March 2015 Birchbox

I'm getting so much closer to catching up to my Birchbox reviews! Here's just a few months back in March, which was an interesting and very busy month for me!

My @birchbox for the month, loving the Fekkai shampoo already, great scent.

A photo posted by Elizabeth (@onegirlsreviews) on Mar 15, 2015 at 2:32pm PDT

Temple Spa Peace Be Still Calming Face and Body Balm: This was a nice enough lotion but it was far too thick and far too much to use on my face, like most lotions that aren't oil free, it made me break out. But still good for a body lotion.

Jelly Pong Pong Glow Getter Highlighter: The text for this tiny bottle said it offers a "subtle, luminous shimmer" and that is so not true at all. It was a really strong glittery shiny look, and it was far, far too much for anything I ever would do. I thought it was even too severe a sparkle for a night look, let alone something during the every day which is when I usually am wearing makeup. I got rid of it.

It's a 10 Miracle Leave-In Product: This was my sample choice, I'd been wanting to try out this product for a while because everybody raves about it so much. It is good, if I'm feeling like I need something strong like a leave-in conditioner. The problem is that I like lighter products more, like Curl Keeper for example, which helps my hair keep it's wavy shape. It's a 10 doesn't really help my curls, actually it probably weighs my hair down just a tad, which just isn't my style normally. That said, I live in D.C. where the humidity is killer, and during this summer it's definitely been a nice way to combat the craziness frizzy mess.

Embryoilisses Lai-Creme Concentre (24 Hour Miracle Cream): I was not a fan of this product, first of all it did absolutely nothing as a makeup remover, which is one of the recommended usages. Second, holy cow what a breakout I got after I used this, wow. I ended up disliking it enough to give it away.

Fekkai PrX Reparatives Shampoo: I did really love this shampoo, it was really light and wonderful and it helps my hair recover from maybe a little too much cheap conditioner. I am probably going to buy a bottle to swap out with my regular shampoo every few weeks, but it's sadly too expensive for me to use regularly.

So March of this year, Birchbox's theme was creativity, and they had a card for you to include in a picture to say when you felt most creative. Well, the answer to that was obvious for me, especially considering when my box came in:

I love @birchbox's focus on creativity this month. As a filmmaker I feel best when I'm telling stories and making movies, like this documentary of mine that just turned a year old! #birchbox #giveaway goodgamemovie.com

A photo posted by Elizabeth (@onegirlsreviews) on Mar 14, 2015 at 2:17pm PDT

Yup, in March my movie Good Game officially turned one year old! It's been a crazy ride from anxiously checking my phone for updates on the premiere (I was flying back from Japan and ended up missing the event) to showing at various festivals and conventions, the massive digital release and then finally making DVDs as well. But filmmaking is definitely when I'm at my most creative. And as I write this, another of my short films is about to be released this month! If you're into gaming, you should check out the film. It's available through digital sales and rentals, and also on DVD.

Pink Ribbons, Inc.

Pink Ribbons, Inc. As a filmmaker, one of the things you end up asking yourself all the time is "how long is this movie?" And it's also one of the questions other people ask YOU all the time. I've been working on a documentary for a while now, and it's probably in the top five of questions I get asked. Number one, incidentally, is "when will the movie be finished." The answer to both is similar. It'll be done when it's done. And it'll be as long as it should be.

Stories have a length, and a rhythm. And almost always, films are too long. Especially documentaries. There are a lot of reasons, and I've fallen victim to them all. I'm probably still doing some of these things, so I'm not saying this out of some sort of "I'm better than this" impulse. I'm saying it as somebody who struggles with the exact same things.

Pink Ribbons, Inc. is too long. Which is a hard thing to say, because there's nothing in it that isn't important. The pacing isn't even all that slow, though it is a nice leisurely pace. The problem is that at 98 minutes, absolutely no one is going to see this movie that doesn't already know the contents of it. The message they are trying to get across and who they seem to be trying to speak to aren't the audience for the film.

The audience for a feature length documentary on this subject are people who are already upset about pinkwashing, who already understand the hypocrisy in most Breast Cancer foundations and marketing. And that's the heart of the problem here. I'm not even that involved in the subject or that invested, and there wasn't a single piece of new information in the film for me.

It was packaged well, shot well, and edited well. The graphics were consistent and done nicely. The film used a great device to divide up the different topics covered, by repeatedly going back to visit various charity "walks" and fundraisers and talk with participants about why they were walking and what challenges they were facing.

But I couldn't figure out what it's purpose was. I had a bit of the same problem with the book, which I had thought I would enjoy reading. But it was obviously a thesis paper that was expanded into a book, and the writing was a little dry and a bit hard to crack into for me. And for this kind of topic, that's just not going to make the impact. The reason breast cancer charities can do so many immoral things is because they're so very, very good at speaking in a simple, common language that encourages people of all ages and education levels to get involved and support them. If you want to expose their problems, you have to speak to the same audience just as well, or better, than the charity themselves. The book didn't accomplish that.

I feel like the movie was an attempt to do it, and like I said, there's no one place where they fail. They actually do manage to explore the difficult topics in ways that are accessible. But who is going to watch it, in the end? People who walk in the fundraisers aren't going to seek this film out, and if they come across it the first thing they'll think is "why would I spend 90 minutes of my life being told I'm wrong and part of the problem?"

The trailer for the film actually was extremely well done. It touched on the various topics quickly, and was this great little snippet to really make people think and possible make them want to research the topic more. If you pulled out any one segment of the finished documentary, I think it could do the same thing. There were several graphic moments about the marketing of breast cancer themed products that I think should be made into PSAs immediately.

In the end, the film is fine. It's even good. But since it offered nothing really new to people who are already even vaguely on their side, I can only assume the intended audience was people who don't know any of this information. And I don't think that those people are going to watch a feature length documentary, I don't think they'll even get through the first thirty minutes. If the filmmakers are planning an action campaign, or if this was intended as part of an action campaign, I think the best thing to do would be to start breaking out portions of the film and making shorter sections that are available online through YouTube or Vimeo, something embeddable. Then start encouraging different websites to blog about them, and at the end of each video you can say, "if you want to see everything, then watch the film."

Because it is all important, and it is well presented if you're wanting to reach a new audience with these facts. But how do you get that new audience? That's the question. I'm hoping the filmmakers have already thought about this and are working on it. Or that those who participated in the film are. Because in the end, we as filmmakers have to remember not to preach to the choir.

What your festival submission should buy you

I'm not a newcomer to the world of filmmaking. I may not know all of the ins and outs of the festival circuit, but I know a lot of people who do. I've got one film degree to my name, and I'm only months away from my second.

I'm telling you all of this so that you understand that I am not naive. I understand a lot of things about festival submissions. I know the list of reasons why you might get rejected, and I understand that "your film isn't any good" actually isn't on the top of the list.

It's all a numbers game really, and I get that. I want you to understand before I go any further that I am not upset about getting rejected by a film festival. While I obviously think that my film is wonderful and amazingly programmable, I know that is my opinion and the judges thoughts might differ for any number of reasons.

I debated never really telling this story in public, and just complaining about it with my fellow filmmakers whenever we trotted out our tales of rejection for one reason or another. But I feel like it's important for filmmakers to have a voice about this topic.

Basically, I want to say what I think my check to a film festival should buy me.

What your submission fee does NOT buy you is simple. It does not buy you acceptance to the festival, just like a college application fee doesn't mean you will get into the school. For most festivals, the fee does not buy you any kind of feedback, not even a sentence explaining why you didn't get it. I'm okay with that, because I can commiserate with festival directors and how often they must get angry filmmakers calling them with death threats.*

So you aren't owed feedback, unless of course, the festival is DC Shorts, which shows each filmmaker their scores and judges comments. Several other festivals do this, and honestly it makes them more worth your time than other fests. We all do this so that we can become better at what we do, and feedback from strangers is the best way to do that.

I expect only two things for my submission fee to a film festival. I would like acknowledgment from them that my submission was received, so that I don't wonder if something was lost in the mail or if WithoutABox glitched. I would also like a formal rejection if I don't get in.

I know that the people who run festivals are strapped for time, and rely on volunteers and interns to get things done. I don't have any doubt about that. I'm not asking for a custom letter tailored to each individual, but a copy/pasted email (you could even BCC it to everybody at once, I don't care) that says, "We're sorry, thank you for trying, but we did not choose your film." You don't need postage, you need a minimal amount of time, and it would be easy enough to do. I bet there are some rejection letter templates online that you could use. Or heck, comment on this blog and I personally will write the rejection letter for your festival to use, free of charge, if you promise to always send one.

Why is this so important? Let me tell you about my experience. Last year, I made a short film that I am especially proud of. Because it is a bit of a niche film, and my budget for submission fees is very low (I've already spent twice the budget of the film), I mostly have looked to local festivals to find a place to exhibit the piece. I have submitted it so far to six festivals and I plan to send it to a seventh when they open in a few days.

I was rejected from the first one in January, and that was okay. I was upset about it, of course. Nobody is fond of being rejected. As I said before, it's a numbers game, and you're probably not going to get into the first place you submit to. So I waited. Mid-February, as I was submitting to another festival, I thought to check the status of my previous ones. I saw a note on WithoutABox that I was two days past the notification date for one of them.

I hadn't heard anything, good or bad, so I thought I would check their website and see if they had an updated notification date.

Instead, they had their list of accepted films. My film wasn't on it.

Again, I have no problem with not being accepted to this festival. That's fine. But it was a bit of a blow to not even be good enough to be told I wasn't good enough. What exactly was my submission check buying me, if not at least that small bit of communication? The first festival was actually a FREE submission because it was in my home state and they waive fees for residents, and they sent me an actual letter in the mail. But what makes somebody take my money and then never contact me again? It's like getting stood up for the prom or something.

I would have probably let this go, and assumed that maybe they mixed up my email or my letter got lost. But I ran into somebody from the festival office at an event a few weeks ago, and when they asked if I had submitted to them I said that I had but that I had never heard either way, trying to be diplomatic and not accusing them of anything. I was told that the DC Independent Film Festival does not send out rejection letters.

I'm sorry if it hurts their feelings for me to say this, but that is wrong. They should be called out for that and starting with 2012 they need to start sending formal rejection letters. I would say that unless they make a statement saying that they will do so, filmmakers should steer clear and NOT submit to them. They are not worth your money, you worked hard on your film, you've worked hard for your funding, and you deserve to spend it on a festival that cares enough about you to at least tell you "No thank you."

Save your money from DCIFF and send your film to DC Shorts instead, or any one of hundreds of other festivals that you can find that will at least respect you on a basic level.





*I am not exaggerating, sadly. Every festival director I've had more than a five minute conversation with has mentioned that they regularly get hate mail and death threats from filmmakers that they pass over. That is uncool, filmmakers. Don't do that.

Filmmaking is Problem Solving

So, 2010 was a year of complete and total change for me. I started working on my MFA in 2008, and I quit my full time job to focus on filmmaking in 2009. So it only stands to reason that 2010 would be the year where that effort started really coming to fruition.

I learned a LOT about filmmaking and screenwriting last year. But looking back, the main thing that I learned was the way to deal with it when everything comes crashing down around your ears.

Filmmaking is problem solving. Like most things in life, filmmaking is always rife with setbacks and issues. I have never been on a set that runs smoothly. There's rain, actors stuck in traffic, equipment breaking, people getting sick, etc. etc. I knew this, and I've been repeating this mantra for two years now. But I don't that I really came to understand it until this year. As my good friend Colin said, "It's not about having problems, every set has problems. It's about how you handle the problems." And it really was.

On our webseries, "Stage Fright," we had a number of set backs. First, Snowmageddon threw a wrench into our writing process. There were other problems, one on top of another, until we started to think our little series about a haunted production was also cursed.

But frequently, the results of our problem solving created an even better series. A particular snafu with the wardrobe was solved with more appropriate costumes, which improved the final episodes of the show. When a crew member's car was towed with all of our camera equipment inside, we lost three hours but still managed to make our day without cutting a single scene because we spent those three hours carefully planning what we would do and we all came together to make it happen.

Speaking of Snowmageddon, my short film Extraction was a casualty of the same storm. I had already cancelled the film the year before because of a lack of available crew. But once I had everything lined up, a metric ton of snow dropped on D.C. I ended up having to shelve the entire film until the summer.

Looking back at both of those projects, there were moments that we thought about throwing in the towel. On Stage Fright, I remember one evening when we realized we wouldn't be able to start shooting on time because of another setback, someone mentioned that perhaps we wanted to only shoot half the series and then see if we could get the other half together at another time. There was talk of just shooting the pilot instead. Jason, the 1st A.D., and I were on the same page on that decision: we wanted to have a finished product. We had all worked so hard, and put in so many hours, that the idea of only having half of it done and possibly never getting to the other half was completely heartbreaking. We agreed that we'd rather work harder, and put in extra hours so that we could finish.

With Extraction, I had a small breakdown after I had to cancel the shoot a second time. I was convinced this project was doomed for failure and that maybe I needed to give it up. I thought that maybe this was one of those films that would go down in my memory as a good idea that just never made it. My lead actress was moving, and my crew were dispersing to the winds, I just didn't think it was going to work.

But while I was working on Stage Fright I ended up casting Maya Jackson and Katie Foster in a live reading for Catching Up. Somewhere in there I realized they would be great as the two girls in the story. I took a chance and emailed one of my favorite DPs and asked if he was busy in June, and he wasn't. We were a small crew, and a non-existent budget. But we made the movie, and it turned so well that I've submitted it to several festivals (I'm still waiting to hear back).

In the end, the most vital thing was to persevere and FINISH. Just get it on paper, get it on film, get it done. Just keep going.

That's the biggest lesson I learned last year. And now that I'm in my last semester of my MFA, I think it's going to come in handy.

Girls make movies too

Two things I'd rather not hear EVER AGAIN:

-Anybody talking about how Kathryn Bigelow was married to James Cameron and thus she's going to be all "Haha James Cameron!" and "Yeah, I'm better than you, nananana."

First, as I said on Facebook, more women have been married to James Cameron than have been nominated for Best Director. So her being nominated and winning? A hell of a lot more important an achievement.

Second, they were married for like, thirty seconds, and from all accounts they remain good friends, they work together well, and have been nothing but supportive of each other. So she's likely not at all saying "In your face" but instead saying, "I'm so happy, isn't it exciting?"

Third, please stop taking away from her achievement by making it still in some way about James Effin' Cameron, okay? It's devaluing her achievement and I'm a bit tired of it. That these comments are largely coming from women isn't helping my brain.

-How smoking hot Kathryn Bigelow is. "OMG, she's a HOT CHICK who can direct! And action movies no less! WOW! She's so hot, and then she's also talented!"

Again with the devaluing.

From everything I've heard she did an amazing job directing an amazing film. Let's concentrate on that, could we please?

And no, I haven't read any blogs or posts at all tonight so if you posted one of these comments this is NOT directed at you, it's directed at a general sentiment I've seen over the last few months in nearly every media article and comment about Bigelow. It's not like I'm sitting here thinking "OMG, anybody who says this is an evil person and I hate them." I'm just tired of every other comment I see, including a twitter from Roger Ebert, being about one of these two topics instead of honoring how fabulous, talented, and wonderful she might be, and how historic and fabulous this moment is.

I mean, I know not a lot of people care about The Oscars, and I know not a lot of people think they mean anything. But the thing is, this moment? This moment is huge for ME. Me personally. Me, as a woman who wants to direct films, who wants to make action pictures or dramas, not just frippery and bland rom coms like people think women are supposed to make. This is a moment where everything I want to be was validated in a huge, huge way.

I'm not saying I'll ever win an Oscar or even be as good as Kathryn Bigelow, or that I'll ever even manage to direct a feature. But this is like a big neon light in the sky saying that I _can_. That I should just keep trying, just keep moving forward, because people are finally opening up and listening, they're believing in the same dream I'm dreaming. They are starting to think that women can do this job too.

That's a really, really big deal.

So I don't want it colored and shaded by a bunch of crap about looks and who slept with who because that doesn't matter.

In twenty years, when there are more women directors, when more women are able to tell their stories and make their movies, when they really get out there and say what they want to say and people are not just letting them say it but encouraging them and celebrating them, this moment will be the start of it.

It won't matter who was married to who, it won't matter if she was pretty or not. It will matter that both genders are getting to tell stories.

On the Lot Take 3

So I'm still committed to rambling about On The Lot each week, despite the fact that it has nothing good enough to ramble about. They've made it a writing competition and as far as I can tell, it's not anything like what was advertised. Srsly Fox, you dropped this one on it's head and I'm going to be surprised if it survives.

I hope the Project-Top-Shear-Designer people get around to doing a show about filmmaking. They might manage to make one where the challenges are challenging and actually judge each contestant against each other by giving them an even playing field.

And maybe they'll have judges who can give honest critique rather than being all good or all bad. Because you can tell that this episode they were told to be bitchier, and they delivered. Badly. If you're going to be mean, be mean like Nina. Nina knows how to dish it out and say "I'm sorry, but you suck and here's why." Rather than:
"To succeed in this business as a woman, you have to be great. This was really good."

Anyway...

Polished

So this was pretty cute, and well done. I like how many directors are making more silent films to make sure they don't have to worry about writing. Seeing as how DIRECTORS AREN'T WRITERS. Come on people, they're not.

Anyway. Since I've known a lot of custodial staff-types, I really liked this film. I thought it was a little...lackluster maybe, since I forgot it existed until I looked at the list again. It didn't really stand out THAT much, but it was good and probably one of the best offerings of the evening. It had some really fantastic moments in it, and I think the over the top sliding on the floor was comical and fitting.

I do wonder who bought the hamburgers, but that doesn't matter that much I guess.

Love At First Shot

This is the one with the WoW joke, so it automatically wins in my mind. Honestly, it was also cliche, but it was memorable for me. I think it was well done, and amusing. I think Cupid could have been a bigger character, that's true, but for the most part it worked.

It was okay, again. But it does show the guy is competant. The problem is that the way the judges critiqued it, they talked about the WRITING. If they aren't handing these men and women scripts, then they need to stop talking about the content and talk about how it's filmed. Oi.

Also, Ms. Fisher, Cupid WAS wearing a diaper. What movie were you watching?

Beeline
aka Slut Mom

Television Without Pity wins for their description of Shira-Lee: "Shira-Lee is next, looking like Linda Blair crossed with a crazier-eyed version of Linda Blair."

Okay, I'm sure that this makes me an evil person, but if this was Project Top Shear Designer, then SOME judge would have looked up and said "I know you said your son took direction well, but that means you failed as a director because he was terrible."

I'm sorry, he was, he was bad. For the most part, he didn't need to be that good. But he had ONE line he absolutly had to deliver perfectly because it was the crux of the story and he bombed it. As far as I can tell he bombed it SO bad that they couldn't even show him deliver it on the screen, which ABSOLUTLY should have been there, not a reaction shot.

In other words: massive failure in directing. None of the other films (aside from Kenny, who is so pretenious I can't describe it) had such a glaring error and not a single judge mentioned it because they were too busy CRITIQUING THE WRITING.

When the son says "Who are they, I'll find them" you HAVE to have his face, because we have to understand why the woman freaks out so much. If you can't have him because you want her reaction, a two shot would be fine, but having that line, the only powerful line he delivers the entire time, be off screen? It was a completly wrong decision, probably neccessitated by bad casting. All of this being BAD DIRECTING.

And, to critique the writing, I didn't like this short anyway. Something was just off about it and I spent the entire time not really caring. The only amusing thing was the woman running in her silly toboggan and puffy coat, which was the most memorable image of the entire night. Shame it didn't go in a movie that succeeded elsewhere.

Dance With The Devil

I hated this film. I wanted to like it because so far, I liked Marty Martin and I thought the judges were extremly unfair (as is Television Without Pity) by harping on his trailer in the last assignment.

I'll say it very clearly and in bold: A trailer for a film that doesn't exist IS a short creative work AKA a short film. Thus his previous entry DID complete the assignment in a memorable, inventive, and unique way.

Also: KENNY ALSO DID A TRAILER. More accuratly, Kenny did a craptastic midnight on cable access commercial. Yet nobody mentions that because it was SO out there and followed no conventions, so I guess people can admit it's a short film? It's dumb.

But anyway: Marty should have been one of the top contenders. He should not be any more. Why?

Because this movie showed almost no departure from the style and substance of the other two pieces he's contributed to. First project with the group? A story about an assassin or something with wacky lighting and sparse dialogue and people that know they're too damn cool for you.

Second: four goofballs try to rob somebody, all under a green filter. The characters are over the top, and since it's comedic, they're fun and interesting.

Third: Again with the green filter (don't do the same thing twice dude) and then you throw in some wacky subtitles that held no point except to make it look like a trailer, which after they overreacted to his trailer he should distance himself from. The subtitles were the kicker for me, that was so much...

It's like those big budget filmmakers who want to think they're "indy" by doing quirky strange things that have no point. Things that have no point do nothing but detract from your skill and hide what you can and can't do, which I guess is effective if you're lame.

Anyway. His story could have been interesting if I hadn't seen it a million times before. The acting was really good, but again it was old news.

So the only thing that he had to go on and talk about was his "style" and when Carrie Fisher rightly told him that perhaps he needs to balance style and substance, he blew up at her and was a complete egotistical ass. She had a valid point, he could have said "That's true, but I think that the substance was there, I'm just a very stylized director" but instead he was a jerk.

Take criticism well. Rule #1. His entire film was riding on two things: a green filter and some subtitles. But they had no reason for being there since the green filter was there last week...

This makes me think Mr. Martin either doesn't know how to white balance, or just enjoys making things look moldy. If he wasn't in a group with Kenny, I would say he should go home because of lack of imagination hiding behind being different.

Of course, I think he's going to be a favorite and go really far because it's not that he's BAD. I just dislike him for the same reason I disliked Santino or Laura on Project Runway. I want new things each week, I want to see what else people can do.

Edge on the End

We all know I don't like Kenny. At all. I can't describe how much he needs to take a step back and stop being "different just like everybody else."

The stuff that he's submitting to this competition, that is supposed to be the cream of a crop of thousands, is terrible. It's the kind of emo strangness kids make in high school these days. It had no point, and once again he committed what is my new cardinal sin of movies: he had to explain something because it wasn't in the movie.

If you don't make it clear in the film that the father was an alchoholic then it either a-isn't important (and that happens, really), or b-can't be considered as part of the plot. It wasn't clear enough, so it doesn't count.

I can't even bring myself to critique this as a piece of short film. If I was shown this in my intro to film class, where I saw short works that were much better than this, and was asked to talk about it, I would say that I felt it went on about twice as long as it needed to unless more was introduced (different images, instead of the same ones repeated) and that I felt that it needed a stronger script to portray what is a really movie and important subject. I don't know how I would have found a good comment to add besides that the subject matter was interesting, which it really isn't. I mean, it can be, but honestly, why were we treated to five films that I could find about three big name examples of their plots done better?

Please, America. I hope you cut Kenny so that he might realize that he does NEED to be given some formal training so that he could stop being intro to film and start being interesting. He might actually have some talent under all that "different like everybody else."

I think we should rename Kenny's film from "Edge on the End" to "Cheer Up Emo Kid" and mock it appropriatly. I realize it could have been worse, and it showed SOME skill. But it showed little more skill than I've seen on YouTube.

Actually, that's what it was. It was a YouTube video. And it's on what is supposed to be a NATIONAL comeptition!

Okay, I'm done.

On the Lot Take 2

This is my crosspost of the second Film Premiere Episode, where they randomly went down to doing five films a week. Oh you wacky producers, what are you thinking?

I think On The Lot needs to decide what it wants to do and who it wants to be, because the show is seriously floudering and I want them to last enough seasons for either me to make my big break and get a job in filmmaking or be on it, whichever comes first.

Broken Pipe Dreams
This movie wins for best title of the night, don't ask me why, but it does. I like it, so there you go.

I think that it does a good job taking movie conventions and turning them every so slightly on their head, like cutting the blue or red "wire" and the end where it's so Shawshank Redemption-like it's almost not funny.

But sadly, it had plot holes which made me grumpy. For one, the fish was flopping in his hand at the end (maybe it wasn't, but it seemed to be) and he didn't freak out and get him to water. He gets his fish back, and he doesn't rescue it? Second, I agree with Zoe, he looks like he's following a sprinkler system pipe, not a sewer pipe. Mostly because he is. And honestly, I know that to make this short film he couldn't have really dealt with sewer pipe, but you know, I can only suspend disbelief so much, I can only go "Oh, who cares!" so often. Plumbing doesn't work like that, and the story wasn't so phenomenal that I didn't care.

The camera work was good, the performance from the actor was good. I really wish this was more a directing competition rather than a writing one though.

Teri (Blind Date)

This really...well, I agree with Carrie Fisher (I think it was her) there was nothing new in it. Nothing really making me go "Oh wow, that was funny."

I disagree with her on one thing. She said a murderer should be the last punchline because the worst thing couldn't be a guy showing up. Actually, to a lot of guys I've known in my day, it would be the worst thing. Don't ask me, I don't get it.

Anyway. There wasn't really anything revolutionary in the shots, they were straight on mid-shots (why can't I remember the technical term?) and you went back and forth. The performances were good, but they were stereotypes and stereotypes are easy to play.

It was okay. But really, if I'm being honest with myself, it was the weakest of the night because it was just more of what's been done.

Also, Mr. Marshall, this is a man desperate for love. I thought you said that was a women's issue, hmmmm?

The First Time I Met the Finklesteins

First off, are you blatantly ripping off Meet the Parents? I mean, I haven't seen either of those movies, but your title just says it right there, doesn't it?

Secondly, Michael Bay is now my hero for saying what I was thinking. None of those jokes were funny, they were groan humor, they were "OMG, she went there" jokes. And the scene where the son suddenly blows up (which hasn't been in his character) and says "Sure, I'll cure cancer, and AIDS, and Diabetes" was just...I can't even describe how much that entire line made me want to turn off the tv. If it had been a movie, I would have changed the channel.

I think her lack of wide shots and establishing shots was because she had a poorly chosen set. She seemed to be filming in a friend's split level house, and you can't get a good wide-shot from that in most cases. But she should have tried really, or picked a different set. Or given us a reason for the closeness. Or just hung a lantern on it and said "Sorry it's so cramped."

The only amusing part was at the end when the son said "Drive safe. Most parents would say drive safe." Otherwise, the jokes were just...lame.

Dough: The Musical

This was well shot, and very well acted, and phenomenally well written. I say this because I can't rhyme that well with two months to work on it, and he had five days.

They picked good sets, they decorated them well. The actors did need to look at each other more and have more chemistry as Garry Marshall pointed out. But I think it was technically very well done, and having just watched Bride and Prejudice this weekend, it amused me because it was a musical. I liked how the man and woman never actually were talking about the same thing, even in the end. She didn't suddenly notice how cute he was, and he didn't suddenly say "Well, I guess I'll just hire her."

Overall, one of the better ones. Honestly, I think this and Sam's were the only ones that impressed me that much.

Laughing Out Loud: A Comic Journey:

I know this director has a background in documentary, or at least I think they mentioned that before. So was this a documentary or a short fiction film? This is vitally important because I have two completly different critiques for it.

Documentary: Well shot, very visual and interesting. The subject needed to be coaxed a little more, driven to give a few more non-cliche moments and a little more heartache (I know being followed around and being called a homo is no picnic, but I know people who were treated MUCH worse in school so it didn't raise my sympathy enough). We needed him to be more, new, different. But he was heartfelt, and he believed what he said. The only funny line, and it was the funniest of the night, was when he was trying on costumes and said he looked like a terrorist and followed it with "What am I going to do, make an axis of evil float for the pride parade?"

Short fiction film: This movie was terrible. I know it's not a writing competition, but if it was, this writing was flat out cliche, it was trite, it was said and done so many times I couldn't be bothered to care. The only thing that could elevate it would be if it was real (see critique above). Visually, it was well done but needed a few more identifying shots. She was worried we wouldn't identify with him, but most of the shots we got were ECU eyelid or far out. Where were the shots where we felt very involved with him, close to him and what he was saying? There weren't enough. If this was fiction though, the actor was phenomenal. If that wasn't his life story, then he's a really really good actor and she should hire him for everything she does, because he took a tried and boring script and made it look real, he felt it. Go method acting.

But like I said, if it was fiction, it was written so poorly and was such an overdone concept that I can't be bothered to like it. If it was documentary, then it was a fine example, though she should have, as a director, gotten a few more stories out of him, things to make him a unique subject worthy of our study.

Yup, there you go. Overall, some decent directing but no stand-outs. I'm hoping one of the women go home. I know, I know, I'm a horrible traitor to my gender.

You know why? Because every time somebody talks about a woman director as a "woman director" they're pinning a stigma on her, they're damning her with faint praise. She's a DIRECTOR. She can be a good or a bad DIRECTOR. She might have a different viewpoint or be good or bad at things because of her gender. But quite frankly each person and each experience is unique enough that everybody has a unique viewpoint, it's not gender based.

I fully believe that it's only when we're BLIND to gender or race that we can truly say we've gotten rid of sexism or racism. Because the fact is every time somebody singles out women, for good or bad, they're still singling them out.

We're all people. We should all be treated as human beings.

And quite frankly, the last girl said that being a woman director she has the deck stacked against her, and that attitude is not good enough. Go get some confidence. Go realize that you as a person have talent, and that you can make it on that talent and hard work if you don't let people stomp you down.

Don't be a woman filmmaker. Be a filmmaker. THAT is what this gender needs to prove we're just as good, to prove that we're not good "in spite of" we're not good "because of." We're just good.

On the Lot

I'm going to crosspost my opinion pieces regarding On The Lot to my blog here, in case one day I actually get some traffice. I'm going be posting here more frequently, because I'd really like to continue to hone my skills as a reviewer.

So here is the very very long review of the first film premiere episode. It's extremly long because there were 13 films to be reviewed.

Okay, I'm so glad I haven't ever watched American Idol, because if it's in this format egads, this is just extra bs every thirty seconds.

Could Gary Marshall NOT talk about Women Filmmakers for about thirty seconds?

Also, bodily functions do not automatically equal comedy. Kthnx.

I agree with The Soup that Carrie Fisher needs to learn how to be a little more rude and open about not liking things.

THERE ARE WOMEN IN THE FILM INDUSTRY ALREADY STOP ACTING LIKE THERE AREN'T. Okay, so it's not 51% women directors. Fine. But it doesn't need to be for us to step back and recognize that there are a lot of really fantastic female directors in the world, and the more we act like there aren't the more disservice we're doing to people like Penny Marshall, Nora Ephron, and the women who don't just do romantic comedies but my brain can't supply their names right now. Recognizing that we have further to go is fine, but don't forget what we have. What also bothers me: women are PEOPLE, men are PEOPLE. I am not something specific because I'm a woman, I don't have a very certain point of view because I'm female. I have a point of view because I'm ME.

You can watch the movies at their website and you can actually watch the ep there now.

Dance Man

I thought this was really cute, and he got the actor to be fun and uninhibited. He also had almost no dialogue except a voiceover, which he used to his advantage by making it a framing technique and using it throughout. There sadly wasn't much to distinguish it though, but the idea was pretty unique so yay. He's one of my favorites.

Deliver Me

Honestly, I'm not surprised she was voted off. This was nothing all that new or memorable (haven't they already done the business-mogul mom a million times?) and because I think everybody understands that the drugs they give you don't really make you have fantasies about asian women doing your nails. It was just there, when it needed to be more.

Spaced Out

, do not watch this short, since it features vomiting space aliens. And that is the tie it all up tagline of this film: barfing space aliens. The aliens themselves were amusing, and I don't know where else he could have gone with it. But he had this great set up, drunken alien muppets...and went for projectile vomit. I couldn't actually watch it to see if the cinematography was good, I was too disgusted.

Wack Alley Cab

He had to explain his premise and it had things in his explenation that had nothing to represent them in the film. This is a fail. I can't even get into how much I disliked it and wished he had been eliminated. He's way too self-important. I've said more about how I feel about the odd color changes he did, and I hope he ditches that idea.

Bus #1

Srsly, urine. This is a short film about urine. I know everybody has to pee sometimes and that being on a long bus ride is difficult. But it had no real payoff and it just...okay, so she peed in a cup. What's funny?

The Big Bad Heist
"Ya'll didn't say nothing about no ninjas..."
I'm also with Gary Marshall: At least there was no barfing or peeing. I actually really loved this, and since I have made a movie that was a trailer for a movie that never existed, I can recognize that a trailer is in fact it's own work of art. So I disagree with the idea that it was a good preview but not a good short film. In fact, I think it wouldn't work as a feature film, it might, but it would be too close to too many other wacky capers.

And there were ninjas, I mean, come on. Good stuff.

Also, for the record: Kenny also made a trailer. Did anybody get onto him for that? No. Get over it. KENNY MADE A TRAILER TOO AND SAID THAT HIMSELF.

Lucky Penny

I think that I can understand the judges thinking this was a lovely short silent film. But at the same time, it's kinda been done. But as somebody that picks up lucky pennies a lot, I also thought it was amusing. I think the effects were good, but not phenomenal, and I do think he got a great performance out of his actor. What was with so many people getting hit by busses?

...To Screw In A Lightbulb

To be honest, I'm with the judges, I didn't get it. It wasn't really funny, and this is the problem I have with "film school" people. They tend to be more concept than execution that will be fun for the average audience. As I've said before, filmmaking isn't for YOU. It's for the AUDIENCE and if the audience doesn't get it, then go back to the drawing board.

All that said, it also wasn't technically that well made, it didn't evoke the crowded room in an artistic way, it was just crowded. Also, while she didn't use any direct film quotes, it seemed a lot like one of those movies that relies on people loving other movies for it's own laugh track. This works very rarely, and usually it has to be a spoof that brings something new to the table, or exaggerates. This movie doesn't do much with anything, and like I said, technically was just not amazing.

Soft

I think this was a cute, funny movie that worked on a lot of levels. But I also wonder how much it brought to the table that was new and different. I think he's going to have to work really hard not to just be Spike Lee lite, to be honest. It was well made, and I don't neccesarily agree with the judges, I think the fact that everybody was "soft" made it funnier because who are they to call him soft, when they don't look that bad themselves. It really reminded me of the way kids really are.

Blind Date

I completly disliked this film, and again I'm not surprised it got her voted out. It was going okay, keeping up a fast pace and being interesting enough. Then she staggered to the bathroom, became a completly uninteresting character, and it all devolved into something dumb. The actress' performance also instantly went over the top, and her last reaction shot was terrible. Plus, I don't think anybody addressed the fact that I couldn't tell who was farting, and that's just ridiculous.

Getta Room
I'm seriously the only person that thought the main character was not nerdy or mentally retarded, but a recent immigrant? I dunno, it seemed that way to me, which still might be offensive. I also didn't think anything the guy was should be considered offensive. Honestly, if he was a nerd, doesn't that mean _I_ should be offended? I'm a nerd. I think that Jason could have been a little more tactful in saying that wasn't his intention.

It was an interesting film, but not the best or worst of the night. Just kinda good really. I want to see more. Going to his website, he's got the talent.

File Size

Okay, so while this smacked a lot of Office Space, it was still amusing and srsly, it's like my life in some ways. So I could recognize this idea and get behind it, and I think technically it was well done too. But it was sort of more of the same, lots of things do office comedy and there's not much more you can do with it.

Danger Zone

I've heard a lot of people talk about Children of Men. Filmmakers say that it's phenomenal because of the long shots and blah blah. Most actual people I know that have seen it think it was boring and kinda bad. Therefore we must conclude that single shots = genius.

This actually was a really cute movie, and I really liked it. I don't know if I think it was the best of the night as a storytelling idea, but I think technically it was almost completly there. But this is my primary issue: doing a great technical shot is fantastic but it doesn't automatically make it better or best. This is hard for me to figure out how to say, because I did like the movie, but it brings up a bigger issue. It's just, well, quite frankly special effects don't make the movie. The movie should be good first.

A Golf Story

I think the performances, since they had very little dialogue, were top notch. Your two main characters had no lines, literally, and yet you knew exactly what they were thinking. That was fantastic, and while I agree it didn't look like mini-golf, I could get over that. It was a good, short film. It almost reminded me of a commercial, I think it would make a great commercial.

Love in Year 2007

I liked the actress in this film actually, and I absolutly loved "Outsourced singers" in the opening. But that was about the only new, interesting thing it had going for it really.

One note: Mr. Marshall sir, falling in love is not a "women's problem." I should HOPE that everyone in the U.S. is pretty much trying to fall in love. Pretending men don't think about these things is kinda dumb.

Please Hold...
"You had the word Burgled which is one of the few funny words without the letter K in it..."
-Gary Marshall

I absolutly think that Kenny's should have been elminated over this one, because this one was at least technically well done, and while it is an old joke and had some contiunity problems (they tell her to press 19 for being burgled, and she presses one number). But overall, it was well made, which was more than Kenny could say. I think the problem is that he just...didn't have a personality at all, and nobody really identified with HIM, who cared about his work?

Check Out

I actually didn't like this one, despite everybody else loving it. It was well made technically, but the idea of it was so over the top that I didn't buy it for a second and was waiting for the over-the-top punchline. It was, of course, the "it's only a fantasy" deal, and I saw that coming. So I wasn't impressed, really. But I think she might be a good one to watch.

Replication Theory

Again, agreeing with the judges. This is the ONLY fart joke I found funny because it was just a little above, maybe because it actually recnogized that everybody HATES that noise.

I thought it was inventive, and people haven't really addressed the fact that you try to blame those noises on something else every time. So there you go, nice story, cute idea, and I love how he has to go through three things before he's tackled. It was well made, it was cute, and it had a great final shot.

And I also agree that the judges are in concert too often. When are they going to disagree? This might be a Hollywood problem. You don't want to insult Gary Marshall if you can help it, and saying "Well, Gary, I think you're wrong, it was terrible!" isn't the best idea.

I also don't think we should judge filmmakers by people who have gone before by saying "Will he be the next Ridley Scott?" "She's the next Mimi Leder!" or anything like that.

I'm so tired of hearing about women directors...guh