Quintessential: Prop 8 - The Musical

PROP 8: THE MUSICAL

Directed by: Adam Shankman

United States, 3 minutes

Proposition 8 was a ballot proposition that eliminated rights for gay couples to marry. It passed in 2008 and was a personal event for me which I think skews my viewing of this video (in a positive way). I remember protesting in my town for people to vote No and getting bumper stickers for my car, etc etc. I couldn't vote at the time but I was doing all that I could in order to encourage people to read more about the Proposition and think about the vote. Gay rights are something that I've always been passionate about and I remember when I first saw this musical, I was amused by it but it also had this underlying tone of sadness, especially once the Proposition passed.

The musical makes a lot of sense for me. As much as this musical is about Proposition 8, I always found its religious message to be one of the most interesting aspects of the video. As an Atheist, I find its blatant calling out of hypocrisy and hyperbolic tendencies rather refreshing.

However, this short really is driven by its stars. It is one of the most star-studded internet-based videos out there. One of the most interesting theories I think this video speaks about is the Liberal Hollywood. There's a lot of generalization that Hollywood is full of liberals and people who live these fanciful lives doing scandalous and liberal things. To an extent this may be true as every star in this musical consciously knows what the musical is expressing and the point it's getting across. Not to mention speaking of who stars are and what their personal lives mean once they're on screen. The director of this musical, Adam Shankman, is openly gay, as is Neil Patrick Harris who appears near the end of the musical.

Allison Janney's role in the video is rather enlightening for West Wing fans when you realize the musical recalls a specific scene from the show where Jed Bartlet calls out some of the language in the Bible.

Besides some of the names that are openly gay, you have stars like Rashida Jones who's known for philanthropic work and Maya Rudolph who's gotten her name known in the world of comedy. As someone who agrees entirely with what the musical is trying to express, its politics are very clear to me and therefore a little less interesting than what the stars mean in the context of the film. I think that's a really fascinating subject to discuss in regards to this video.

Quintessentials- Drinking Out of Cups

Original Post -> http://shortfilmsblog.blogspot.com/2011/10/drinking-out-of-cups.html

The original post argued that Drinking Out of Cups is an experimental film. I disagree with this categorization. The original argument is that because Drinking Out of Cups has no narrative than it is experimental. I think that this is simplification of what an experimental film is.

If Drinking Out of Cups is experimental, than what is the experiment? An experimental film is trying to do something different with structure, technique or writing. Drinking Out of Cups is certainly not something that we would normally watch in a movie theater, but it is completely within the normal elements of its context.

Drinking Out of Cups is not an experimental film, it is just a meme film. For a youtube video that is intended to be funny, plotlessness is not only not experimental, it is par for the course. I do not find Drinking Out of Cups to be particularly odd for a youtube video. This makes it unexperimental.

West Coast Report: Fraternity Rush

West Coast Report: Fraternity Rush
Written by: Jimmy Tatro
Filmed by: Jake Broido
Directed by: Jimmy Tatro and Jake Broido
USA 2011 4:49

Essentially, this film is a satire on the entire Fraternity rush process. It is narrated by the brother of one of the fraternities and outlines the various processes of Fraternity Rush such as talking to kids at Rush events and evaluating them afterwards in a closed meeting. It is perhaps one of the most hysterical videos I've ever watched simply because of its accuracy. I cannot speak for other fraternities but in terms of my own, this video closely resembles much of what the rush process is like for my fraternity. From the ridiculous questions asked to what happens behind "closed doors" this video is incredibly accurate in terms of what my fraternity looks for when looking for potential new members. Many of the personalities in the video are very close to those in my own fraternity. There are those who take things far to serious and highlight the fraternities philanthropic endeavors while there are many who view the fraternity as a means to get drunk and "pull" females.

Please watch this video, if not for its comedic value but for its authenticity. If you ever wondered what exactly happens during the fraternity rush process, this is a very accurate depiction. I'm not sure that that is a compliment to my fraternity, but it certainly supports the "frat boy" stereotype.

Heartless Potpourri

HEARTLESS (Cover) by The Fray Official Music Video
Located on Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yE21NQckSmc&feature=related
Uploaded September 28, 2009

This music video is an excellent one for potpourri week, I think, because it so effectively blends multiple themes from this class. In a cover of Heartless, originally by Kanye West, this music video provides a glimpse into the life of a young boy in class (algebra, from the look of his notebook) who does not appear very pleased with the course of his love life, particularly as it pertains to one brunette student who looks way too old for him.

The reason I selected this video, besides being such an eclectic blend of animation, online-based media and music videos, is the way animation itself is used. The story line depicted in the animation contains one of the boys' drawings, a little anatomically-accurate heart, trudging along having terrible thing after terrible thing happen to him. I love the effect of what is essentially a short film within a short film, illustrating the sort of corny cliches that we would never accept if they were in live action. If, for instance, the boy were to walk under a cloud and have it rain only on him, we as the audience might be inclined to yell at the screen "OKAY, we get it, he's sad!" However, by using a child's doodles, it seems only fitting.

This also allows for other things that would be difficult on film, such as the 2 cameos by Kanye West where he is shown wearing those ridiculous glasses and bobbing his head, which add to the overall entertainment value of the film. They also, (although perhaps this just reflects how much I am the daughter of an English professor who never let me watch Barney because he plagiarized people's songs), seem to use those cameos as further acknowledgement of the songs' original artist. I appreciated the gesture, whether it was actually meant that way or not.

Ultimately, it's impressive that the secondary character line (the heart) is integrated it so fully that it never strikes a viewer as odd. I think it's important to note that whether for practical reasons, optimal entertainment value, the ability to provide animated in-text citations or just to provide variation and visual interest, the use of a short within a short is just plain cool.

Extreme Sheep LED Art

Extreme Sheep LED Art

Wales

Upload by BaaStubs 2009

Wales

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=D2FX9rviEhw#!

This video got me thinking about the amount of talent it takes to produce some of the stupid things on the internet. I think that this video had this effect on me, because it must have taken a monumental amount of ability and practice to create this incredibly silly video. I'm sure that must people could not train dogs to herd sheep in that close coordination with only whistle commands. It probably took these men years of working with dogs and sheep to become this skilled at herding.

And with that experience, they produced this. Which is an undeniably silly, but rather winning video. And I can't think of a better use for this ability. I don't think that raising sheep actually requires this level of precision, and there is not much else you could have done with a bunch of sheep.

I'm sure that people who raise sheep have been doing this in Wales for years. Entertaining themselves by making amusing patterns with sheep. But with the magic of the web, and widely available video cameras, we can now all enjoy the fruits of their extremely specialized labor.

Eating Sand

Eating Sand

Aaron Stewart

Country Unknown

Uploaded in 2009

Sometimes you watch something that asks more questions than it answers. This short is one of those things. It begs questions like, what is this, who did this, and why? The information that the poster/creator gives you does not answer any of these questions.

But when you think about, your reaction to the short mirrors the plot (if you can call it that) of the short itself. You stumble upon a strange person doing a strange thing and begin to repeatedly question them. In the short the bird gets his answer in the form of an explanation that seems completely ridiculous to us. The viewer of the short does not get a ridiculous explanation from the short itself, but I think I may have provided one.

But this brings me to a larger point about animation, especially in short film. We have no real idea whether or not the explanation that Billy gave to the bird was ridiculous in the context of the world they exist in. All animated films, movies and shows create a world with rules that different than ours. As long as these rules are internally consistent then we simply accept the creative license that the animators are taking.

However, in a short film, there is no time for the rules of the world to be established. Eating sand is a great example of this because it is so short. We have no idea what if what is going on here is at all normal in this world. Do all of the things there speak in a series of horn notes? Could one house a civilization of sand castle building insects in his stomach? I have no idea, and neither do you.

Now this is not to say that animation cannot be successful in a short film. I love animated shorts. But I think to make them successfully, one has to understand that they work best when they are using surprise. Whether this surprise is unnerving, funny, or (in the case of Eating Sand) just odd, I think that if a short like this can come along and surprise us, then it is not a waste of time.

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.

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.

Ode to Joy as Performed by Beaker

This film was originally posted by Paul Klein. I agree with his assessment that this clip represented classic Muppets at their best. The short features the traditional Muppet ending of an explosion. It features one of the principles of comedy; faster is funnier. The song speeds up as the short progresses. Also, I appreciated that Beaker was center stage. Too often in sketches he was in the background, while Bunson Honeydew was center stage, receiving most of the attention.

One of the questions raised by the original post was, are Muppets animation. This is an issue I struggled with. The fundamental issue is whether puppets can be considered animation. The main similarity is that no motion will occur without human action, however I came to the conclusion that puppets are a separate category from animation.

Muppets and claymation are both forms of puppetry. In both an object exists in the physical world, and there are physical restrictions on what the puppet can and cannot do. In animation, be it computer or hand-drawn, there are no physical limitations on what a character is capable of. Also, puppets exist in the physical world, whereas animated characters do not. A human can touch a claymation character or a Muppet, but no one can actually touch an animated Bugs Bunny or Wall-E.

Another interesting point raised by the original post was online distribution via YouTube. Disney posting Muppet clips on YouTube is a way to interest new audiences in the Muppets, as well reconnect with older fans. People in college may remember the Muppets, but only as a childhood memory in the back of the mind. Rediscovering a clip on YouTube may remind a viewer of how much he or she enjoyed the Muppets at an earlier age, and may encourage a rekindled interest in the Muppets, eventually leading to the desire to purchase a CD, DVD, or other Muppet product.

Quintessentials: Charlie Bit My Finger

Charlie Bit My Finger- again!


Look for Amy Bush's original post to get a summary of the film. It would be pointless to redo that, so I am going to look at this film and it's place in our world.

In picking a short for our Quintessentials Celebration, I decided to pick this one because it is probably the quintessential YouTube video of our time. In our class, we have long debated whether or not films like Charlie Bit Me are short films. One side says tat anything recorded on a camcorder can be classified as a short film, whether it be parents filming British kids biting each other or a full budget production like Green Porno. The other side says that the intention defines what the film is. Did someone gather crew members to film something and edit the footage into a short film? Or did the person just happen to have their camera rolling, not knowing they were going to put it on YouTube? The original short films of the late 1800's are similar to many Youtube videos of today: they are based on spectacle - something interesting/cool is happening on a screen in front of you. One thing that should be considered in this debate is the evolution of a definition. Breaking "short film" down, you can define it as "a film that is short." However, in culture, the term "short film" as evolved to mean something else. No one is going to submit something like "Charlie Bit Me" to a film festival - it's inherently understood that a "real" short film is something much more substantial and planned.

So why did I pick "Charlie Bit My Finger" as a quintessential short film if I don't think its a short film? Well, whatever it "is," it's what YouTubers love. I'd say 9 out of 10 YouTube links I get from friends are ridiculous things caught on camera. "He fell off that building!" "She said that live on TV!" YouTubers want something that wows them. Even legitimately made pieces become popular because of how bad they are, for example the Mick Jagger/David Bowie video "Dancing in the Street" has 500,000 views - and it's not because people think it is good. YouTube is basically an unfiltered America's Funniest Home Videos free for all. My own YouTube account reflects this. I have several of my own video projects online. Which one has the most hits by far? The one where I filmed a prank I did on my roommate. While I have scripted films I've made that I personally enjoy way more, the prank video is the one embraced by YouTubers (28,000 hits).

YouTube is a place where short films can thrive, but the ones that thrive the most are people that got lucky with a camera. Charlie Bit Me is the quintessential example of what we want to watch on YouTube.

Battle of the Album Covers

Director: Ugly Pictures, Rohitash Rao
2:34
When I think of the word quintessential, pertaining to our course, I think of the ultimate video to describe exactly what we were trying to find as "What is a short?" After looking through dozens of shorts on the blog I found The Battle of the Album Covers, which to me falls in the gray area of YouTube footage and a short film.

Roa made a really creative film in this by taking the covers of famous albums and pitting them in a Battle Royale, a fight to the death. Where Weezer gets their heads bit off by the flesh-hungry, deranged cover of Ozzy Osbourne. And the Beatles Abbey Road cover is actually them running away from the violence. Very creative, but a perfect example of a Internet phenom.

According to Tricalee, the Internet already had seen this film long before the intended release date. Luckily Roa intended to put the film online after it's initial screening, but someone already beat him to it. This is exactly the fate of many films, short and feature length, today. For many of these films this is problematic, for others such as this one they have a great deal of success and reap the benefit of the Internet.

I don't want to take anything away from Roa by saying his film falls in the gray area, it is a film, but in my opinion it's one step below an actual short film and a few steps above all of the junk on youtube and the Internet in general. Now you may say "Who are you to judge this person's work and all the others who put stuff on the web?" Simple, the reason why it's put on the Internet is for the public to view it then to judge it accordingly. And believe it or I am this viewing public. The same reason anyone can read this blog, comment and tear me apart.

I am veering away from my point, this video fell to the inevitable fate of many many films, the Internet. Someone can find almost any film on the Internet if they look hard enough and many films can either collapse or strive due to the Internet.

ODE TO JOY

ODE TO JOY
1:41
Posted by: meepmeepmeepow





Although I obviously left this blog to the last minute with no idea as to what short film I was going to choose as a quintessential, with one glance at the label 'muppet', I knew this was the short for me. Growing up solely as a Nickelodeon child, the muppet family was my family. I loved the re-runs of the 1970's variety show and baby muppets definitely was a plus as well. Even better, Beaker was, no lie, my favorite muppet, AND Beethoven's 9th is beautiful, so the combination of the two were more than I could ever ask for.

The idea that puppets/muppets and animation could go hand in hand really fascinates me. The fact remains that animation holds multiple meanings these days with growing technology, so who's to say that puppeteering--arguably easy to maneuver ( in comparison to other forms of entertainment, that is) can't be considered animation? Just as Paul pointed out, Beaker is an extremely animated muppet and shows his true colors very well within the context of this hilarious short. He attempts to be creative and show off his multiple talents (all at once), but, as usual, multiple things go wrong and in the end, Beaker gets hurt in more ways than one. If anyone watched the muppets growing up, they'd understand that it's just how Beaker is and will always be.

But we love him anyways <3

Battle of the Album Covers

If you want high quality: http://www.manvsmagnet.com/motion/album/album.mov

Director: Ugly Pictures (Rohitash Rao)
Running Time: 2:34
Source: YouTube & ManvsMagnet

Battle of the Album Covers wasn't intended to be an online success. It was a commissioned piece of work for the annual charity event in New York City called "Battle of the Ad Bands." Ugly Pictures co-founder Rohitash Rao had created a two and a half minute film the year before, where it featured people fighting in an alleyway with different instruments. For the 2006 show, Rohitash Rao wanted to go a different route. He worked with designer/artist ManvsMagnet (Matt Smithson) to create a film not with figurines, but with the album covers themselves.

The two minute film has a simple plot: the album covers fight against each other, and there's multiple fights to boot. Dead Kennedy's logo versus Van Halen's logo. AC/DC's cannon shooting down Def Leppard's building. Rick James shooting down Billy Joel. Ozzy Osbourne's Bark at the Moon biting the heads off of people. It's hilarious and wacky, styled in the way of Monty Python's images ala Holy Grail fame... meeting Celebrity Deathmatch.

“The reaction was so amazing — nobody could hear the sound because people were cheering so loud,” says Ugly Pictures’s co-founder Rohitash Rao in a interview with Boston newspaper The Phoenix. “Minutes after the screening was over, people demanded a copy. The next day, we tried to put it on YouTube and somebody had already put it on there.”

Ugly Pictures, ManvsMagnet and Rohitash Rao had no issues with their film being shown online before they did. Because of this, in 2006, the video became an online hit. Thousands of plays occurred and it was a top watched video on YouTube and the internet. It's still a viral favorite with many people, particularly in the teen and college age groups.

It's not very surprising that the video was already online before the creators themselves put it up. In this day and age, when a film is shown to the public and a high interest grows because of it, the video will be online within a couple of hours. But in the case of "Battle of the Album Covers," this happened before the creator's consent. It happened without the creators knowing this was already up.

In the film industry right now, there is a hot debate still brewing about the issue of copyright laws and the internet. People torrent films in the theaters right now, in order to avoid spending money. Industry folk blame illegal downloading to the lack of ticket sales and revenue occurring in the business right now. It's understandable how that applies to features, as millions of dollars are spent on some high-production quality movies. But does that philosophy apply to shorts?

Filmmakers have the right to put them on YouTube themselves. YouTube even has their own Screening Room for those who wish to watch high quality films made by reputable directors. But are filmmakers losing money because of online marketing? They are getting their name out, yes, as well as their film, but they are not receiving any kind of pension in return for their hardwork. Online fame leads to exposure, but no instant gratitude in cold hard cash.

So are these short film makers gaining any money to begin with? Does the nature of the short film industry bank on artistic license more than money making? Do the issues of copyright law and control apply to the short film industry? Is it because the shorts are so small in time, there is no need to be riled up about the lack of consent of showing a short?

As a filmmaker, I feel like those who make shorts should not only receive recognition for their hard work, but some sort of compensation in return for the hard work they do. In regards to "Battle of the Album Covers," I can see why Ugly Pictures had no issues with this short -- they were commissioned from the start to make this. I wonder what other directors would say about this issue, and if artistic consent does apply to shorts as it does to features.

Also, if you are wondering what the running order of album covers were in this short, here's the list.

24: The Unaired 1994 Pilot

24: The Unaired 1994 Pilot
Directed by Sam Reich, USA, 2007, 4:19

This short is an original short by collegehumor.com. CollegeHumor used to be a typical website to find goofy videos, articles, and pictures that were on the amateur side, but it's success has allowed the site to invest in creating high budget short films as part of its CHTV online series. Their originals are a step up from the average viral-video. One particular favorite of mine is the 24 parody about what the show would have been like if it took place in 1994 using 1994's technology. The videos has Jack Bauer on a mission to diffuse a bomb, but his success continuously gets side-lined by technology such as pay-phones, dial-up internet, the lack of ability to use the phone while on the internet, paper printers, and more.

The professional aesthetic impressed first about the short. This isn't a bunch of college students in their dorm room. This short looks like a full-fledged production using real locations, hired actors, and expensive equipment. While these are all elements one would expect at a short film festival, in the age of YouTube, the expectations in the production quality of online shorts are lower. One can expect a shaky, crappy camera to be used, a lack of any real microphones, shot in someone's bedroom, etc. However, this short is as professional-looking as they get. The acting is well-done, and the Jack Bauer character actually looks like the real deal.

The video also happens to be very clever. It creates nostalgia for the viewer. I honestly forgot about those terrible printers where you had to tear off the edges of the paper or the fact that you can't use the phone while someone is on the internet. At the time, these were all coveted technologies, but they are laughable by today's standards when you can look at the internet ON your phone. Jack Bauer doesn't have a cell phone: to communicate with his boss; he gets a page on his beeper and has to leave the bomb to go find a pay-phone, and he even runs out of quarters. There are subtle references as well, such as when a character mentions they can't get on a Lycos page (remember Lycos?)

When one thinks of online-exclusive video, the perceptions of "no-budget" or "a teenager fooling with his friends after school" come to mind. Online-videos have no form of physical distribution. They aren't on TV. The expectations are usually low. One might think, "if it was actually so good, it probably would be seen elsewhere than the computer." However, this video shows that even some great great material can be isolated solely to the internet realm.

Sneezing Panda

Director: Unknown, added to youtube November 2006, 16 seconds
Source: You Tube



Like most college students, I waste my time on youtube watching pointless videos (notice I say videos and not short films). The videos my roommates and I watch the most are the ones that are simply, quite stupid and yet hilarious. Sneezing Panda is just one of those videos. If you haven’t seen it, just watch it. It only eats up 16 seconds of your life. I have watched Sneezing Panda maybe 50 times (it just never gets old). The surprise of the mama panda is comical, and the fact that the baby panda sneezed so forcefully that its’ entire body jumped off the ground is a feat in itself. Despite the cuteness factor, obvious entertainment value, and its’ placement on a short films blog, this video is not what I consider a short film.

My definition of a short film is not the one that was established in class a few weeks ago, of anything put on youtube. To me, a short film requires an intension to be considered a short film. The budget doesn’t matter, nor the subject material, but there needs to be thought behind the making of the film and an intension for it to be a short film. Randomly filming something on your video phone and then uploading it onto youtube does not constitute a short film. Having a story, maybe actors, a director, and a purpose makes a short film. Even if the point of a short film is to have no point, it is still a short film because of the thought process behind it.

Youtube is a home to several different types of media, one of which is short films. But also housed on that website are home videos, video blogs, TV clips, movie clips, and tons and tons of pointless crap. Don’t get me wrong, I love the abundant pointless crap on youtube, but to call it all short films is taking it a step too far.

Whoever filmed Sneezing Panda was lucky to capture such a hilarious moment, but there was obviously no intention to make a short film while filming the mother and baby panda. The person wielding the camera was probably just filming the eating habits of an adult panda and just happened to get a priceless 16 second piece of film from it.

Jurassic Park (Sweded)

"Oh shit," I can hear you sighing to yourself upon discovering that there is such a thing as SwededFilms.com, "I am probably going to waste my entire night watching these things." Sorry in advance.

A sweded film is, according to Urban Dictionary, a "summarized recreation of popular pop-culture films using limited budgets and a camcorder." The swede phenomenon emerged as a tribute to Michel Gondry's 2008 classic (for in the viral age, the gestation period for determining what is to be "classic" is as brief as its viewer's attention spans) Be Kind Rewind. The movie is about two video store clerks (played Jack Black and Mos Def) who accidentally erase a bunch of videotapes and then re-film the lost movies using inventive -- if laughably cheap -- methods. Fans of the film began uploading their own swedes (named such because the characters lie to their customers and tell them the films were made in Sweden) to sites like Youtube, and shortly thereafter SwededFilms.com was born and the swede movement adopted a code of aesthetics all its own.

Swedes are fueled not by funding but by ingenuity and an embrace of the limitations of their form. A good swede wears its budget on its sleeve; it tries to find the cheapest and most amateurish-on-purpose way of filming things like special effects, iconic characters and memorable (and often convoluted) plots. As with any genre, conventions develop quickly. Extra points are always won for clumsy, a-capella renditions of famous instrumental soundtracks. And referring to characters by their actor's name is always good for a laugh (one of my favorite lines in the above Jurassic Park swede is "Jeff Goldblume, freeze!").

The best swedes are the ones that understand the fidgety attention span of the average Youtube enthusiast and cater to it with rapid-fire cutting. That's what I like so much about this particular Jurassic Park swede. It's not the only Jurassic Park swede on the internet, mind you (as evidenced by Youtube user MrFGC1's comment "Best Jurassic Park Sweded on youtube"; high praise indeed), but I think the editing in this one shows the filmmaker's intimate understanding of the form, which is critical to a successful swede. The editing is purposefully hyper-continuous, in that it assumes we are all so familiar with the plot of Jurassic Park that we could recite it in our sleep. The sweded Jurassic Park uses fragments of the intimately familiar and creates an entirely new text that makes our familiarity a punchline in itself. That we "get it" is contingent upon us being as familiar with Jurassic Park as the filmmakers are.

But the biggest joke of all, and one common of all swedes, is one about the relationship between shorts and features. Can we take a two-hour blockbuster and condense it into a short that lasts only 5 minutes? 3 minutes? 2? The shorter duration in which a swede can tell a complicated story, the funnier it is. True, every swede is innately indebted to the film that inspired it, so we could say that this is yet another way in which shorts are viewed as subordinate to features. But I actually see an up-with-shorts mentality present in the swede phenomenon: within less than a year of their existence, swedes have adopted a language and a code of content so much their own that I actually think you can watch a good swede and, without having seen the original feature, find tremendous enjoyment in it. It's an homage to the inherent brevity of the short. It's a celebration of montage in ways that Eisenstein never dreamed.

Brokeback to the Future: Spoof Trailers

Broke Back to the Future
chocolatecakecity.com
Director: Unknown
Running Time 2:11

The true definition of an internet sensation is one that is forwarded through emails, linked on facebook pages, sent through AOL instant messenger, but never see the likes of the big screen. What great about this short is it's been in both realms. These trailers remade are an internet sensation amongst themselves not only just this one (but Brokeback Mountain is a popular choice). I chose this particular trailer out of thousands of remakes because of the use of two films that were once very popular films on the big screen and now have faded into TBS and our DVD players.

This trailer spoof takes the Back to the Future trilogy and splices them in a way that shows the two main characters in the film in a homosexual relationship. All of the clips that are used have slight sexual connotation to them, whether it's the Fox and Lloyd hugging or gazing into each other eyes. Needless to say all of the clips that are used are taken completely out of context. But put hem all together and throw the in the song The Wings by Gustavo Santoalla from Brokeback Mountain and the typical trailer music and you got yourself a completely different film.

I watched a few dozen of these trailers, from the very creative Good Will Hunted to the lesser Fight Club. But this short stood out the most for me because it's resemblance to an actual trailer, I think it even had some of the viewers who commented on it excited to see the feature length version of the film. What I noticed watching all of these spoof trailers is that they all seem to revolve around one central theme, which is Brokeback Mountain. Sure, there are plenty of other trailers that used different ideas to run with. But I think why so many of these trailers use homosexuality as their focus point is because it's so easy to run with. Take any film with two main characters that are men and run a some clips where they are looking at each other, play those in slow motion and have the song playing in background and there you have it a brokeback spoof.

Charlie Bit My Finger - Again!

I was going to embed "Charlie Bit My Finger - Again!" into this blog, but since over 62 million people have viewed these cute little buggers, I think it's safe to say you have seen it, knows someone who has seen it, or will immediately look it up on youtube.

This online only video is a simple home video that started with a dad who wanted to film the kids for his distant relatives. He posted this home video on youtube specifically for this purpose, and it was nothing short of a internet phenomenon that made the video as big as it is. Not only are this kids precious, but their interaction is hilarious. Specifically, the facial reactions of the older brother as he realizes that his finger is in fact being bit, and it does in fact hurt.

He jokingly puts his finger in Charlie's mouth for the camera. Charlie bites. It's funny, the brother is thinking, and so he goes along with it. But wait, it hurts. OK Charlie, older brother thinks, it's hurting, so stop. When his forehead crinkles and he lets out that "ohhoh," that's when genuine panic sets in. In my warped mind, and in the hearts of many millions, thats when the film really gets good. Charlie finally lets go, older brother gets mad and yells. His cute mini british accent just warms my ignorant American heart even more.

Then, unknowing to his older brother's anger, Charlie laughs. All of a sudden older brother is no longer pissed, he chuckles with Charlie. Again, completely oblivious to his previous emotional status.

The fact that this blog has far surpassed the lengths of my previous blogs should show that online only videos take on a fury and spirit of their own. I know when the topic came up this afternoon, my residents were suggesting all sorts of dumb, hilarious material that would have never reached such success with any other form of distribution.

Yacht Rock

Yacht Rock Episode 1: "What a Fool Believes"
Directed by JD Ryznar, 2005, 5 minutes
Source: Channel101.com/YouTube.com

"Yacht Rock" is an online "tv series" detailing the days when the smooth sounds of Kenny Loggins, Michael McDonald, and Hall & Oates dominated the charts. In Episode 1, Michael McDonald has to write a hit song in one day, or else be kicked out of the Doobie Brothers. Kenny Loggins offers to help out, but Michael isn't sure because Kenny just ditched his former songwriting partner, Jim Messina. They visit Jim, who's now a drunk living in an alley, but inspiration strikes and Kenny and Michael end up writing "What a Fool Believes" together. The Doobies perform the song and all is well, until the belligerent Hall & Oates show up to challenge Kenny and Michael to a songwriting contest, setting up the scenario for the next episode.

"Yacht Rock" is a parody, and therefore is only really funny if you're familiar with the musicians they're poking fun at. (I am, because this is pretty much all my mom listens to.) But it still shares some characteristics with other online comedy films - for example, the low production values, such as John Oates' obviously fake afro and moustache, make it funnier. Personally I also enjoy the ridiculous nautical puns, and the effects that try to make it look like the series is actually from the 70s. (The rest of the series can be viewed here. Episode 2, which features a back-alley songwriting duel with tragic results, is my favorite.)

Although "Yacht Rock" is available on YouTube, it was originally created for the website Channel101.com. Channel101 calls itself "the unavoidable future of entertainment": it is a website where the viewers determine which shows continue and which shows die. Each month, a screening is held in LA for the submissions selected to compete. The audience then votes for the shows it most wants to continue. The top five winners are allowed to submit their next episode for next month's screening, to compete against whatever pilots are submitted for the next month. All of the shorts must be 5 minutes or less. (Here is a more thorough explanation.)

Channel101 is interesting because it again blurs the line between short film and television. Generally speaking, the films on Channel101 can work as stand-alones, but they're also designed to leave the audience wanting more (so that they'll vote for a new episode.) In 2007, the site even sort of made a move onto actual TV when VH1 created Acceptable.tv. Acceptable.tv had the same basic premise as Channel101, but instead of screenings the shorts were aired on television, and viewers could then go to the website to vote for the shows they wanted to see next month. The creators of Acceptable.tv were, fittingly, people who got their start at Channel101. They are not the only success stories - before landing his gig on SNL, Andy Samberg & his writing partners created The 'Bu for Channel101, which ended up being one of the longest-running series on the site, and "Yacht Rock" itself now has periodic screenings across the country.

Chad Vader - Day Shift Manager

Chad Vader - Day Shift Manager
Blame Society Productions, USA, 2006, 4:47
Source: YouTube

The brainchild of Matt Sloan and Aaron Yonda, Chad Vader initially landed on the web via YouTube and MySpace in the summer of 2006, the first of eight episodes. The comic short series follows the adventures of Chad Vader, the younger, lesser-known and mostly inept brother of the arch-villian Darth Vader from the Star Wars movies.

Chad, in full black mask and suit (which apparently cost $600) works as the day manager of Empire Market, and has all the powers, the lightsaber (and voice) of Darth, and ill-fortune to deal with the earthbound and mundane struggles of grocery store managing life - lazy employees, demanding customers, the vagaries of the dating world, and a major conflict with night manager Clint. The latter relationship propels the arc of the series, as Chad is shunted to the night shift, quits the market, goes on a roaring drunk, fails at other jobs, and then duels Clint in Episode 8 to regain the vaunted position of day shift manager.

Chad Vader is both a good example of the viral power of the internet (I first heard about it through word of mouth, before it began spreading outward to Good Morning America and the BBC among other venues), and also of the "remediation effect" mentioned in our reading on YouTube, the practice of reusing or reworking material from one media in a different media, in this case generating comedy on the internet with an iconic film character. Viewers also have to be in on the culture of Star Wars to get the joke (the dialogue from the films and his powers are assumed knowledge).

I enjoyed the series when it came out, and it's got higher production values (and much more thought process) than many other YouTube bits, but in an odd way, it also feels "dated" by the standards of our national nanosecond attention span, swept aside in the great onrush forward. My current webseries obsession, which is still playing out this fall, is based here in DC.

Meanwhile, time will tell if Sloan and Yonda are one-hit wonders. They're still based out in Madison, Wisconsin (the set location for the series), have added merchandising to their repertoire, and are busy working on Series 2 of Chad Vader, just two more lucky lottery winners of this new world order (or third screen) of internet celebrity-dom.