Just Make Media!

Loading...

Wednesday, June 20, 2007

SLC ENTRY :: STITCH AND BITCH

9 comments:

zoom zoom said...

i love the picture (frame capture)! very freudian with the phallus on the left side of the image and the cartoon swirl coming out of her head like a unicorn's tusk! that's hillarious

Anonymous said...

Oh, I get it. She wants to "change".
I hope you can take some positive critisism because I'll just be honest. This is an extremely pointless, drawn-out, bore with acting I would expect from, well 2 old women who like sitting on their asses bitching about things.

Anonymous said...

I was a bit non-plus'd about the TWIST also. What is the twist?

Don't tell me it has something to do with the kayak because you'd have to shoot me dead if it was the kayak.

Anonymous said...

I was trying to figure out where this story was going and what it was about. The only "conflict" that it might be headed toward resolving was her relationship with Toby. So, we're wating for her to meet up with Toby at the story apex and NOTHING.

I agree with the second comment, the story goes nowhere and progression of scene and time is pointless. I found the editor, when trying to cut to the cookies to suggest the passing of time was trying to set up a story transition device but it is laughable and then the editor just drops the device anyway because there is no point to the story or building from one knitting session to the next.

I found very little thought and design went into trying to tell a story AND what is the story?

Anonymous said...

Let's be honest,can we? I mean, there is so much hype and BS from filmmakers about the quality of their work and so little honesty. Honestly speaking, do you as filmmakers really know how to write a story? Do you have a story here?

Anonymous said...

I concur with the forth comment...the story is non-existant. The screenwriter is apparently totally unaware of any of the basic conventions of storytelling, scene structure or character development (and unless you happen to be watching porn this adds up to one excructiating experience for the viewer). I wouldn't even describe the acting as 'bad'...more like 'half-hearted.' The remaining asthetics of the film are a laundry list of a sub-amatuer attempt: atrocious camera work, inaudible sound (probably a blessing), indecipherable editing, inept use of location... and that grand old staple of poor cinema: an interminable, dragging pace. Please choose another hobby...like, oh I don't know...knitting?

zoom zoom said...

I think the last comment was a liitle unfair.

To tell someone to pick another hobby is a tad bit condescending and I find it is much more complicated than just one person chosing to make a film. There are a whole bunch of creative people behind making a short drama like this. First, the writer or writers. They are responsible for the story structure, characters, well written dialogue and progression of the scenes. Then, you have a director who coaches and directs the actors, makes sure there is the proper pacing and that humorous lines are punctuated or given the timing they need to make people laugh. Then, there is a cinematographer who frames the shots to make it interesting to look at. People write music. The editor play a critical role in making the timing of it work and creating visual excitement.

Sometimes it doesn't gel. Other times everything works magically and all the parts comes into sync.

You cannot reduce this to one person and then tell them to take up another hobby. And people get better, all the components parts improve through the experience of making a film.

I think anything you want to say about the story, structure, dialogue, lighting, sound, editing, etc that will give direction for improvement is valid.

But don't make condescending comments about the filmmakers.

Besides, I know a lot of people who play kickball, dodgeball, badmitton, golf, volleyball and tennis and they do it very badly. Who am I to tell them to quit?

Anonymous said...

I really have to agree with some of the other comments...this story seemed to go absolutely nowhere, and I watched it twice just to make sure I didn't miss something crucial(which I didn't). What exactly was the point of the story? I was very perplexed at the fact that nothing happened at all between the girl and her boyfriend at the end, since it seemed as if that's where it was leading. The first half of the short was very drawn-out, and I really had a tough time concentrating on what was going on. The actors were very monotone, nothing that was said through the entire short jumped out at me to make me the least bit interested. Was this short something that was thought up at the very last minute, so it could be rushed for submission? That is the feeling that I got while watching it. Great effort, but not the least bit captivating.

Anonymous said...

I didn't notice a plot, some of the scenes ended and I thought Why? What's the point of the cut, the scene, and then the film starts again. I thought I would see some cool feminist rage piece where I might pick up some things from the woman's POV on life or something, instead it sort of drifted like a kayak without a paddle. Perhaps this was an excuse to get out of the house and shoot something.