Cucalorus Response

FST 495 Cucalorus Response

Trinidad Shorts

            I watched the Trinidad Shorts at night, and so that meant that many of the filmmakers (and mediator) were all tired, drunk, and ready to get more drunk at Jengo’s. The mediator didn’t let the audience ask their own questions. When the filmmakers answered the mediator’s questions, I noticed that there were two types of answers – the dreamer answer and the funny, realistic answer. A lot of the short films I saw were dark or satirical (or hybrid) narratives. I figure that the reason so many shorts are dark is because it’s easier for us to bond and sympathize with the characters during hard times. Comedies also seem to be troublesome for short narratives, because the acting has to be timed right and timing is hard for anybody. Some shorts had better production values than others, but I noticed that as long as I was involved in the story, I didn’t mind the quality as much as long as I could see and hear what was going on.

            Most of the shorts lacked production design, which I believe would have made better films. All of the films focused on lighting and cinematography. One in particular had spectacular lighting, special effects, camera work, and acting. It felt like what an abstract would be to a paper, and showcased the real talent of the director.

Wilmington on Fire

            Wilmington on Fire was a work in progress last Cucalorus, and this year, he had a full fledged film. His documentary seemed to have lots of poorly compositioned shots, lighting, and not enough focus in the structure of the film. Although he used chapters to separate parts of his film, he was still focusing on a lot for one film. I think if he cut back, his film would have been stronger. However, the topic was so strong, relevant, and controversial that the audience didn’t care. In fact, Wilmington on Fire had the longest Q and A I saw at Cucalorus. The strong, strange characters and the director’s passion for the subject outweighed the mess ups the filmmaker had.

            I noticed that the mark of a good DP is to be able to pull focus fast, because the subjects don’t know about blocking or waiting to move to the next thing until you pull focus. One way to combat this I think would be to ask the subject to put the document out for us to see or get separate shots of all of those documents. That way they can be overlayed with the sound of the subject’s voice.

            Another thing I noticed from this documentary is that when picking a documentary subject, it’s always good if you get a subject that people are willing to talk about. Forcing people to talk about something they are uncomfortable with may prove to be a good film in the end, but essentially that’s a longer, arduous process.