tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8795280.post7342613450227328562..comments2024-03-24T13:26:57.317-07:00Comments on Sergio Leone and the Infield Fly Rule: Andrew Blackwood's SLAPDennis Cozzaliohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01954848938471883431noreply@blogger.comBlogger58125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8795280.post-62997770608021852822007-12-24T00:56:00.000-08:002007-12-24T00:56:00.000-08:00Merry Christmas, everybody!Merry Christmas, everybody!Dennis Cozzaliohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01954848938471883431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8795280.post-22239520263378103432007-12-23T09:50:00.000-08:002007-12-23T09:50:00.000-08:00I don't believe that the director would form such ...<I> I don't believe that the director would form such a low opinion of women to think of them as heartless cunts.</I> <BR/>He’s talking about the piece, Bel. People make sexist pieces all the time without meaning to. It’s because everyone is sexist, and most people tend to not think about gender dynamics in a persistent and thoughtful way, and thus will make pieces that hate women, oblivious to what they’ve done. (Or else they spend all their time thinking up justifications for their own shitty attitudes, but that’s a different problem.) <BR/><BR/> It doesn’t mean that Andrew is worse than anybody else, it just means that the act of filmmaking has revealed his latent sexism. Believe me, it happens to the best of us. <BR/><BR/>I don’t necessarily adhere to Alex’s line that it’s sexist because the woman slaps first. I don’t really care who slaps first, as I feel the filmmaker doesn’t care. The reason I find it sexist is his general treatment of the subject, rendering “slapping” into a nonviolent act, thus romanticizing it. (Let’s not call it sexist then; let’s say it glosses over the dominant-submissive paradigm that comprises sexism.) <BR/><BR/>It is, to get maybe “over the top” about it, as if he’d made a (non-ironic) ballet about rape. Dennis responds that I don’t understand Andrew’s approach to the subject. I do, and I respect that he’s adhered to strict visual terms. Everyone could use that much discipline. I just think that as an approach to its subject the piece is fundamentally dishonest. Again, it happens to the best of us: we make an art object that may be internally consistent, but withers upon real contact with the world. <BR/><BR/>As a piece, I feel that Andrew’s plays little better than propaganda: we all want to believe that people can’t hurt each other, that we’re each cordoned off, invincible in our own frames, that violence is nothing but a funny sound effect and an unhappy facial expression. As someone who has regularly gotten the shit kicked out of her I can assure you that that’s not what violence is, either as an act received or employed. In that regard, Andrew’s piece is more like a Disney movie than any thoughtful treatment of the subject. <BR/><BR/>I’d ask him to talk to people who’ve suffered violence in their lives, to read about violent relationships, visit <A HREF="http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com" REL="nofollow"/>, then try to make the piece again.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8795280.post-22882851341329578232007-12-23T01:27:00.000-08:002007-12-23T01:27:00.000-08:00for Alex:Although I don't really approve of harsh ...for Alex:<BR/><BR/>Although I don't really approve of harsh criticisms. I am amazed, however, at your ability to hit the bull's eye in this case.<BR/><BR/>It seems as if you know the director pretty well with your no-bs (forgive my language) analysis. <BR/><BR/>This line from your comment...<BR/><BR/>"Meaning that Blackwood believes that ALL romantic relationships will inevitably devolve into bouts of emotional cruelty. This notion is offensively simplistic. The dynamics of interpersonal relationships are substantially more complicated than Blackwood gives them credit for."<BR/><BR/>...is so disturbingly real. It makes me wonder if this is a reflection of how the director's mind works. I had a totally different take on the short film but seeing it from your perspective makes a lot of sense.<BR/><BR/>Was this made based from a totally fictional sense? Or was it taken from a personal experience? <BR/><BR/>Another quote is...<BR/><BR/>"I mentioned that it comes off as the work of a teenage boy who just broke up with his girlfriend."<BR/><BR/>If this is true (I'm hoping not!)...then poor woman. To have such a short film identified with her is highly insulting and morally degrading. <BR/><BR/>And when you added...<BR/><BR/>"Watching it after a break-up means indulging in a fatalistic fantasy where no relationship ever works out thereby releasing the viewer of any culpability for the dissolution of the relationship. You think “It’s not my fault, this is just how it always happens” and do no work in examining why your relationship didn’t work out."<BR/><BR/>This is how inexperienced people deal with relationships in order to force themselves to move on. In time, they do grow up and realize it's not the way the cookie crumbles. <BR/><BR/>Lastly...<BR/><BR/>"If there’s another message to Blackwood’s film it’s clearly that “Women are heartless cunts”. <BR/><BR/>This, I believe, is over the top. I do agree with some of your comments I quoted before the last one. I don't believe that the director would form such a low opinion of women to think of them as heartless cunts.<BR/><BR/>If he based this from experience. He might have come from a position where the outcome of the experience led him to deal with the conflicting emotions in this way.<BR/><BR/>You always have to take into consideration that the director has an imagination that challenges him to go against the norm. To keep on trying what society might not find amusing and highly degrading. What makes people unique is their ability to put something out there for the world to scrutinize. The more politically incorrect something is...the more attention it draws in. <BR/><BR/>As a woman, and the director's friend (I think), the irony of me seeing this objectively is laughable. <BR/><BR/>On a highly personaly note...I look at the film and I see a work of art. Yes, Alex, you may consider it trash...or a film that should never have been made. I watch it with amusement because I've seen relationships that are unfortunately similar to this. We're only human after all....I'm sure a lot of people goes through a period of emotional stupidity before realizing that mistake.<BR/><BR/>Sometimes you have have to lose someone in order to find yourself. <BR/><BR/>This film is the perfect example. <BR/><BR/>This wasn't made with the intention of pleasing everybody. Nor was it made to show the "proper way to deal with relationships"<BR/><BR/>It is what it is. A short film. No real mystery behind it. :)<BR/><BR/>Okay I rest my case. As always I've written way too much. I'm now officially done with this blog commenting.<BR/><BR/>And for Adrian...<BR/><BR/>Like I said earlier...keep on making those films. It sure as hell gets better and better from here. Good luck!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8795280.post-70737155196958623882007-12-22T19:03:00.000-08:002007-12-22T19:03:00.000-08:00OK. So I viewed the film again. I still hate it. I...OK. So I viewed the film again. I still hate it. I'll try now to explain my feelings more fully. This time in Word first to appease Mr. “Sic” Happy over there. This is the my definitive review of <I>Slap</I>, but I don’t think I’ll be contradicting what I said earlier. <BR/><BR/>Now first, and I don't think that I'm stating the obvious exactly, I believe that the process of film criticism begins by first identifying the film’s subject (there will often be many) and then identifying the point of view toward the subject. It’s more simple than “What’s he trying to say”, it’s “how does he feel about this”. <BR/><BR/>With <I>Slap</I>, the only subject that I can identify is “romantic relationships between men and women“. I can’t really see the film being about anything else. So what is Blackwood saying about romantic relationships. What is his feeling about it? Well, that romantic relationships between men and women inevitably de-evolve into slapping fits basically. By rendering only the slaps in sound and not having any dialogue, he‘s essentially suggesting that this is the slapping is not merely the only relevant form of communication, it’s the only form of communication period. <BR/><BR/>Note also that he doesn’t develop either the man or the woman as characters. They haven’t any real identity outside of “the man” and “the woman”. He doesn’t even give them names. And so they come off as universal and archetypical. Meaning that Blackwood believes that ALL romantic relationships will inevitably devolve into bouts of emotional cruelty. This notion is offensively simplistic. The dynamics of interpersonal relationships are substantially more complicated than Blackwood gives them credit for. Nor does he suggest <BR/><BR/>I mentioned that it comes off as the work of a teenage boy who just broke up with his girlfriend. As I published that somebody even said that they would consider watching this after their next break-up. But films like <I>Slap</I>, with their profound, universal, nihilism actively work to retard personal growth. Watching it after a break-up means indulging in a fatalistic fantasy where no relationship ever works out thereby releasing the viewer of any culpability for the dissolution of the relationship. You think “It’s not my fault, this is just how it always happens” and do no work in examining why your relationship didn’t work out. <BR/><BR/>Furthermore, Blackwood states in a later comment that he sees men and women as equals. This is a ridiculous comment and willfully naïve. A comment of some sort is implied when he has the woman slap the man twice without provocation. First, in jest and then in earnest. I said there is no way to avoid something like this when making a film about a man and a woman slapping one another. But I don’t think that excuses it. By not giving his characters any personal dimensions he emphasizes the importance of their gender. And so when the woman slaps the man, it’s all women slapping all men everywhere. If there’s another message to Blackwood’s film it’s clearly that “Women are heartless cunts”. <BR/><BR/>I think the reason that the sound of the slaps seemed smart-ass to me is because, along with the exaggerated facial impressions of his cast, it reminded me of the old Batman series with Adam West. The film is called “slap” and the only sound effect is slapping. It seemed a little too on the nose for me, like he was making fun of the idea of high-concept minimalist student films. <BR/><BR/>How much depth do I expect from a four-minute film? The film didn’t need to be four minutes. Blackwood could have made it half an hour long, an hour long, two hours long if he thought the length would better articulate his perspective toward his subject matter. If he wasn’t able to convey his feelings in the four minute window with his available resources, he shouldn’t have made the film. That’s absolutely no excuse.Alex Jacksonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13028946403342782184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8795280.post-72861343748038672052007-12-22T14:58:00.000-08:002007-12-22T14:58:00.000-08:00Thanks to everyone for commenting and especially f...Thanks to everyone for commenting and especially for even watching it! As Dennis said in his comment, perhaps it is "rigid experimentation" and the "testing of ideas" so I should be even more thankful for people watching.<BR/><BR/>Gur, Blaaagh, Laurence, Thom, and Emerson all complimented the acting or the faces, and I should definitely thank Paul Tifford and Luz María Utrera for helping me make the film. They did a fantastic job, especially since they were not filmed at the same time and could not play off each other's expressions-- and what's more were not even made aware of the plot or the reasons behind what they were doing! So they were extremely good sports for doing this.<BR/><BR/>Lapper, I watched <A HREF="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88JS1lrqPHA" REL="nofollow">"Neighbors" </A> (McLaren, 1952) on YouTube (click link to check it out!) and realized I had seen it around 10 years ago in a Super8 film class. It must have inspired me to do a stop-motion movie I did back then. It was too vague in my memory to have played any influence here, and his film's subject is broader, talking about bigger issues like war. I think mine just focuses on these two people's relationship. <BR/><BR/>Your analysis of it was right on (your own argument with Bill, the “perceived wrong” and escalation), as was Asha's (realistic but not in a literal sense), Bel's (no closures, slaps represent dialogue or pain) and Emerson's (slaps/dialogue, Kuleshov). (I’d like to hear “confused”s response about whether these helped or not, rather than answering directly.) <BR/><BR/>Bel also said no matter how short or long, a film is a representation of real life, and I've been reading Alexander Mackendrick's <A HREF="http://www.amazon.com/Film-making-Introduction-Craft-Director/dp/0571211259" REL="nofollow"><I>On Film-making</I></A>, where he says any scene in a film should be a microcosm of all the main themes of the movie. He advocates being able to make short films first, because you can include all the themes of longer works. In other words, they’re both saying the film shouldn’t get a pass for being short, and that it can/should be analyzed just as fully as a longer work. Emerson’s <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuleshov_Effect" REL="nofollow">Kuleshov</A> reference was apt since the actors were filmed separately, and I think it’s especially the case in the early scenes in the film, where the different facial expressions were juxtaposed fairly sharply. Kuleshov’s other fascination was about how viewers would believe people to be in the same locations, even when shot miles away, merely through editing, and so I had that giddy filmmaker feeling of putting this together out of disparate elements (almost like blocks I assembled together), but indeed that is not anything that the viewer cares about—just Kuleshov! There’s another Kuleshov experiment mentioned in Mackendrick’s <I>On Film-making</I> [pg 205-6] where he filmed actors in different parts of Moscow and intercut a shot of the White House followed by one of them going up some steps and he was completely amazed that viewers bought that they went into the White House. Seems silly to us nowadays, but I had some of that feeling on this film, which is a very distracting feeling because the viewer couldn’t and shouldn’t care less about that. <BR/><BR/>I've already said more than I intended, because I think the film is the communication, and it was important for me to sit back and not comment to see how effectively I communicated by listening to your discussion. It seems I did communicate effectively, but for many they wanted more-- more elements, a grander theme, a better approach. When I look at it I see that there needs to be more than just the slapping. For instance, when it goes to slo-mo, that is supposed to be more visually interesting, but it’s dissatisfying because it doesn’t impart new information (in the story, plot, or a new idea). So, yes, it's too simplistic, too much of a working out of ideas. <BR/><BR/>This was made for a filmmaking class taught by <A HREF="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0006798/" REL="nofollow">Matt</A> <A HREF="http://www.filmcrash.com/" REL="nofollow">Harrison</A> who did a fantastic job and was very inspiring. Some of his assignments were brilliant, especially the very first assignment he gave us, which was to do a single-shot film, black and white, no sound and you can’t move the camera in any way (I invite any aspiring filmmakers out there to go do this one right now and post the results online!). This kept it simple so that you got the sense of accomplishment of making a film very early on in the class, which is very important, and it obviously stripped out so many aspects of filmmaking and brought you down to an early Lumiere level, which is an extremely healthy limitation. For this latest film project (my “Slap” film), he randomly assigned each of us a title, and after that, anything goes. So I could have done a whole story with dialogue and a moving camera, etc., so if it’s too much rigid experimentation the blame is mine alone! I highly recommend that anyone interested in filmmaking sign up for Matt Harrison’s classes at UCLA Extension. He’ll have you making films in no time! The Mackendrick book was from his class, and it was a brilliant choice. I’ve just finished reading the rest of it after the class ended. (Also, in response to Lapper, nothing was eliminated due to limited resources, but instead I was engaging filmmaking using its most limited and basic elements. So there were no further ideas that were curtailed by funding, but I perhaps limited my scope in the initial idea.)<BR/><BR/>On a technical level, I got to try out some new things (for me) with big close-ups and staring directly into camera-- and whether the audience would view them as looking at each other (apparently it worked so well for Rachel that she said they weren't even looking into camera!) and whether it was believable that they were slapping each other. It seemed for most viewers that worked, or they at least went with it. I appreciate Matt Posey and Thom's and others' technical comments about the backgrounds, etc.<BR/><BR/>I also like Rocio's analysis earlier up in the comments which mentioned that they were represented as equals, but that this was not comfortable when they were slapping, and she further mentioned Hollywood action movies with females fighting (and usually winning) and the filmmakers downplaying the blows they receive. This was fascinating to me, and also many people have told me they didn't like the woman being slapped in mine. I view men and women as equals and didn't give any thought to this incongruity, but it's fascinating to me. I think, however, his first slap of her is more violent (the way my editing came out), so it may be that the film itself has manipulated the viewer to feel the slapping of the woman in this particular film is too violent. Anyway, I thought Rocio's comment was fascinating and I would have liked to hear more discussion of it. (Maybe it’s dependent on whether you view the slaps literally or not.)<BR/><BR/>A quick note about Alex Jackson. In re-reading his comments I noticed he actually did take some time to analyze the film, but this was overshadowed for me by the incendiary bombs he threw (usually working himself into an excited frenzy and then capping it with some gigantic explosion of vitriol at the end of a paragraph). I think your film writing would benefit from consideration of whether you need to throw those bombs or not. Your writing comes off as passionate enough without them, and they are indeed distracting from your more substantive comments.<BR/><BR/>I loved the "primate/Ozu/van Sant/Bela Tarr" quote over on Film Freak. That was awesome! I loved that someone could manage to divine an influence of such high-brow filmmakers in the work of a primate! (I do understand how that is indeed possible, so I’m not saying they’re wrong either).<BR/><BR/>Lastly, I want to thank Dennis for taking me up on this crazy idea to do a movie premiere! This was enormous fun, and it was beneficial for me, and it was great to see people who might be new to analyzing films put pen to paper for the first time. Keep it coming! Usually you just see small works like this on YouTube and pass on by, but here there was real discussion (despite how worthy or unworthy the film was of it), and I would be excited to see film bloggers from time to time engage short works that are debuted on YouTube or DailyMotion. I think there is a film workshop benefit for the filmmaker and there's a benefit to film critics, too, in going in depth on smaller things that could help with their bigger picture reviews (if Mackendrick is right about each scene in a good film being a microcosm of all its larger themes).<BR/><BR/>- The Mysterious A)dri.an B|eta)m[ax (Andrew Blackwood)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8795280.post-68847927045135312072007-12-22T12:04:00.000-08:002007-12-22T12:04:00.000-08:00Well, I thought to myself, if Dennis gets up early...Well, I thought to myself, if Dennis gets up early this morning and checks his comments, he's going to want something top-notch, so I gave that one everything I had. I'm glad it paid off.<BR/><BR/>"Sweeney Todd" was excellent! Wow. Nice job, Tim Burton.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8795280.post-86050523546457849232007-12-22T08:43:00.000-08:002007-12-22T08:43:00.000-08:00It was worth geting up early for that, Bill!It was worth geting up early for that, Bill!Dennis Cozzaliohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01954848938471883431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8795280.post-67664539877578853292007-12-22T06:05:00.000-08:002007-12-22T06:05:00.000-08:00Dennis - in the interest of keeping your blog clas...Dennis - in the interest of keeping your blog classy, and trying to bring your blog rating down to at least an R, I had to refrain from commenting on Marisa, but since you insist, here is what I've been telling everyone who asks, UNEDITED FOR CONTENT:<BR/><BR/>Holy hell, she sure is pretty. Her performance is hit and miss, but boy... I remember hearing her say once a long time ago that she was a no-nudity kind of actress. I would like to thank her for reconsidering.<BR/><BR/>Well, you asked for it, Dennis. Now your blog will probably get an NC-43.<BR/><BR/>Oh, and I'm seeing "Sweeney Todd" today. I'm pretty excited for this movie, and I hadn't expected to be.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8795280.post-23916546537941858392007-12-22T01:21:00.000-08:002007-12-22T01:21:00.000-08:00Bill, Jonathan: No comment re Ms. Tomei? Come on! ...Bill, Jonathan: <BR/><BR/>No comment re Ms. Tomei? Come on! You can't do that to me. Besides, I ended up not seeing the Lumet movie. I dragged my feet around here and went to see <I>Sweeney Todd</I> instead. For once, cultural ignorance pays off. I had no idea where the story was headed, the music was wonderful, Depp and Bonham Carter were superb and sung such difficult songs plenty well enough-- two of Burton's finest hours. Now I'd like to go back and hear recordings of Len Cariou, Angela Lansbury and others.<BR/><BR/>And don't worry about hogging my comments columns, boys. There's always enough room for cheerful chatter around here, especially after this week! I spent about four hours this evening compiling the Best of Mr. Shoop's Summer Quiz, and you both made quite a nice showing. Only about halfway done, and I gotta finish so I can post the new quiz tomorrow!<BR/><BR/>Oh, and re: Mr. Blackwood, I'd say, if he wants to chime in and say anything further he's more than welcome. I'd rather hear him talk about his intentions with the movie than, say, Eli Roth chat up his. But if he felt the topic had been exhausted I'd respect that as well. All in all, I think this has been a pretty constructive forum and an interesting exercise in what forms a critical look at a short film no one's ever heard of or seen before can take. Not that the thread is finished, but I would like to thank one and all for participating.Dennis Cozzaliohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01954848938471883431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8795280.post-67926482592022380272007-12-21T22:53:00.000-08:002007-12-21T22:53:00.000-08:00It would be better to hear from this Andrew dude t...It would be better to hear from this Andrew dude than have other people defend him.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8795280.post-85990965792499167922007-12-21T22:46:00.000-08:002007-12-21T22:46:00.000-08:00Jonathan - I think Dennis is sick and tired of us ...Jonathan - I think Dennis is sick and tired of us hogging his comments with off-topic blather.<BR/><BR/>Dennis - I thought the Lumet film was a bit of a disappointment, but Hoffman is through-the-roof good. I shall make no comment regarding Ms. Tomei.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8795280.post-49962452949239391302007-12-21T21:22:00.000-08:002007-12-21T21:22:00.000-08:00Anonmyous: Check the Shamus out under his given no...Anonmyous: Check the Shamus out under his given nom de plume at <A HREF="http://tinyurl.com/yvcw98" REL="nofollow"><I>Welcome to L.A.</I></A><BR/><BR/>Alex: Thanks for coming back. I really would appreciate hearing anything further you have to say, and I'm sure Andrew would too. I'm thinking there's the seeds of another interesting post here, where three or four short films could be posted together and commented upon. Interested? Jonathan?<BR/><BR/>Jonathan: I was just gonna let you and Bill fight amongst yourselves. I already gave you "Best Of" props.<BR/><BR/>I'm tired. Should I really schlep all the way to Pasadena to see that new Sidney Lumet movie, or should I just go to bed?Dennis Cozzaliohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01954848938471883431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8795280.post-71299708172877749512007-12-21T20:46:00.000-08:002007-12-21T20:46:00.000-08:00I can't believe in a comment that long you didn't ...I can't believe in a comment that long you didn't mention Bill or me once. I mean, shouldn't it just be expected? <BR/><BR/>Seriously though, nice comment. Now let's do another premiere. Bill, you got anything?Greghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05730146625671701859noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8795280.post-4126027318398875992007-12-21T20:38:00.000-08:002007-12-21T20:38:00.000-08:00Tell you what, Dennis. I'll come back tomorrow wit...Tell you what, Dennis. I'll come back tomorrow with a more thorough analysis of the film and full response to your allegations. <BR/><BR/>Don't have much time to do so right now.Alex Jacksonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13028946403342782184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8795280.post-4917549183247686472007-12-21T15:45:00.000-08:002007-12-21T15:45:00.000-08:00Slap seems the least interesting of the three movi...<I>Slap</I> seems the least interesting of the three movies Andrew has made that I have seen, and that may have more to do with my own tendency to respond more completely to the emotional content of <A HREF="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHLfQlqkg0Y" REL="nofollow"><I>The Young Mother</I></A> or the Herzogian influence of tragic observation in <A HREF="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6kiw9GjBWg" REL="nofollow"><I>Elements</I></A> than to the more rigid experimentation of <I>Slap</I>. That said, I like the idea of sealing off such a definitive and devastating physical response from all context and examining it in close-up for what it is. The existence of the relationship is all the context Blackwood gives us, and it’s enough. (There has to be a relationship to another being, the giver and receiver of the hit, otherwise the definition of “slap” takes on onanistic shadings that obviously Andrew is not interested in here.) It’s an experimental film, which implies the testing of ideas (Jim’s evocation of Kuleshov was, I thought, particularly astute) as well as the learning curve of the filmmaker in terms of technical facility and orchestration of ideas. <BR/><BR/>Some of Andrew’s ideas work better than others—the shifting of emotions on the man’s face juxtaposed with the woman’s deadpan, almost eerie separation from the physical invasiveness of the slap is suggestive how differing personalities can process devastating events in a relationship; I prefer this strange interplay to the overwrought slow-motion effects near the end. But I’m at a loss to think of any student film, or amateur film, or however else you want to characterize it, that isn’t uneven—it’s the nature of learning, of not knowing it all, of striving to find a voice that isn’t merely a compendium of homages and references to other films. <BR/><BR/>It should come as no major revelation to anyone here to discover Andrew is a friend of mine. And to paraphrase Rachel, Andrew’s not looking for pats on the back, and anything less than honesty is of little use to him as he continues to figure out what he wants to do with film/video as an at form. Looking at them as objectively as I can, it seems to me that Andrew’s movies are as far from flawless as they are from being aesthetic crimes. I found <I>Elements</I> moving and beautiful and horrifying, and the essential humanity of <I>The Young Mother</I> grabbed me even as I sensed that it had nowhere to go. (Andrew found it amusing that my major criticism of the film, a one-shot film dependent on the choreography of its actors and placement of the camera, was one of editing—I thought it would have been better served by a cut to black rather than the sort of visual fizzle it ended up with.)<BR/><BR/><I>Slap</I> is more detached, perhaps easier for some to dismiss, and I don’t think it has anything like the power of the other two movies. But it’s clearly not the act of a smart-ass; and its aestheticizing of the primacy of a particular form of human contact is, despite Rachel’s objections, nothing new. For me the movie is a clinical examination of whether it’s possible to evoke the dynamics of a relationship when the actors clearly don’t occupy the same space, when all we see is the end result of conflict, not the conflict itself. It makes for a better idea than it does a film, at least as Andrew has realized it, but it’s hardly dishonorable or wrongheaded or terrible.<BR/><BR/>To this point, Rachel clearly has trouble with the idea of the actors never appearing in the same frame, but she seems to never consider that the separation might have been part of Andrew’s approach to the subject. And here are some of her other objections: <BR/><BR/><I>“There isn’t any evocation of violence. (An egghead might say, the piece lacks any objective correlative.) If you don’t want the actors to actually slap each other, you have to find another way to describe the suffering. One—albeit, hacky— example would be to intercut her face with shots of a television being smashed with a crowbar. If you can successfully tie the idea of her slapped face with the idea of the smashed television—a real event documented—then that’s the beginning of an honest reaction in the viewer. <BR/><BR/>Finally, there is no attempt to evoke the response of society. What’s interesting about slapping is that it’s so crazy inappropriate. You don’t necessarily need the reaction shot of some stunned passerby; however, I feel like there needs to be a third party, SOME perspective, or else it’s just the sweet nothings of aliens.”</I><BR/><BR/>Maybe I’m confused, but Rachel seems to be reviewing not Andrew’s film here but instead letting us know how she would have made it. I absolutely agree that a cut to a crowbar smashing a television would have screamed Film Production 101, and surely Alex and others would have been quick to let us know they recognized this as a silly cliché. As for that third-party perspective, how else but to describe the camera itself here? And what other option would there be by the reaction shot of some stunned passer-by. Rachel, you’re asking Andrew to violate the visual terms of his movie in order to satisfy an intrusive concession to the viewer and avoid his movie coming across like “the sweet nothings of aliens,” whatever that means. Why is the response of society so important in a film that has been so obviously, intentionally distilled down to practically primordial, utterly personal responses? With my own reservations stated, I think Andrew’s experiment works better than you do, Rachel, but however much I may agree or disagree with your assessments, I appreciate the level of graciousness you brought to your comments.<BR/><BR/>I wish I could say the same for Alex:<BR/><BR/><I>” I hated the use of sound. Only using the slaps came off as smart-ass to me, the death knell for the amateur filmmaker. It's cute. I'm not quite sure why this is. To be fair, it does work into the film's ridiculous overly simplistic worldview-- the slap is ultimately the only thing that matters and the only thing we'll ever hear. Pain is the universal language.<BR/><BR/>Maybe LaBute is an apt comparison and it's only because he properly dramatizes his superficial fashionably nihilistic ideas that we don't see as much how limited his scope is. When a director like Blackwood limits himself to only a few elements his stupidity is more fully exposed. I think he might have actually been serious, but it sure doesn't come out that way. The idea that he's treating this as all a joke might be my way of compensating for how intellectually and emotionally bankrupt the entire excercise (sic) is.”</I><BR/><BR/>Alex, I got all this from your comments: Andrew’s movie is the work of a smart-ass and employs “cute” techniques that are “the death knell of the amateur filmmaker.” (Yet you’re not quite sure why this is.) The film’s worldview is ridiculous and overly simplistic—it remains unclear how much depth one should expect from a four-minute film, yet it is clear you prefer you prefer fashionably nihilistic ideas to be “properly dramatized.” Whereas Andrew is worthy of crucifixion just a sentence or two earlier for being simplistic, you then lambaste him for not being ambitious enough and thus more fully exposing his “stupidity.” Finally, the movie is “intellectually and emotionally bankrupt.” <BR/><BR/>Not to be presumptuous or anything, Alex, but I’m wondering what inspired all the vitriol. Your comments are very colorful, but they don’t connect to much about the film itself. It’s like Pete Hammond of <I>Maxim</I> saying “It’s a scorching, sizzling, emotional roller-coaster of a film!” That kind of comment tells us a lot about the writer’s love of using splashy phrases, and perhaps a little about how he likes to hear his own words jangle about in his head—or on a comments page—but it tells us precious little about your understanding of what did or didn't work in the film. This kind of scorched-earth approach to criticism is all about drawing attention to the critic at the expense of a relatively easy target. Except that the target is never so easy as it is to string together a bunch of loud, clever rants in the name of honest criticism. The irony is, Andrew invites serious dissection of his work, as any of us should, but that criticism is of far less value when it can’t be connected to specifics.<BR/><BR/>Your tone really strikes me as representative of what one can expect from <I>Film Freak Central</I>, a site headed by a very smart <A HREF="http://sergioleoneifr.blogspot.com/2006/05/chewing-on-walter-chaw.html" REL="nofollow">critic</A> with a Rushmore-sized chip on his shoulder. Strange that one of his contributors should sound so much like him. One of the comments received on the link to your post about your own film, provided by yet another <I>FFC</I> sound-alike, sums up the level of name-calling, name-dropping discourse this all boils down to:<BR/><BR/><I>“...unlike that slapping thing which a monkey could've made (a primate that has seen Ozu and van Sant, probably even Bela Tarr, but a primate nonetheless). Its (sic) a BS art-film conceived in a vaccum (sic) of and as a reaction to an incestuous art world. Its (sic) not fucking real.”</I><BR/><BR/>I prefer Andrew Bemis’ <A HREF="http://cinevistaramascope.blogspot.com/2007/12/trim-bin-65.html" REL="nofollow">take</A> on the whole thing. I don’t think Blackwood’s movie entirely works. Neither does Bemis. However:<BR/><BR/><I>“Alex Jackson hated it so much that he posted his own film over at the <I>Film Freak Central</I> blog, though <I>Hieronymous Bosch's HECK</I> shares more spiritual DNA with <I>Slap</I> than Mr. Jackson would probably care to admit. But as for the question "Who's more pretentious?," the answer is <A HREF="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bc-uOq6DyxY" REL="nofollow">me</A>.”</I><BR/><BR/>Ah, modesty and self-deprecating humor. Like a tall glass of ice water, they go a long way.Dennis Cozzaliohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01954848938471883431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8795280.post-4074446983313994012007-12-21T13:27:00.000-08:002007-12-21T13:27:00.000-08:00cool short film.btw, has The Shamus' blog disappea...cool short film.<BR/><BR/>btw, has The Shamus' blog disappeared off the face of the interweb? did i miss something?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8795280.post-56989875595920171312007-12-21T05:22:00.000-08:002007-12-21T05:22:00.000-08:00Well Bill to be fair I started sending out the "Fo...Well Bill to be fair I started sending out the "For Your Consideration" reminders to Dennis after my first comment. You gotta know how to lobby in this town Bill.<BR/><BR/>And now I really want to see Rachel's film. Apparently, according to the Baron, she was born of a jackel and her film's content will burn my soul away and force me to speak in tongues. Cool. Nice plant work Alex or Rachel. <BR/><BR/>See Bill, they know how to lobby.Greghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05730146625671701859noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8795280.post-54019939306873067072007-12-20T18:01:00.000-08:002007-12-20T18:01:00.000-08:00That is such bullshit. The Best Individual Commen...That is such bullshit. The Best Individual Comment Awards are just another popularity contest.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8795280.post-32309156630670699582007-12-20T15:59:00.000-08:002007-12-20T15:59:00.000-08:00And I didn't even have to put out the "Free Beer" ...And I didn't even have to put out the "Free Beer" sign!<BR/><BR/>Jonathan, you get the prize for Best Individual Comment for this thread!<BR/><BR/>I've been following all this with some amusement and lots of interest, and I promise to check in later this evening with some thoughts.Dennis Cozzaliohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01954848938471883431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8795280.post-31678582792043793832007-12-20T13:55:00.000-08:002007-12-20T13:55:00.000-08:00This premiere now officially rivals the riotous pr...This premiere now officially rivals the riotous premiere of <B>The Rite of Spring.</B> <BR/><BR/>Dennis, I applaud you.Greghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05730146625671701859noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8795280.post-82518005031398005622007-12-20T11:43:00.000-08:002007-12-20T11:43:00.000-08:00"Alex Jackson"-- If that is your real name. Outrag..."Alex Jackson"-- If that is your real name. Outrageous! Your critique of Andrew Blackwood's marvelous oeuvre, "Slap," is beyond the pale!<BR/><BR/>I can see why you might have problems with it, judging from the twisted, occult sensibilities so pervasive in your "Hieronymous Bosh's Heck." The stick figure head which opens your piece (calling to mind the Masonic All-Seeing Eye) alerts the viewer to the Anton Lavey inspirations that simply litter your film. Note the use of the "Pig Man," an ancient symbol of the Prince of Darkness. Pig Man makes chairs disappear then kills without remorse. Blood splatters throughout the film, the sacred, sacrificial liquid of the Dark Realm. We later watch a woman commit ritual suicide, no doubt to sacrifice her immortal soul to the cloven-hoofed Bringer of Destruction. Finally, the piece ends with a dark-robed hand changing television channels. Clearly, it's Beelzebub showing us that he is the real power behind "Hieronymous." The film ends with the Fallen Angel finishing a bowl of cereal, which certainly represents the devouring of our souls.<BR/><BR/>Next Alex recommends "Roman: A Suitable Case for Treatment." Well, of course he does.<BR/><BR/>"Roman" is yet another demonic exercise, yet this time with overt sapphic currents. We see a lovely young lady, the very picture of innocence, recite from a book about the Manson Murders ("Helter Skelter"?), the very symbol of ritualistic madness. Off screen another woman begins to tempt her, whisper to her, battle her, till she succumbs to this sexual predator's aggression and ends as little more than a puppet of the other woman's demonic charms!<BR/><BR/>Shame on you, "Alex"! This isn't cinema, it's perversion! Where "Slap" invites us to use film as a tool of intellectual exploration, your two films simple tempt us to corrupt our souls and bodies in a cataclysm of dark and carnal mysticism!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8795280.post-89681238006975613712007-12-20T09:44:00.000-08:002007-12-20T09:44:00.000-08:00Andrew,I liked the film. Expressions were great. D...Andrew,<BR/>I liked the film. Expressions were great. Don't know if I'm comfortable with females getting slapped. Camera work was very good.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8795280.post-82426532676873581222007-12-19T22:34:00.000-08:002007-12-19T22:34:00.000-08:00MAB, I did like this short film. On par with Eleme...MAB, I did like this short film. On par with Elements and your first one-shotter. I didn't get the tree one though. Anyway, I find slapping a very personal way of attacking someone. In other words, you only slap the ones you love. Or the ones you want to humiliate, which can be the same thing. If you really wanted to hurt a person or get some real steam out, you'd go to the knuckle sandwich or crowbar. Sometimes when I argue or discuss things with my loved ones, I have a compulsion to just devolve the whole thing and slap the other person. Whether they slap me back or not doesn't matter, though it seems only fair. I liked the actors' expressions, although the less close-up zoomy shots were kind of confusing to me. I maybe would have liked more bruises, a cut lip or something, tears, just to signify physical consequence, but that may have been above your budget. I like the no music, but loud slaps. And I would have liked a more emotional ending-- not hugging and making up, but showing the emotional consequence of when you take something between people who love/really like each other to that primal, physical level of assault-insult. It's never worth it, and nothing's ever the same again. Keep on keeping on, Andrew.Thom McGregorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11714535798252336806noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8795280.post-27364693615874970162007-12-19T19:49:00.000-08:002007-12-19T19:49:00.000-08:00I still say anonymous should write for Entertainme...I still say anonymous should write for <B>Entertainment Weekly</B>. Gotta be better than Owen Glieberman right?<BR/><BR/>Well Rachel probably gave the most useful review for Andrew so far. I agree as a filmmaker it is sometimes more helpful (though painful) to hear a straight story. <BR/><BR/>Alex, I really want to give your film another look and now Rachel's too. Just give me some time. I'm going through some busy year end stuff at work. Maybe if I ever get my stuff up, you could give mine a look. And anonymous could tell me it sucks. And then Bill could tell him to cram if full of walnuts.Greghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05730146625671701859noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8795280.post-50074955184959045822007-12-19T19:34:00.000-08:002007-12-19T19:34:00.000-08:00Dammit Rachel, why do you have to make me love you...Dammit Rachel, why do you have to make me love you so much?Alex Jacksonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13028946403342782184noreply@blogger.com