Responses and discussion of the film

Many thanks to those of you who have posted your comments, good bad or indifferent, after getting your DVD. I appreciate it as does the rest of the team. I thought I would jot out a couple of quick notes in response, not to the opinions per se, but to clarify a few things.

First, re: everything being shot "Steadicam." Actally there's no Steadicam in the picture. There's a good deal of handheld work in the picture (not the same thing at all), either when it's motivated by a POV or by character action (Travis' POV in Terri's hotel room, for example) or by the limitations of the set or location (the train car, it's not practical to set the camera on sticks for some of those shots).

But if it puts you off a bit, fair play to you, no complaint from me at all, I just wanted to clear that up as the Steadicam is a very specific and heavy-duty rig and we haven't got it in our film.

Also, in re: expectations. Please don't come to this film expecting some sort of epic or masterpiece. It is a short film, 21 minutes in length. Think of it as a short story. For some, this is not their cup of tea. Generally speaking, there is not time for a great deal of character development in a 20 minute film (though there are rare exceptions, which almost prove the rule).

We really rely on the actors to have a sense of their characters' backstory and bring as much as possible of that to inform their behavior in the moment, maybe even more than in a feature because there isn't time to develop the things one finds in a feature -- the small behaviors and character traits that add up, over 90 minutes, to a person who seems real; the long arcs that can develop and ebb and flow in a 2-hour story.

Fortunately for us, I really do feel like James and Rachel really delivered the goods in this department. They are real professionals and real pros and, it must be said, really nice and patient people. James was just great, especially given that he was fighting Spiderman in front of a green screen all day and then shooting with us all night. Rachel in particular -- and I can say this as the editor, having scrutinized every frame of her performance for many months -- brought all kinds of subtle little physical traits to her role, from the way she played with her beads to the way she walked and carried herself. To say nothing of the expressiveness of her eyes. It really makes an editor's job much easier when you are looking into the eyes of the character at those critical moments, and seeing the internal life of that character rather than the dead eyes of a schlub actor who's wondering what craft services has got on for lunch that day.

And take to take, there was a consistency. Not repetitiveness, but a consistency to the emotional core of their character in that scene. Sometimes actors can be all over the place from take to take (and sometimes that's what you want). Kudos too of course to Eric Kmetz (the director) for working with these folks to establish those notes and keep them humming.

Just remember, this is just a little snapshot of one night in two people's lives, that may or may not change one of them forever. I'm saying this not to criticize anyone's comments, though one person's did inspire me to write this, but to encourage you to not expect a feature film or the level of character development possible in a longer-form work.

And yes, in answer to someone else's question, 20 minutes is more or less the limit of our budget and resources but just as importantly the longest you can expect your short to be and actually get it screened in festivals. This actually is getting a little outdated as more and more festivals are screening things in HD (as our film will be) as the 20 minute "limit" is really based on the length of a standard reel.



***Read no further to avoid mild, mild spoilers***


Regarding the way the film ends. It quite deliberately does not wrap everything up in a neat little package at the end. A lot of people say, well what happens next? And that in fact is for you to think about. It is kind of the point of the film, to put you in Travis' position and think through the consequences of what's gone down, and what it might mean for him.

This was a matter of some debate even amongst us on the team, but (trying to avoid spoilers here) in the end I agree with the director that in the end, this is about something that happens to Travis, that he is left to deal with the consequences of. It could change his life. Or it could be one of those things that makes you think it will change your life, but you forget about after a while and never really change (a very sad but real possible interpretation). Or perhaps he will decide to do something precise and relevant to what happens when he finds his phone.

The sense we hope the audience has at the end is one of a possibility for change. Which is very real for all of us, and so often, tragically, we come to a crossroad and think it momentous but we forget the lessons we learned there.

So in short, although this is a short film, precisely because it ends the way it does, it becomes a much more complicated thing than if it were sewn up in a tidy package. Much more about engaging the audience to consider something and in a way, the answers you propose for yourself might illuminate some things in your own life.

Or maybe not, and that's fine. As we worked with the material it took on (as they all do) its own life and told us what it wanted to be. And the good part of that process is that you occasionally get a nice surprise. For me, the surprise was that the ending of the film casts a lot of what's come before in a slightly different emotional light. It's a subtle picture in a way and that's not everyone's cup of tea, and it's by no means the Citizen Kane of short films. It certainly has its weaknesses (if only you knew!!). But I like to think it's honest and true to itself as a piece of artistic expression, certainly as true as it can be to Eric's vision for what he was trying to express with these characters, and I'm glad some of you find it moving. Those that don't, I wish you well and thank you again for your interest and comments.

Regards
Michael Sheehan
Editor