Jump to content
Ed_David

Chatterhead. Short film i shot on the Sony F65.

Recommended Posts

EOSHD Pro Color for Sony cameras EOSHD Pro LOG for Sony CamerasEOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs

Nice shots. After seeing the country enamored with Obama in 2008 and his ratings now, it really doesn't matter who is president as long as they're not bat-shit crazy. Obama ended up being mediocre at best, although he's a really good guy IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump is quite clearly a misogynist, pandering demagogue, but he is a wildcard as a politician because he really hasn't substantiated much in terms of his policies. He also has a history advocating for things antithetical to the republican platform, ie universal healthcare.

With Cruz, you get a definite and dangerous nut cake. Clinton is a corporatist, like Obama, and 100% status quo.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cool! 

It's fun and encouraging to see how (seemingly) simple footage can be used for shaping creative narratives.  I do wonder if a lot of filmmakers get that part backwards and demand assertively creative visuals before the storytelling?  Not that you don't need both, but you get the idea.

Also, clever use of irony there at the end is an impressive bit of storytelling craft.

Anyway, POV from an aspiring documentarian, so I'm biased.  I am biased for a heavy handed use of film grain too.  What is it about me that enjoys that?

BTW, one of the things about ideological rhetoric, and is present here, is how things are framed as of the USA is a broken state that needs to be fixed.  You see this in phrases that typically has the word "again" in it.  Make America great again!  Make things good again!  As if the way American culture exists is currently in some sort of disaster.  I don't see it that way.  We're constantly and absolutely flawed and screwed up, yes.  Things are always unfair in many regards and needed remedy, yes, but you can't have a broad swatches of cultures coexisting without that sort of reality.

To assume otherwise is a fundamental misunderstanding of the philosophical DNA of this nation.  

Hey y'all, our system is pretty much broken by design.  The three branches of government are built to NOT cooperate wholly.  You don't fix it.  You continuously shape it through compromise, but fixing it is impossible.

I realize the "again" phrase in this instance is coming from the perspective of a fictional character in a movie, but nevertheless it triggered my thinking, so you should be congratulated.  Good storytelling should accomplish that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the look of it. It has that gritty, Hell's Kitchen, 70s NYC feel to it. It strangely felt like the opening credits to The Mary Tyler Moore Show.

The content, I could not care less about. If anything, it unintentionally promotes the notion that undecided voters should not be allowed to vote.

But it was well shot and the premise was good. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If anything, it unintentionally promotes the notion that undecided voters should not be allowed to vote.

Well, from my POV, I'd give that sentiment a full on raspberry.  If a US citizen voter isn't frustrated with the candidates and is perfectly comfortable with any particular person, I'd say that kind of outlook is more dangerous than being skeptical and worrisome.  Especially in 2016.

If one finds themselves trusting a politician, any politician, I'd say they've gone off the intellectual deep end.

You think it would be any less disturbing if we just watched a similar styled movie called "Trumphead"?  Oh my good lord, that would be something.

Also, Ed, what would you tweak about the color?  Nothing seems off to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really nice look. I can't see what better color grading would be...

P.S. If I could I would vote for Bernie too. It would not be from my heart but from my faculty of reason. I am pretty sure most Trump's voters use their hearts to vote, and that is never a good thing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, from my POV, I'd give that sentiment a full on raspberry.  If a US citizen voter isn't frustrated with the candidates and is perfectly comfortable with any particular person, I'd say that kind of outlook is more dangerous than being skeptical and worrisome.  Especially in 2016.

If one finds themselves trusting a politician, any politician, I'd say they've gone off the intellectual deep end.

You think it would be any less disturbing if we just watched a similar styled movie called "Trumphead"?  Oh my good lord, that would be something.

Also, Ed, what would you tweak about the color?  Nothing seems off to me.

You're right, I should have written... Uninformed, undecided voters shouldn't be allowed to vote. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice imagery, but I don't think following a person around with thoughts as captions qualifies as a short film, even if done for 3 1/2 minutes. In that format, it might have been much more effective if cut down to 30 seconds or less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

following a person around with thoughts as captions qualifies as a short film

If not, what does?

Uninformed, undecided voters shouldn't be allowed to vote. 

Unfortunately, everyone is uninformed to an extent.  Heck, former Prez GDub and his cabinet admitted they were chronically uninformed and offered it up as an excuse for a lot of their foreign policy decisions. (to which I say there's a difference between willful ignorance and being uninformed, but, well, you know, semantics)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If not, what does?

How would that be determined, exactly?  Besides, everyone is uninformed to an extent.  Heck, former Prez GDub and his cabinet admitted they were chronically uninformed and offered it up as an excuse for most of their foreign policy decisions. (to which I say there's a difference between willful ignorance and being uninformed, but, well, you know)

I'm afraid you are taking this too literally. This IS a fictional character we're discussing... Right?

I doubt Ed's objective is to send a message that this woman seems flighty and uninformed. Not to mention, I believe this piece is supposed to be pro Sanders, yet on at least 3 occasions, the character thought... "Bernie Sanders is unelectable." 

In screenwriting there is a Rule of 3, if you want to transfer an important story detail to your audience, you show or tell something at least 3 times.

So, unfortunately, what I took from this piece is... A woman, who seems undecided and uninformed believes Bernie Sanders is unelectable but she will vote for him anyway because he is the best of the worst.

It just is not a very strong message in my opinion.

But this is just my opinion. The footage is great and the idea is very clever. 

I'm sure the intended audience will go bonkers over it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If not, what does?

Not sure if this is just a rhetorical riposte or a sincere questions, but I'll respond. What Ed attempted here is a stream of consciousness narrative, which is not a valid structure for a short film in my book to begin with. Even as a stream of consciousness effort, it's meandering and the visuals hardly go with the thoughts for the most part: what difference would it have made if say the woman was just home through all this or on the beach? How do his visuals add to his message (which I think was "even if you don't think Sanders is electable, vote your conscience")? I think it could have been much better served as a 30 second ad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

great, now that you changed the title, my comment makes me sound crazy. ha, but yeah it's a pretty simple film.. not too preachy unless you support Trump. think it works just fine. screw valid structure. if you can't make your short film an art film, what can you? plenty of well structured films suck ass

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if this is just a rhetorical riposte or a sincere questions, but I'll respond. What Ed attempted here is a stream of consciousness narrative, which is not a valid structure for a short film in my book to begin with. Even as a stream of consciousness effort, it's meandering and the visuals hardly go with the thoughts for the most part: what difference would it have made if say the woman was just home through all this or on the beach? How do his visuals add to his message (which I think was "even if you don't think Sanders is electable, vote your conscience")? I think it could have been much better served as a 30 second ad.

It's sincere question.  I disagree with your assertion of what a valid film is, as you explained it, but if that's how you define it, no worries.  It is subjective.  However, you know... the questions you're asking about the film pretty much help define it as a valid film.  You're trying to reckon with it after all.  But you don't have to ponder that if you don't wanna.  

As for me, my terms that define "film" are broader.  I like impressionistic cinema.  I'm drawn to Malick for that reason.  I find Ed's storytelling with this film more narratively cohesive than one of the popular contemporary travel films like "Watchtower of Turkey" which is a cool editing/cinematography exercise, but doesn't offer a story. 

Still, one of my favorite films is "Man With A Movie Camera" and I find it fascinating all these years later.  It's not even near as structured as Ed's film here, but nevertheless a classic of cinema.  On the other hand, another one of my fav films is Casablanca, which is as mainstream narrative as possible.

I'm afraid you are taking this too literally. This IS a fictional character we're discussing... Right?

Of course, but then again:  fiction that affects the viewer by employing empathy and generating contemplation in the viewer/listener is a foundation of many forms of art.  As such, I'm not taking it literally.  But I do like it, and I appreciate the questions it raises in my mind.

In screenwriting there is a Rule of 3, if you want to transfer an important story detail to your audience, you show or tell something at least 3 times.

I think so, yes, if it's fiction for a traditional populist audience, like a Ron Howard film.  But who's to say that's necessarily the best way to create something like this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's sincere question.  I disagree with your assertion of what a valid film is, as you explained it, but if that's how you define it, no worries.  It is subjective.  However, you know... the questions you're asking about the film pretty much help define it as a valid film.  You're trying to reckon with it after all.  But you don't have to ponder that if you don't wanna.  

As for me, my terms that define "film" are broader.  I like impressionistic cinema.  I'm drawn to Malick for that reason.  I find Ed's storytelling with this film more narratively cohesive than one of the popular contemporary travel films like "Watchtower of Turkey" which is a cool editing/cinematography exercise, but doesn't offer a story. 

Still, one of my favorite films is "Man With A Movie Camera" and I find it fascinating all these years later.  It's not even near as structured as Ed's film here, but nevertheless a classic of cinema.  On the other hand, another one of my fav films is Casablanca, which is as mainstream narrative as possible.

Of course, but then again:  fiction that affects the viewer by employing empathy and generating contemplation in the viewer/listener is a foundation of many forms of art.  As such, I'm not taking it literally.  But I do like it, and I appreciate the questions it raises in my mind.

I think so, yes, if it's fiction for a traditional populist audience, like a Ron Howard film.  But who's to say that's necessarily the best way to create something like this?

It's psychology. A person remembers things more when they are told 3 times. So, by conveying 3 times or more that Bernie Sanders is unelectable, then there is a good chance the audience will remember that assertion more than a positive about Bernie Sanders. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's psychology.

Be that as it may, I contend that a rule of 3 is not something requiring implementation in one's work to make that art effective or worthwhile.  Feel free to disagree.

As for psychology, I do believe that potential voters of someone like Bernie Sanders are more likely to have a mindset apart from a voter that would rather hear jingoism and be comforted by that approach.  

And as this is a short film to appeal to a certain worldview/voter right now (as opposed to a general election) I can see how it might be effective in it's defined space.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...