Please Review: Man-Hole, A Sex Comedy

MarkHarris · April 30, 2006

I am pretty new to this forum. I think I may have posted here once before.

But this year, I really started to sink my teeth into learning as much as possible about lighting and shooting my own stuff. To that end, I started doing my shorts as a sort of series. This way, I would have the characters already and would simply write new episodes for them, and always have something new to shoot.

See Man-Hole here!

I've always been told that writing and acting are our strong suits. And now I want to beef up camera and lighting.

So, since I know a lot of people with much more experience haunt these boards, I would appreciate any feedback you could offer a novice.

Thanks!

James Steven Beverly · April 30, 2006

Dude after seeing Man Hole and taking a look at the discriptions of your other movies, you seem to be obsessed with vibrators and gay sex and although these subjects can be funny, I thought this script missed the mark. I tought it had a few moments but was just too close to this side of pronograhpic for most audiences. I felt the script actually could have worked much better had it been a bit less blatent. The acting was better than I've seen in a lot of shorts and I do appreciate the attempt to broach a somewhat taboo subject but I think you tended to alienate your audieance by going a little too far, the bloody dildos in the sink was more creepy than funny.

There were also a few script structure problems particularly with the wreaslling/ training section. It didn't seem to make sense to me. Was he being "Trained " by having sex with the fat guy and if so wouldn't he have come to his epiphony at that time rather than later with his girlfriend? I don't know. The scene didn't make clear what was happening there. The entire script almost played like a kinda skewd Sex in the City episode, but not nearly as funny or honest.

Don't think I'm saying these things because I'm a prude and this offended me on some moral level. I'm not a prude and it didn't offend me on some moral level except in that you seemed to be far too willing to sacriificed the comedy to in order to show just how much you could push the envelope with outragiuos behaviuor and I felt this was somewhat self indulgent and self indulgence in film morally offends me far more than controversial content. Next time I would consitraite more on making comedy in the script work and less on trying to shock the audience. Shocking isn't nessesarily entertaining. Some guy eating his boogers in public certainly is shocking but noone want's to see it.

As for production, it was OK, nothing really jumped out and took me out of the peice. The high contrast lighting seemed a bit out of place but not overtly so.The camera angle were at times somewhat distracting, but gererally speaking, just sort of straight forward. If anything they could have been maybe a little more imaginative. Anyway that's my opinion for what it's worth.

MarkHarris · April 30, 2006

Hey, thanks so much for taking the time to write such a detailed comment.

I'm not going to really answer anybody's criticism unless they ask. When taking critiques, I feel like it's most beneficial to just listen to what people say and take it in.

MarkHarris · May 2, 2006

Although I do want to make one correction to what the guy above posted. For those of you reading that before you watch the movie:

THERE ARE NO BLOODY DILDOS IN THIS MOVIE.

I'm not sure where that guy got that. Makes me wonder if he really did watch the movie...

May 2, 2006

There really wasn't anything wrong with the movie at all. It was a case of did you like the story or not. I think for this concept your approach was correct although you might explore the dialogue a tad more. It was shot well and I thought it was very professional, even if it was a bit of an odd comedy. No need to be more clever with the camera work I don't think; everything seemed fine to me. The sucess would lie in the story itself I bet. I am just wondering how the acting might further add to your sucesss...but I am afraid I could not come up with any ideas. Good luck with this project!

MarkHarris · May 2, 2006

Thanks LondonFilmMan,

I know I said I wasn't going to respond to people, but...

It's interesting that you mentioned exploring more dialogue, because that was the same conclusion I'd come to and in Ep III, even though we are going to keep them weird, we are going to be expanding the scenes some more, so that they are less "punch you in the gut" and more like real scenes for the actors to play.

But as I say at the top, the whole point of this project is to have something to shoot every month, so we can get better...

May 2, 2006

Just saw part 2 which made me laugh. I think that you have done a fantastic job. Your girlfriend in the movie is really good. Lovely eyes! Dialogue is good! You are doing a good job. Never seen a story like this....are you going to do anything with this idea? Might make a good series.

MarkHarris · May 2, 2006

Yes, it is an ongoing series. We are doing one a month. And when we are sick of it, one of two things will happen to end it:

1) It was all a dream.

2) The Earth will be destroyed by Aliens.

Thanks for the input, and if you think of areas where it can improve, we would love to hear them.

BTW, I am not the lead character, but the silly, fat blond guy.

James Steven Beverly · May 3, 2006

Although I do want to make one correction to what the guy above posted. For those of you reading that before you watch the movie:

THERE ARE NO BLOODY DILDOS IN THIS MOVIE.

I'm not sure where that guy got that. Makes me wonder if he really did watch the movie...

In the scene where the girlfriend is on the phone to her friend saying the boyfriend is into it then the friend gets off the phone and is standing at the sink, those were not bloody dildos? What the hell were they then?

Edited May 3, 2006 by Capt.Video

MarkHarris · May 3, 2006

Those are actually bloody knives. Which might be even weirder. But as I said, this is a series, so we start laying in little bits which will continue into other story threads.

James Steven Beverly · May 3, 2006

Bloody dildos would have made more sense considering what was about to happen, but your right, bloody knives are wierder.

Fdz Bx · May 28, 2006

I'm just gonna come right out and disagree with all the other posters here; I think the movies were hilarious. I totally dug the humour! In fact, I think that's the strongest thing you've got going for you and you just need more practice to bring up your other skills to par.

Manhole 1 is a better piece all in all because I find it keeps things real and throws in the quirky elements as a surprising garnish. That way they come out much funnier. In Manhole 2, the whole movie never seems to settle on a reality and is all over the place. Ed, was perfect in the first film, a small dose of zen-guru weirdness. In part 2 he takes up much more time and in consequence is a lot less funny.

The writing is on target; witty, funny, clever (I love the juxtaposition of them wrestling and arguing over what homosexuality is) and fresh. The direction, on the other hand, relies on too many cinematic conventions and seems to overlook how they are affecting the film as a piece. It seems like the director is a bit too precious with his footage and lets some sequences sag and others play out just because they seemed to work in the script. An example of that is the listing of sexual adventures the two have gotten up to by the girlfriend that makes its point and then careens over. It's funny and some of the stuff in there is hilarious, but the crossfades need to be faster and the whole sequence shorter. Pick out the absolute funniest stuff and chuck the rest.

Another example of direction leeching from conventions is the "yahoo" scream that echoes across city. It stuck out sorely as a filmic device taken from somewhere else. In fact I think too much in here sticks out as carbon copy technique rather than one that has been appropriated (see the ipod opening). The direction has to be a lot more organic to breathe life in to the script without transfering it from other movies. Other than that, a little more practice with continuity will help soften the cuts (instead of having a different expression for shot).

Cinematically I think the same applies. The lighting in general seems a little sloppy, the framing sometimes loose. Give us some deep blacks and strong whites, and it will make your visuals a lot stronger. Also, although some find it "unrealistic" and garish, I am very much for strong, colored light that doesn't really need explanation. Lighting like that gives you more of an insight into the characters' mind and will always help liven up a drab interior. However beware how those end up in the cutting room. The problem with using colors like that is that you have to have a clear unifying palette for the film. In the second part, the sequencing of different colors turns the film into a messy kaleidoscope. Decide on a limited palette and stick to it.

If this is sounding like a harsh critique, I apologize. In fact I'm not the type to usually write up a review but was quite pleasantly surprised by your film that I felt a little advice might be helpful. I will reiterate what I said; you have an excellent idea and script there, the other aspects are simply skills that come with training. Keep up the good work and I really look forward to part III!

the pope

MarkHarris · May 29, 2006

thisisthepope,

Thanks, and actually that is much more the kind of criticsim I was looking for from this board: actual, specific things that can be improved about the filmmaking. It's kind of irrelevant whether people like the humor or not. I'm posting here for this kind of critique. So thanks for such a detailed post.

M

MarkHarris · June 10, 2006

Just wanted to bump this because I just completed Man-Hole Part III. And in my opinion the lighting and cinematography take an exponential leap forward in this one. So looking for more feedback.

You can see it here:

http://www.desperatecomfort.com/phpwcms/in...d=20,49,0,0,1,0

M