurs about Europeans.

What "cultural slurs" are you referring to?

Jay

Geoffrey Engelbrecht · June 28th, 2005, 05:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jay Gladwell

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.

Geoffrey Engelbrecht · June 28th, 2005, 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ahmet Ilhan

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

Jay Gladwell · June 28th, 2005, 10:29 AM

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

Bill Porter · August 14th, 2005, 01:03 PM

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!

June 28th, 2005, 10:29 AM	#19
Jay Gladwell Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 1,244	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

August 14th, 2005, 01:03 PM	#20
Bill Porter Major Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Ventura, California, USA Posts: 751	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!