Read this and get inspired.
Now, there was no follow up to this story. That's because what stays in Vegas must have happened in Vegas.
Wait.
Essentially, though, I feel compelled to leak a little bit of the fun that happened AND be one of the rarest groups in the world: those who POST videos to YouTube. Newsweek (April 30th, 2007: page 18) published a statistic that said only .16% of YouTube visitors are producers.
Laziness.
Unimaginitativeness. (not a word - which shows creativity and imagination) (explaining the process shows condescension)
So, below is my first posted YouTube video. It has no sound because there were legal issues with Toby Keith, who threatened to put a boot in my @$$ for five dollars. But essentially, I was in Toby Keith's I Love This Bar in Vegas during the last 24 hour stay and saw Will Ferrell dressed as Screech dancing with some drunk broad on a girls night out in Vegas:
And it was so much fun that I've decided to do Vegas again tomorrow night, for one night only, this time, less than 24 hours.
This time around, I will have baggage.
I will also have a King Size bed in Harrah's ... and be a permanent fixture in TB's Bar until Check-out at 11AM Sunday.
Then Chipotle on the Strip.
Then, Junktown, Square State, for the most boring month of my life.
Why vegas? B/C flying through Vegas using Southwest and Allegiant Air with a hotel room and 80 dollars play money is tantamount in expenditure to flying straight to Junktown via DIA.
Bangs, bucks, and youth.
Hit me!
Friday, June 29, 2007
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
DC Short Films made me feel Short.
A friend of mine sent in 4 short films from the Movie Saturday troupe I financially backed earlier in this decade. I told this friend that I would not endorse the submission of the films, and then he countered that there would be critiques. He argued critiques could help focus the group's future work.
So, I forked out the money, and the results are in. Below are the films from Google Video embedded amongst the critiques.
"The 422 films in competition were sent to 16 teams of 3 people (film enthusiasts, filmmakers, critics, previous audience members and artists in other fields). Teams watched each film in its entirety, and was required to score films on four criteria (25 points each): Content, Style, Originality and Technical. The total score a film can receive is 100 points. In addition, films can be "recommended" -- meaning a team would stand behind the film in a debate. They were also asked to write a short paragraph about the film."
Below are the films. The resolution is poor, and the ideas poorer. Some of the critiques are hilarious, some flattering, and some reinforce how I thought a film should be shot.
Try Again
Content 5 Style 5 Originality 5 Technical 5 Total 20
Feedback:
A somewhat visually engaging but strange opening scene —a supine woman on a table to a backdrop of blue light and partly opened blinds— seems to have nothing to do with the rest of the film and is never resolved. Technical aspects are amateurish and weak, from harsh and unnatural lighting to echo-y audio to amateurish transitions. Camera fades between scenes were cute but, especially when combined with the two primary characters moving from chair to chair during the tutoring session, a clumsy way to mark time. Acting is wooden and unconvincing. Repeated lines and interruptions from the third character jar the ear and the sensibilities. The script is feeble and full of clichés at best. The judges did not “get” the film.
Ticking
Content 11 Style 11 Originality 14 Technical 12 Total 47
Feedback:
The effect of tension was sustained throughout the short, but the lighting seemed too bright. The music was effective with the sound of the ticking. The occasional dialogue detracted from the mood of the music and the quality of the repetitive ticking. The ending
could be more dramatic than just the woman with tape on her mouth. It needed more of an overall edge.
The Economy
Content 7 Style 10 Originality 20 Technical 10 Total 47
Feedback:
Interesting idea although the technical problems distracted from the experience of the film. The main actor delivered a credible role given the subject matter.
Safety in Numbers
Content 18 Style 15 Originality 21 Technical 12 Total 66
Feedback:
We enjoyed the idea and general content of the film but were distracted by the technical aspects that would have made the film more enjoyable if corrected. The lighting and the sound was distracting. The film quality was good but the acting could have been better rehearsed. We also were distracted with the cluttering of the set with camera equipement. There was a lot more physical movement than dialogue. Best of luck in your feature endeavors.
---> End Critiques de Short Film "De" "Ce" <---
For all works by the now defunct Movie Saturday group click here.
Feature length films are in the works.
So, I forked out the money, and the results are in. Below are the films from Google Video embedded amongst the critiques.
"The 422 films in competition were sent to 16 teams of 3 people (film enthusiasts, filmmakers, critics, previous audience members and artists in other fields). Teams watched each film in its entirety, and was required to score films on four criteria (25 points each): Content, Style, Originality and Technical. The total score a film can receive is 100 points. In addition, films can be "recommended" -- meaning a team would stand behind the film in a debate. They were also asked to write a short paragraph about the film."
Below are the films. The resolution is poor, and the ideas poorer. Some of the critiques are hilarious, some flattering, and some reinforce how I thought a film should be shot.
Try Again
Content 5 Style 5 Originality 5 Technical 5 Total 20
Feedback:
A somewhat visually engaging but strange opening scene —a supine woman on a table to a backdrop of blue light and partly opened blinds— seems to have nothing to do with the rest of the film and is never resolved. Technical aspects are amateurish and weak, from harsh and unnatural lighting to echo-y audio to amateurish transitions. Camera fades between scenes were cute but, especially when combined with the two primary characters moving from chair to chair during the tutoring session, a clumsy way to mark time. Acting is wooden and unconvincing. Repeated lines and interruptions from the third character jar the ear and the sensibilities. The script is feeble and full of clichés at best. The judges did not “get” the film.
Ticking
Content 11 Style 11 Originality 14 Technical 12 Total 47
Feedback:
The effect of tension was sustained throughout the short, but the lighting seemed too bright. The music was effective with the sound of the ticking. The occasional dialogue detracted from the mood of the music and the quality of the repetitive ticking. The ending
could be more dramatic than just the woman with tape on her mouth. It needed more of an overall edge.
The Economy
Content 7 Style 10 Originality 20 Technical 10 Total 47
Feedback:
Interesting idea although the technical problems distracted from the experience of the film. The main actor delivered a credible role given the subject matter.
Safety in Numbers
Content 18 Style 15 Originality 21 Technical 12 Total 66
Feedback:
We enjoyed the idea and general content of the film but were distracted by the technical aspects that would have made the film more enjoyable if corrected. The lighting and the sound was distracting. The film quality was good but the acting could have been better rehearsed. We also were distracted with the cluttering of the set with camera equipement. There was a lot more physical movement than dialogue. Best of luck in your feature endeavors.
---> End Critiques de Short Film "De" "Ce" <---
For all works by the now defunct Movie Saturday group click here.
Feature length films are in the works.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
