Finished FCP project - Please view!

Here is my first finished project edited in FCP 4.5 HD. Please take a look and let me know what you think. It is located here...
[members.cox.net]

Thanks.

Honest opinion here, John...because you asked for one.

Is this thing supposed to be funny? It's really of quite poor taste. One not-so-funny joke that takes too long to unfold, and both the lead actress and the interviewer come off as ignorant. There's no real meaning discernible, no twists, no thoughtfulness conveyed. After viewing it, I'm just left with a sense that it's intended as offensive comedy in the South Park vein, only it's not funny because it doesn't make a statement of any kind, and the pacing is far too slow.

From a writing perspective, you could've made this piece much more effective if you had made some kind of point, something that provokes thought in the audience. The first impression I got from just the title was, "Oh, exploitation in an effort to be funny". But if you could've gotten under the audience's skin and create a character who feels real and has some kind of emotional life, it can de-center us enough to force us to re-evaluate the film. Instead, I knew what the film was about in the first five seconds -- ie. from the title. There was no surprise anywhere.

On a technical front, I'd also look at trying to design something for titles. Don't just stick with the first font given to you by the application (probably Lucida Grande 36 in your case) -- it immediately gives the sense that it's a first assembly. When I apply temporary title cards to even first cuts, I choose either the right font for the piece, or a very neutral, all-purpose font such as Helvetica Bold, so that even the temp titles fit into the flow and don't distract.

For pacing, if you didn't have coverage, use jump cuts. Look at Martin Scorsese's The Last Waltz for a perfect example. I have a deep hatred for jump cuts, usually, but given a choice between sluggish pacing and ugly editing, go for ugly editing.

I agree...the story was...too simple. Not engaging in any way. Sorry, but I'd hope to hear how my movie really hit people if I offered too.

There needs to be a point. the point of SUPER SIZE ME was to show the effects of fast food on the human body. Along the way they explored various facts about fast food and advertising and peoples eating habits in general. And there was a pretty big twist...or event...about 2/3rds in the movie.

Look at the mockumentary THIS IS SPINAL TAP. It showed how this band started out, and how they ended up. Delved into each character and explored what made them the way they are.

Pacing was way way too slow. Waiting forever for something after she parks the car.

That aside...Lighting needs to be addressed. I mean, anything more than a table lamp.

Framing and camera angles. Don't just have the medium shot...do a CU, a long shot, adjust the size as we are oft to do in the documentary world, so that when we cut up the interview it doesn't look like a jump cut. And we generally fill areas with B-Roll. B-Roll...familiarize yourself with the concept of b-roll. Simple cutaways to items in the room tell us TONS about the person. Posters, CDs, books, art...the contents of the refrigerator.

i did enjoy the stumble in the first scene as she got out of the car. that was probably the best bit of acting in the program.

overall the shooting was weak, lighting was horrible, compression was deplorable, writing was juvenile... even if you have cheap gear, it can still be used well.

im kinda blank on what your motivation was in the first place? it sounded like some inside joke between you and your friends. oh, and anyone who makes the "consuelo" joke should be shot. it was old 10 years ago and its still disgusting.

sorry, but you asked for critiques

To build on what Shane said:

> Look at the mockumentary THIS IS SPINAL TAP. It showed how this band
> started out, and how they ended up. Delved into each character and explored
> what made them the way they are.

Great example there. The best comedies have you laughing at the characters but also laughing *with* them. You can't get too much more ridiculous than the metal airheads in This Is Spinal Tap, but at the end of the day, the hat trick was that you loved them. Rob Reiner made a brilliant choice in the famous "Stonehenge" discussion scene by playing it straight-faced, because he made Anjelica Huston's character real -- "You wrote inches, didn't you? It's right there on the napkin." She's genuinely upset, and so is the singer, and therefore the scene doesn't come off as self-consciously trying to make us laugh, which is a surefire way *not* to make us laugh. What's worse than a comic who laughs at his/her own jokes while the audience just sits there, contemptuous? And you have to make us love the characters -- without this, you won't have patience to watch what they do. Just as good an example is Clerks. Randal is a prick, but he's a prick with such interesting verbal patterns that you want to keep listening to him, and he has a foil, the arrow-straight Dante, the target of his insults.

> Framing and camera angles. Don't just have the medium shot...do a CU, a
> long shot, adjust the size as we are oft to do in the documentary world

And you don't have to cut and do multiple takes either, if you want the style of "artless" interview shooting. If you *were* capturing an event/interview that doesn't repeat, the classic way to get coverage is to have an active camera -- slow zooms work wonders to liven up the scene. That said, Shane has a point -- when your performer isn't already paced to deliver dialogue/interview at a good pace, you need opportunities to cut, and in those cases slow zooms won't do the trick. Thus back to my point about jump cuts. If your film's too slow and you have no other shots, use either cutaways to alternate footage, or jump cut.

I personally think the best way to do this piece would be to make the filmmakers the ones the audience should laugh at. In this case, the "filmmakers" as characters aren't necessarily the filmmakers -- you and your friend. For example, if in the first Act you introduce the filmmakers cutting the footage and laughing at this woman, and then you build them up to be the real "mentally challenged" ones, then you suddenly have a point in the film. Perhaps even take it farther by having the actress break character and comment on what she has to do. Hey director, does there have to be nudity? How many times do I have to endure getting hit on the head?

You gotta complicate things. When you can tell everything about a movie from its title, you've got no movie.

I mostly concur with my fellow replyer's criticisms, and while I believe you sincerely wish to create something worthwhile, entertaining and witty, let me make this very radical suggestion to you: start over.

Our central character, so you describe, is mentally challenged. Assuming this is all merely being played for laughs (and not as a veiled social commentary piece), incorporating into a comedy an individual in a mentally challenged state is okay by me, but if said state is the foundation - the BASIS - for much of the humor, I really can't see what's to laugh at. On the other hand, if our main character were simply an uneducated, uncultured, clueless nimrod, you'd have a good deal more latitude in poking fun at her. (But you do run the risk of appearing more than a little sexist.) "Waiting For Guffman" played this witless wannabe concept to good comic effect, so you may want to take a look at it if you haven't already.

I thought the whole soup-as-currency gag was pretty good, and the titles were okay (although I'd have probably gone with a helvetica or arial face; they look less "cheap", and the actors overall were alright. I too believe the show could have safely been a minute and a half shorter, possibly more, as well as having yet even more gags. (And be careful about being broad; nose-picking is funny for about one second, pick longer at your own risk.)

Good luck and keep at it.

we never heard back from john... do you think we hurt his feelings?

As I've said many times, I'm new and normally wouldn't jump in but I must as one with a mentally challenged child and as one who spends countless thousands of hours trying to help them feel like they fit in and educate others on their needs. So, my advice is, whether or not your piece is good or bad technically is immaterially. Your job as a filmaker is to connect with the audience. The needs of my child specifically and challenged individuals generally are no different than yours; to fit into life. After all, isn't that why you post and ask peopl for review? The challenged are easy targets to people like you so if you wanted to avoid the challenge of really getting to know your subject and do a a piece that cold really make a difference, you took the easy shot. I wonder what your feelings would be if your child was exceptional. Children or adulets with needs are not punch lines. So if you want a critique on your film, I'm not qualified to provide that. I'm just here in this forum to learn as much as I can from people willing to share. Good, quality people. But if you want a critique of you as a human being, I'd say you could use a little more time looking through the lens of life at your own shortcomings. It's too bad that the talent I think you have will be overlooked by so many of us in the real world who can't see past your ignorance and predjudice.