Today I'm in our nation's capital grabbing some last-minute stock footage from the wonderful National Archives. It's swampy and moist and the cicadas are out but it's only about 85 or so and very tolerable. I'm not doing any sightseeing, really. Just hammering down at the Archives and visiting an old friend in Baltimore. I rented a humongous Chevy F-150 from Enterprise (there were no other cars available in the Baltimore/DC area) so it's been kind of fun bouncing around town in this gigantic penis-compensator. I've never really driven a penis-compensator before (except for a 5-ton grip truck once). This vehicle is living large, I tell you. It makes Middlebrow's Buick look like a Corolla. I am large and I am so in charge. I almost couldn't make it into the National Archives parking structure I am so large. The yellow-and-black bumblebee-striped pole said "Clearance 6'8" but I forced the issue and barely avoided scraping the hell out the rental roof. Oops.
What's really on my mind is this: I just received another scathing film review and it's kind of throwing me. It shouldn't throw me but it is. Alas, just when I was feeling good about the movie...a critique has to come along that f***s w/ my head. Now I am starting to have doubts. I think her comments are logical and make sense (mostly), but I question whether she's meeting the movie halfway and/or at least trying somewhat to understand the movie on its own terms...
I think it's human nature to want to believe the people who say you're a genius while discounting everyone else. I don't want to do that. On the other hand, I kind of feel that she's predisposed to dislike my film anyway and that any changes I make aren't going to work for her. It's not her thing, that's all.
Here are some of her notes (she works as an editor):
"The film is too long by far and you already know that. You are locked into a structure, and that structure is not working."
"It's hard for me to answer your questionnaire since I don't buy your structure. At All. I feel like you didn't know where to put some stuff and so you made a chapter to take care of it. It doesn't flow and almost every-time it threw me right out of watching the film."
"I found Lou to to irritating right away and then he went downhill from there. I don't think you need him. I know you think you need him but you don't. He's obvious and pedantic."
"I understand that you're trying to tie it back into the opening that air hockey is sort of the culmination of human thought but it feels forced."
"The opening is too long."
"The chapter titles over black are also bogging your pacing down. Pick a style and stick with it. You've chosen some stylized film making techniques but it's not an overall style."
"I don't like the device of someone saying some word and then jumping to a title like "art" or "music" (this section is very thin anyway) . not working for me. seems obvious and a bit of a cheat."
"Why black and white anything? Also not so wild about the Asian guy with the comic book. Not too interesting . Definitely not interesting enough to come back to."
"I hope that the night stuff with Mark is better than what I saw. which was a black pixalated screen. That low angle shot where he's driving makes him look like the unibomber if that's what you're going for."
"I don't find any connections within the sections at all. Like cutting to old footage of Mark with a frozen beard. What? Why?"
"Almost all of your scenes could be cut in half."
So there you go. Now I'm wondering whether I need to just submit a rough cut to Sundance and spend the next few months tailoring the movie to this one person's point of view.
I'm starting to realize that Lou (the air hockey philosopher who forms the spine of the film) is working as a cinematic version of SERFS. I love this guy and think he's contagious and energetic and inspiring, but a lot of people (like the person above) have commented that they HATE him. Perhaps that's SERFS working. If you hate Lou then you're going to hate the movie and you're going to hate anything that I have to say...so you better get your hatred out of the way or you're going to be stuck watching this thing for 90 minutes.
Then again, maybe Lou does need to come out. Hell if I know.
7 comments:
I would just like to state, for the record, that The Way of the Puck's Salt Lake City screening did not include an invitation to moi. (barely contained rage/pique.)
However, I can sympathize about the critique, I really can. It's very hard to know, I think, whether the thing you love, feel committed to, about your work is the thing you need to let go (this is a standard workshop cliche, which irritates the shit out of me). I got a critique of my manuscript--this from an editor who asked to see my manuscript on the basis of poems she'd already seen--where she basically said, "yeah, your style really isn't for me." Help me, Jesus. Have strength, my brother.
Actually I should give you a fuller response to my viewing (sorry lisa b. it was a spur-of-the-moment viewing, but that's not really a good excuse) since I don't know how much of our reponses Middlebrow reported. Send me your questionnaire--my school email is easy to figure out--firstname.lastname@slcc.edu.
I would disagree with your reviewer that Lou is unnecessary. I think he needs to be better identified and something at the end needs to show why the hell you are talking ot him in the first place (Middlebrow filled me in.) It sort of congeals if you have that information. Perhaps he could be cut down a bit, but I don't know.
On a side note, I mentioned to Mid-B that it might be interesting to hear some Bukowski at various points. That doesn't shorten it up any, of course.
Oh yeah--the funeral/memorial scene--touching but how relevant?
Oh yeah--I want to see more of that damn robot,but that's just me.
Overly critical critiques make me think two things: one, that the critic believes the thing is something that it's not and two, that they really are invested in it and are going to do whatever they can to make it into thing number one. To get someone to engage in something, even negatively, seems so much more important than getting that lovely, but quick and cheap "LOVE IT." It seems making hateable art is good genius.
Lisa, I will get you a copy of Way of the Puck.
From a non-movie type whose opinions therefore get triple-counted in your system ... Stay the course, Sleepy. Were the innovative independent movies of our modern time made to conform to opinions resembling those of the critic in question? Creo que no!
My opinion is...make your movie the way YOU like it, and share that with the world.
I mean, this is YOUR narrative and YOUR vision. I assume you are not trying to show the world HER vision.
If what you see in the film is not coming across to viewers then perhaps some more tweaks are needed. But, from the sound of her comments, she appears quite self-important and "all knowing." If she doesn't get it, new titles aren't going to enlighten her.
I find her comments crude, unhelpful and presumptive. Telling you that you don't need a character and saying that she knows that you think you do! That takes chutzpah! LOL...oh and the fact that she works as an editor but doesn't know know what "to" to use is funny.
Be sure lisa b gets the newest cut, NOT the one Clint saw (the much baggier, sloppier version). Thanks for the comments, people!
Post a Comment