>>...what was your intention with this film? What were you
>>trying to do/say with this?
>
>Ultimately, the film was meant to be a fun, very off beat
>comedy that focused on questions like "What do you do when
>you're dead and bored?" and "What if there was a class system
>after death?". But, after the lead actress and the producer
>quit and there were only three people to crew the film, a lot
>was exchanged for simply getting it done. It truly pains me
>to say that because it violates a key principle of mine.

This is the number one thing I'd say you should work on: clarity. In terms of the actions and the dialogue, any ambiguity in terms of vague actor choices or unclear line readings, there's nothing you can do. However, I think that especially the dead-and-bored thing can read very well with the touch-ups you specified to the editing and the soundtrack.

The class system thing didn't read very well to me. I got that some people were more important than others, but it wasn't immediately clear upon people's entrances and the shots of the people/monsters who these people were in the class, how they relate to one another, how far this class system stretches, et cetera. When you said that in your comment, it puzzled me a bit, since I didn't really get that the first time I saw it. Upon a repeated viewing, I understand the intention, but there's a bit of a clarity issue. It is what it is in terms of what's actually on the film, but I'm willing to bet once you tinker around with it that you can bring that theme out somehow if you so choose. I won't suggest how, since you undoubtedly know more about filmmaking than me-- however, it's something that is worth exploring and as it currently stands is a bit fuzzy and lost.

The dead-and-bored thing is another very interesting thing, one I did understand ESPECIALLY at the beginning. My question from here I guess would be if you wanted to make ONE of the issues this film brings up (the dead-and-bored thing or the class-system thing), which would you want to be the one at the CENTER of the film? As it stands, I got that the guy was dead and bored, but then around the time that the hunched-over guy helps set up and the other monsters start entering, I got confused. Are these all his fellow rich friends? Why are they doing this for him? How do they relate to him? What does this have to do with the actions of a bored, dead man? I see upon second viewing that the actions begin to revolve a bit more around the class system-- however, this takes the immediate attention away from Ludvig, and how this funeral pleases or displeases him, how it cures his boredom. I would watch upon all re-jiggering how the momentum of the piece seems to switch, and even the style of the piece seems to switch around the time we get to the entraces (a montage which I will address in a minute). Again, in terms of the "how", that'd be up to you. But I found myself confused as to what this piece was trying to do or say, which is why I asked. Now that I know, I can tell you that what you're trying to do or say seems to vary, which causes confusion to the audience member (at least for me).

>
>>Also, since you appear to be so
>>unhappy with the film, what do you intend on changing in
>>future drafts of the final cut?
>
>I'm not unhappy with the film, it's far from what we
>envisioned in a lot of ways but I think it looks great, it has
>great performances and is a lot of fun to watch.
>
>As for future drafts: the soundtrack will change a lot, there
>were some problems with a mic that need to be fixed, more
>folly sounds need to be added and I'll be doing a supervised
>transfer to bring more uniformity to the cinematography,

What does this mean?

as
>well as some cropping. Editing wise, I'm at somewhat of a
>loss. This draft was done in about two weeks when it should
>take several months. I need none UM student suggestions to
>get a more objective opinion.
>

The eyeline thing that colonelk said is something that was a bit disorienting, but it's neither here nor there-- you've got on film what you've got on film. I personally preferred the cuts at a slower pace-- it added for me to the feel of melancholy and boredom that you said you were going for. The montage of entrances is a scene that strikes me as very odd. It's not clear right now to me what the scene is for other than to introduce the characters that are coming to the funeral and to show off the makeup (which is actually quite good, by the way). I understand it tries to establish the class system in a way, but when you combine the actions with the very obvious quick jumps forward in time and the soundtrack, which sounds like something out of a carnival scene in a silent film, I can't tell what the mood is supposed to be, what I'm supposed to intake. I can interpret for myself, but when I have monsters mixed with carnival silent film music mixed with jumps forward in time mixed with hammy expressions mixed with actions about bowing that I'm unsure of the meaning...you can see my confusion. Is it supposed to be funny or is it supposed to be "cool monsters" or is it supposed to maintain the humor of the melancholy feel of the bored dead? Right now the scene seems to be mixing and matching elements of all of these things. And of course, the audience doesn't want to be TOLD how to feel or how to intake this info. But when the pieces of the puzzle are to several different puzzles, it just ends up a bit garbled in tone and mood, you feel me? Again, this is something that I'm SURE can somehow be fixed in the editing room. But to me it's the least clear section of the film (at least, the section that is unclear that you can do something to fix).

>>That being said, after seeing your film and Ryan's, I'm
>REALLY
>>starting to think that I should go into acting.
>
>Elaborate.
>

Here's the thing about a lot of actors-- their intentions, both in the delivery of their lines and their physical gestures, are unclear. Here are some examples:

-- the owner of the funeral parlor I thought was the best actor of the bunch. A clear objective, and he was following it: even when I didn't know what he was thinking, it was clear HE knew what he was thinking, you know? However, during the bowing scene and that montage, he looked like he had been told to make faces at the monsters... it didn't seem to be motivated from what we knew of the character and how he carried himself. It went from professional to Look of Shock from 1930s Comedies (c). Again, I thought he was the best, but when he was scared, all of a sudden it was like Abbott and Costello Meets Frankenstein.

-- Ludvig was very consistent with his reactions, and seemed very motivated. However, upon the second viewing, he seemed to be playing the class-system angle and not really emphasizing at all the bored angle despite the indications in the dialogue towards boredom. As I said, I have very little problem with his protrayal, since it's very consistent. However, it's at times inconsistent with the piece as a WHOLE, since he brings a more dramatic flair, notsomuch any dark melancholy comedy to it. It's a very interesting performance to watch, and certainly the most consistent.

-- The hunchback guy... well, I got that he was subservient. But to me, I didn't know who he was, what he wanted, what he was thinking, et cetera. The problem isn't that I don't know WHAT he's thinking, the problem is I don't think he's thinking period. He looks like the director said, "Go there, do this, make this face."

The final commentary is the one that I always notice in student films, and it always gets to me. Inconsistencies, sure, I can deal. Performances that at time seem out-of-whack with the piece as a whole, sure, I can deal. But in this one and in Ryan's, I've seen performances that seemed to be totally physically motivated, as I call it, the go-here-do-this school of acting, where you follow blocking and put on faces, but you don't REALLY dive into it, you don't make everything that's going on upstairs what your character would have going on upstairs. That's why the best actors can have a shot of them thinking for 45 seconds, because the audience can follow the fact that he's thinking, he's hesitating, he's changed his mind, what is it that's running through his head now?, et cetera. Now, to be fair to you and Ryan, you don't need great actors to tell a great story. Many people had beef with an actor or two in Ryan's, and he's winning awards and shit. It's all about how the story gets told, the point of the existence of the piece, and how coherently the shit is put together at the end of the day. But damn if these things don't make me wanna find you fuckers and act in your films.


>I'm really looking forward to what you have to say.
>

All in all, you have a very interesting concept, and once the colors and shit are fixed, it will be very interesting to look at. The only thing I would look at in the editing room is the arc of the story, and how each stop, each shot, each line affects what the story is telling us at this point in the arc. Things like jiggering with the jump-cuts and the soundtrack will certainly help this a great deal. I won't tell you how, and I really look forward to the next draft of this, but once the clarity of the tone and the purpose (not what the purpose is necessarily, but that everything we are observing in the audience is shown to us FOR a purpose) are tweaked, I think you could have a very interesting first piece.

Keep us posted with how this is going.

Frank