Six Shooter

SIX SHOOTER
Written and Directed by Martin McDonagh, Ireland, 2005, 27 Minutes
2005 Academy Award Winner-Best Live Action Short Film
Previously Covered on The Short Films Blog by Ashley Joyce (Post Found Here)

If you click on the link to Ms. Joyce's previous posting on "Six Shooter," you will find a wonderful summary and critique on the film's theme of death, which she eloquently and accurately tackles.  However, in following with this week's theme of award winning shorts, I'd instead like to focus on how unorthodox styles within the shorts category seem to have greater success during award season.

"Six Shooter" stars Brendan Gleason as Donnelly, a grieving widower returning home on a train from the hospital after his wife has passed away.  There he runs into a delinquent without a filter and a couple grieving the loss of their child, and Donnelly faces a sardonically funny conflict that turns tragic.  The film functions with a true dramatist's magic, infused with the dark absurdity that is trademark McDonagh; an Irish playwright behind works such as The Lieutenant of Inishmore and The Pillowman, and would go onto write and direct 2008's In Bruges.

What I find fascinating is that this movie would go onto earn an Oscar for Best Live Action Short Film, yet if its style were taken and transposed onto a feature, it's unlikely to have even earned a nomination for Best Picture.  It isn't that McDonagh's style on display here couldn't be done as a feature (hence In Bruges.)  But take 2005's Best Picture winner, the painfully preachy melodrama Crash.  Nominees in the Best Picture category included that year's upset favorite, Brokeback Mountain, Capote, Good Night and Good Luck, and Munich.  The latter three were all based off of historical events, and all dramatic, lacking humor, and avoiding the label of "genre film."

Then take the films up against "Six Shooter:" "Cashback," "The Runaway," "The Last Farm," and "Our Time is Up."  Admittedly, I have not seen "The Last Farm" or "The Runaway," but "Cashback" falls in the indie dramedy category while "Our Time is Up" is a suicide comedy.  This trend of unconventional genre films winning the Best Live Action Short Film category is apparent when looking over winners from the last decade: Last year's "God of Love," or 2009's "The New Tenants," a sort of homage to Tarantino and David Lynch.  Now albeit, we do see films and directors that are not traditionally "dramatic" get nominated.  However, I think it is obvious that there is a lack of seriousness (or rather, suffocating pretentiousness) absent in these nominees and winners, as opposed to the Best Picture category, which has a tendency to picking tepid, slow moving dramas over bolder, stylistic films; notable upsets include Ordinary People over Raging Bull, Forrest Gump over Pulp Fiction, or last year's The King's Speech over The Social Network.

There is almost a suggestion that the Academy views the short film as a gimmicky product; where clever situations and stylized dialogue over 10-25 minutes is rewarded.  "Six Shooter" does not have a particularly strong dramatic arc.  After spending about 22 minutes entertainingly watching some foul mouthed kid insult a mourning mother and give an anecdote about how he witnessed a cow explode, McDonagh does a good job using characterization as a means of illustrating the meaning of death, but in terms of entertainment value, of being engaging, it does so through vulgar pulpiness.  This sort of style has made, what I think, some of the best films of the last 25 years: Any of Tarantino's films, Fight Club, Drive.  But to the award givers?  They might tolerate 20 minutes of such, but not 120 apparently.

Fight For Your Right (Revisited)

FIGHT FOR YOUR RIGHT (Revisited)
Directed by Adam Yauch, USA, 2011, 30 minutes.
Source: Youtube

"Fight for Your Right (Revisited)" is all at once a comedy, a tribute to the Beastie Boys, a music video and a commercial for "Hot Sauce Committee Part Two," the rapping trio's latest album. The film picks up right where the iconic video "Fight for Your Right" leaves off, with Elijah Wood, Seth Rogen and Danny McBride starring as the Beastie Boys. Released the day after a normal-length music video for their single "Make Some Noise," this short follows the group as they steal beer, do drugs, cause havoc in the streets of NYC and eventually face off against the "future Beastie Boys" (Will Ferrel, John C. Reilly and Jack Black) only to be arrested by the real-life Beastie Boys. All of this happens while we are being introduce to the Beastie Boys newest beats.

What is most impressive about this short is the star power. Almost as entertaining as watching Frodo chugging beer and being a belligerent youth is watching the famous cast unfold. There are an almost overwhelming number of cameos in the film, it is impossible to guess what actor/comedian/musician/Steve Buscemi will appear next. Some of my favorite roles include Chloe Sevigny as a 80's hair-band chick, Orlando Bloom as a street car-window washer and Ted Danson as a flustered restaurant host. This video will require multiple viewings to catch and appreciate all the appearances, but in my mind it is fully worth your time if only just to inspire day-dreams about the hilarious chaos that must have taken reign on set.

Thinking about the number of things this film accomplishes could give a person whiplash. The Beastie Boys are memorializing their own legacy while advertising their newest product, and got every big name in Hollywood to sign on. This short embodies the variety of intentions a single film on the internet can have, but you would never notice because it is just that funny.

Crazy For You

Get More: MTV Supervideo, Music, Best Coast, Best Coast, Music, More Music Videos

CRAZY FOR YOU
Directed by Drew Barrymore, United States, 2011, 11 Minutes
Actors: Chloë Moretz, Tyler Posey, Alia Shawkat,Miranda Cosgrove, Shailene Woodley

This film is a modern day retailing of Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet (R&J), or more specifically, its successor, West Side Story. This film follows two gangs. One is dressed in neon colors and called the Day Trotters, and one is dressed in black leather and called the Night Creepers. Within these two gangs, there is a boy, Lucky, from the Day Trotters and a girl, Veronica, from the Night Creepers who inevitably fall in love and want different peaceful lives. The two young lovers have a secret affair for a few days and only communicate through writing on their hands, and the tragic instance of graffiti on the wall. After a misunderstanding, their teen love affair comes to an end. When a gang fight erupts between the two gangs due to a brutal beating of the Night Creeper's female leader's sister, Veronica pushes Lucky accidentally off the roof, and learns of his true answer to her palm question too late.

I have never been a fan of Romeo and Juliet, but this film does do a modern adaptation of the play--and amazingly does it without dialogue. The only dialogue we get is from Night Creeper's gang leader, played by Alia Shawkat, and it is one of anger and hate, a very important and sad emotion that is exists in R&J. In addition to Alia Shawkat, this film is full of young up-and-coming stars: Chloë Moretz as Veronica, Tyler Posey as Lucky, Miranda Cosgrove as the beat up gang member, and many more. I am not sure this film would have been made if Drew Barrymore, a well-known actress herself, had not directed it. This film is characteristic of a Drew Barrymore piece. From Charlie's Angels to Whip It, Barrymore has a distinct 1980's clothing cut and colors styling. As far as quality, this film, partnered with MTV, is of high quality--high quality as both a short and a music video for the band Best Coast and their song "Our Deal". Also, I really enjoy how Lucky is a combination of both Tony and Bernardo from West Side Story, two males that greatly affect Maria and her view on society.

This film is a successful modern retelling of a classic play for the MTV/Reality TV age. It also follows the frustration of the play elegantly. In the play, you always want to yell at Romeo to stop taking the poison as Juliet awakes. This film evokes the same frustration when we watch Lucky, who is not lucky, write "I can't" and then disappear to the other side of the wall. Of course, Veronica does not notice the rest of the answer until Lucky is already on the pavement dying. Why does he have to be so dimwitted and write the two most disappointing and most misleading words to answer her question on the wall she is standing closest too? Also, playing on the similarities of its predecessor West Side Story, the fight at the end of the film is dance fighting, which also goes with the music. Furthermore, this film is effective because it promotes love, not violence--something every generation needs to remember. I think, though, that this film is ineffective because it deals with two gangs that control the same streets different times of day, so why is it necessary for them to fight? In West Side Story there is racial discrimination as well as youths trying to control the same streets the same time of day. Also, this is meant to be a music video. I did not realize this fact until I watched it for the second time. The film plays to the music, but the music gets lost in the film at the same time.

One last note: I am really happy to see Chloë Moretz in another film. She is great in both Kick-Ass and (500) Days of Summer. Also, without looking, does anyone recognize the actor who plays Lucky? That's right. He plays Jennifer Lopez's son in Maid in Manhattan. Crazy.

Prop 8 - The Musical

Directed and Staged by: Adam Shankman
Conceived and Written by-Marc Shaiman
Stars: Jack Black, John C. Reilly, Craig Robinson, Sarah Chalke

This short satirical musical colloquially discusses the battle about gay marriage between liberals and conservatives; specifically the issue of Proposition 8. In a time when liberals could see their social agenda potentially being fulfilled (the election of President Obama), conservatives fought and continue to fight tooth and nail to block any gay rights laws from passing. This film humorously outlines this battle by depicting liberals as colorful "hippies" and conservatives as tight wads in suits.

While the musical is quite humorous, with such conservative one liners as "Obamanation" instead of "abomination", it in fact does an excellent job of outlining the main components of the conservative argument against gay marriage. One such component is the religious view in which the conservatives cite the Bible as saying gay marriage is "damnable." At this point in the film, Jesus (Jack Black) makes an appearance and stipulates that the Bible in fact says a lot of things that modern society, including the conservatives, ignore such as stoning ones wife if she is adulterous or that it is acceptable to sell ones daughter into slavery.

In much the same way that Drunk History Vol. 5 (previously posted on this blog) accurately portrays history in an incredibly humorous way, "Prop 8 - The Musical" accurately portrays the gay rights battle. While not only being very informative at its roots, it also shows the almost ludicrousness of many of the conservatives arguments. Choosing to ignore much of what the Bible says and acknowledging only the parts that help ones argument is hypocrisy at its finest. This film does an excellent job of making its viewers laugh while at the same time informing them of the situation. Though it may take several views as ones own laughter make stop the message from getting through.

"Are You The Favorite Person of Anybody"

Directed by Miguel Arteta

Written by Miranda July

Stars: John C. Reilly, Miranda July, Mike White, and Chuy Chavez

4:04; USA

The film opens with John C. Reilly standing in an open walkway close to a street. He's holding a notebook and he polls three different people, "Are you the favorite person of anybody?" He doesn't stop there. He goes on, "Are you certain of this? How certain are you: Very certain, confident, you think so, not so sure, could be?"

Take a moment and think about the question. Ask yourself?

The film is an experiment in human psychology and characterization. It's an intense question. If you really think about it. And the setting. Something can be said for asking a stranger such a personal question on a side street. It doesn't lend its way to intimacy or privacy. In psychology one might say that Reilly's character lacks boundaries. Before we turn the heavy-handed finger on the three main characters, take a look at Reilly's character. He possesses a certain character pathology. He not only asks the initial question. He also asks the characters if they are sure of their answers? It appears as if he's judging their initial response. Who is he? He's really just someone out on a side street asking people a terribly personal question and trying to pawn off oranges that his wife has sent him to get rid of. A lot of details emerge from these people's lives in only four minutes. Additionally, when Mike White is certain that he's nobody's favorite person, Reilly's character seemingly feels bad for him. We see this when he offers him the oranges. He doesn't offer oranges to the July's character-- he doesn't feel bad for her. She's sure that she's somebody's favorite person.

Three different characters emerge. July's character appears confident, but introspective. She's optimistic of her fondness. White's character isn't contemplative at all, he knows that he's not anybody's favorite person. He's confident in that. And finally, Chavez's character is most people, someone who would see a guy like Reilly and do whatever it took to get around talking to him and as quickly as possible. We could guess that when he heard the question he didn't want to take the time to think about the reality of the question, but we don't know that.

The great thing about the writing here is that this one question reveals character depth in each of the actors. How might their reaction and answer to this one question translate into other aspects of these characters lives? All within such a short amount of time. July's writing is tight and concise. This is what writing in the short form is all about-- getting the most detail out of the shortest amount of space and time. Particularly for the short story writer. The same goes for the short filmmaker. When you break these stars down by their characterization it's easy to get past who they are and to dive into who they represent in the film.

We Were Once a Fairy Tale, Spike Jonze, 2011

We Were Once a Fairy Tale
Spike Jonze, 2011. 11 minutes.

The whimsical surrealism of Spike Jonze and the megalomania of Kanye West combine forces in We Were Once a Fairy Tale to create a drunken fever dream of a short film.

The opening shot sets us in a dark club with flashing lights. The camera moves like a hand-held camcorder, ducking and weaving into different frames and constantly moving in and out of focus. The sloppy, hazy nature of the cinematography matches the drunken slump West finds himself in. Dapperly dressed in a white tuxedo jacket, he slurs his words as he tries to strike up conversations with women. West stumbles around and becomes overly excited when he hears one of his songs playing over the sound system. "It's my song!" he tells a pair of unimpressed women. "I made all the notes!" Proclamations like these play off the stereotype of West as a puerile, out of control egomaniac. It would seem West is in on the joke, and the tension the self-consciousness creates is a great example of star power importing extra meaning to a film. West's celebrity makes the film something of an inside joke we all feel privy to.

Things take a turn for the surreal after West has an encounter with a mysterious woman waiting for him in his hotel room. However, when he wakes up, he finds himself alone on a couch in the club, disoriented as ever. Visually, the film underscores his confusion by pairing the grinding drone of the club's music with blinking, multicolored lights that glow in eerie ways off of West's white jacket. West enters the bathroom to collect his thoughts, only to vomit (pieces of paper), and then stab himself to remove a tiny, rat-like creature from his belly. West then hands the tiny creature a miniature sword, and the creature sighs, then kills itself.

It's a superficial reading, but it seems like the tiny monster West pulls from his belly is meant to be a representation of his "demons," or whatever restlessness is in him that caused him to get belligerently drunk (perhaps the lingering memory of the mystery woman?). West's music often traffics in purple dramatics that would seem to support this idea, too.

Cowboys & FreddieW (ft. Jon Favreau)

Cowboys & FreddieW (ft. Jon Favreau)

Directed by Freddie Wong

United States, 2011 (3 min 31 sec)

Freddie Wong is a popular Youtube filmmaker notable for his video game related videos and special effects. In this video, Freddie is accompanied by Jon Favreau on the set of a Universal backlot. A small western duel with some out of place gadgets and guns takes place.

This video is the result of Favreau contacting Freddie to do something related to “Cowboys and Aliens.” This video is clearly star driven as it deviates from Wong’s usual themes of video games. It seems to me that Favreau saw with as an opportunity to give a popular film maker more exposure while at the same time promote his new movie further. I think this video is worth looking at because I found it very interesting that a Hollywood actor and director would take notice of a Youtube star and provide him with a chance for more exposure. It's pretty shocking to see someone you follow on Youtube suddenly star in a video with a celebrity.

Too Late to Apologize: A Declaration

TOO LATE TO APOLOGIZE: A DECLARATION

Directed by Tim Grant, Written by Emilia Grant

United States, 2010, 3 minutes and 22 seconds

This short film fits not only the week's theme of online-based but it's also a music video and a satirical parody (something we've read quite a bit about for online-based videos). This music video is a parody of the video Apologize by Timbaland/One Republic which can be seen here. In the video I'm looking at, it takes the original lyrics and premise of the song and puts a historical spin on it. In this video by Soomo Publishing, the song is sung by Thomas Jefferson (backed by other famous Founding Fathers including John Adams, John Hancock, Samuel Adams, and Benjamin Franklin) and how colonial America will never forgive England.

Soomo Publishing is a group of people who create online videos, assignments, articles, etc. in order to promote learning and education. This music video was the first of its kind for Soomo, straying dramatically away from the documentaries and interviews they had been used to.

This film, in a word, is brilliant. At least for me. As a history major, with a particular fondness of this time period, and Thomas Jefferson being my favorite historical figure of all time, when I first saw this, it became one of my favorite internet videos. I have to admit that I don't even know the original song anymore! When I hear this music, these are the lyrics I immediately begin singing. This is one of those videos that I continually go back to and watch if I haven't seen it in a while or need some sort of pick-me-up. I think that's an important aspect about internet videos - for most of them, they're always there to go back to and people often do that. No matter how many times they've seen it, they watch it again and again either because they get so much enjoyment from it or they want to show it to all their friends. The word viral is constant in the internet world and it's typically how most internet videos gain their fame and acknowledgement. Indeed, I didn't just search Thomas Jefferson on YouTube (as I've done before) and stumble upon this, I had a friend link it to me, telling me I had to watch it because I would fall in love instantly (hint: she knows me well). It may not have kept up its viral life as long as other videos but there was a time I saw it everywhere and it certainly remains one of my favorites after all this time.

When looking at the original music video it's based on, it's incredible to see what a flawless parody this is. It follows the original almost to a tee while putting a new spin on it. It's a fun representation of history, appreciating it without coming off in any way condescending or ignorant. There is something extremely endearing about this video in its representation of our history. It's something people all over the world are going to have some knowledge of and be able to show appreciation for.

In terms of a short film, it is one I greatly admire. It was shot beautifully and with such respect for the original content that it drew upon. I love the use of focusing and re-focusing the camera, as well as the silhouette of Thomas Jefferson. One could perhaps argue that it's shot are not impressive because the shots are not original. I would argue, however, that they are just as impressive because they were able to be shot so seamlessly from the original and still work as their own pieces of film. The writing of this film is absolute genius. It's all at once entertaining and impressive since they could not adjust the music in any way and had to adapt brand new lyrics for the video and make them flow, which they absolutely did.

Overall, there were so many internet videos I had been considering writing about. When this one came into my thoughts, however, I knew I had to do it. This is the video I return to most often and has really brought me the most joy which is something I think is a staple in terms of internet videos.

EF - Live the Language - Paris

EF - Live the Language - Paris

Directed by Gustav Johansson, 2011

EF - Live The Language - Paris from Albin Holmqvist on Vimeo.

This video is actually an advertisement for EF International Language Centers, but to me it plays out like a short film. All of the EF videos play out in the same way, as they all follow a student who is immersing themselves in an EF language program somewhere in the world. In this video, we follow a young girl as she navigates through Paris, on the subway, through the market, tries traditional French cuisine, gets lost, and all the while learning the French language. The fact that we see a character from the beginning of her journey, a little unsure of her surroundings, to the point where she's become comfortable in this new setting makes the video a short film to me. I think for anything to be considered a film it has to have a narrative arc, and this little film does.

What makes this film different from other "fish out of water"-type films is the quality of the images and the titles and fonts the director used. The titles are clearly there to advertise the language-learning aspect of the program, but I think they add a quirky element to the film, as if the audience is learning the language with the girl.

I highly recommend that everyone check out the Vimeo page for EF - Live the Language; they have several beautiful videos shot in Barcelona, London, Los Angeles, Sydney and Vancouver.

Boys Will Be Girls

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gspaoaecNAg

The comedy sketch Boys Will Be Girls is made by the Harvard Sailing Team, and it is a group of four guys imitating girl stereotypes, hilariously.

I was impressed because the quality of video is very good and the quality of humor is even better. I appreciate when a group can make fun of stereotypes without being too offensive or hurtful. They were spot on and very accurate in their depictions.

The film is entertaining, because, hey, who doesn't love guys making fun of their annoying girlfriends? It's so much easier to realize the problem with behaviors when it's presented to you in a funny way. Why shouldn't we be able to laugh at ourselves?

Drunk History Vol.5

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipV2u-MxlFc

Have you ever listened to a drunk friend try to tell you a story? Remember how they can't really remember the story, and get distracted by fun things like say... pants? Let's be honest you have, and it was hilarious. Well Jeremy Conner decided to take those stories and make them into short films. There's a twist - he gets bona fide historians, and then convinces A-list celebrities to act out the drunken story. The result is brilliant and extremely funny.

I think that this concept works because it is the opposite being singular (the concept Jacob mentioned in his previous post). That drunken friend is a universal story, and most people can relate to what they're seeing on screen. You aren't seeing one persons vision (or acid trip) you're seeing a societal experience. By 'interviewing' the historian, the whole concept of the interview becomes convoluted as well, and plays off of our expectation of a gray haired professor rambling on in monotone. Instead the audience sees an historical event as if it took place in the United States of Funny or Die. Simultaneously playing to and against our expectations works together to be surprising, ridiculous, and oh so funny.

Of course, the star power of this film can't be forgotten either. The production value is clearly high - the pantomime and acting is flawless, the music is perfect, and the editing is seamless. The big names and professional quality of this unknown filmmaker is pretty astonishing, and certainly is part of the draw. Will Farrel as Abe Lincoln? Don Cheadle as Frederick Douglas? The roles they play are hilarious own their own since we are familiar with their previous work, and the historical persons they are playing. The intersection of the two results in hilarity, once again because of its absurdity. The trashed narrator creating the scenario around all these characters, providing them with ridiculously inaccurate dialogue, further amps the absurdity, and is the icing on the cake.

The internet is the perfect venue for this film because it distinguishes itself. The majority of (legal) films and clips on internet tend to be of low quality, so films that have star power, high production value, and are well made stand out. This film has all three, and is made exclusively for internet, drawing attention to it.

An interesting side note: Although this films says 'funny or die exclusive' it was not originally on funny or die.

Also - Don Cheadles hair. That is all.

Salad Fingers

Salad Fingers Episode 2: Friends

David Firth, 2008

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuCw5k-Lph0&feature=sh_e_se&list=SL&oref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fshow%3Fp%3D8egJhsKOpsY%26tracker%3Dshow_av

The link leads you to the second episode of a series of web-based comics called Salad Fingers. It is not at all necessary to watch the first episode in order to understand the second, because Salad Fingers makes no real sense no matter how much of it you've seen. I choose this episode because I think it best encapsulates the tone and composition of the entire series, and also because it is the most disturbing episode.

The first question most people have when watching Salad Fingers is, what is this? The simplest answer is that Salad Fingers is process art. It is strongly implied throughout the authors materials that all of his works are made under the influence of acid. Salad Fingers is a trip through one man's bad trip. But why would a video that is a simulation of a bad trip get 8 million views on Youtube?

I think that Salad Fingers is interesting because it reveals the way the online forms of film distribution tend to reward videos that are singular. Salad Fingers, in spite of any critique you might make of it, is not really like anything else that the average viewer has ever watched. Its like a point of view video of someone who is completely insane. It is worth noting that this episode is the only instance in Salad Fingers where a person appears to be normal, and they get cooked. The video series asks us to accept a character in Salad Fingers himself you is obviously a complete maniac as our anchor in watching this. It makes no narrative sense, and most of the design is intended to be as off-putting as possible. This is not a film that should be popular.

But Salad Fingers is popular, because it is singular. It is one man's twisted vision and that makes it interesting. And in an internet environment that gives you a million options all competing for your attention at once, something truly interesting, something that you can not stop watching, becomes a masterpiece of the form. Whatever you think of Salad Fingers, once you start watching it is hard to look away, and in the environment that it was created in and for, that is a triumph.