The Closet - Short Film

[One Films]

First of all, great work- it's really a very nice film and quite beautiful at that. I'm excited to see where you'll push the color- it already has a very distinctive look- out of curiosity, was that from a rough color grade or from the way you shot it?

What was your post workflow like? Did you conform on Scratch? Is this just FCP proxies rendered?

This thread is an interesting situation as we're blurring the line between a technical discussion and artistic. We already have a lot of techies-turned-artists as well as artists-turned-techies on this forum, so weather the film's content should be discussed is a difficult one.

Wow, this discussion has definitely has taken on a life of it's own. Thanks to Ryan for posting, although the film was originally posted on this thread (where the controversy is much the same):

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=8802

Perhaps the mods want to consolidate these two.

As for the technical questions. The roughcut is simply the FCP low res proxies rendered, with very slight color correction done in FCP—we notched up the contrast and gave the past a muted green / blue tint, the present a bit of warmth.

Thanks for the comments, creative and otherwise.

 

[I Bloom]

Looks great. Glad it was a success.
Looking forward to seeing how you grade it!

IBloom

 

[Sean Rawls]

Not to break up the great debate '08 . . . but I really like the look of this short and had a few technical questions/comments. What lenses were used? What lighting package did you use? Was there a prevailing philosophy for the lighting? It seems to consistently lean towards hot, white light countered by deep shadows and silhouettes. Seeing that this rough cut was pulled from the proxies, I'm excited to see was can be done with the actual grade.

I really enjoyed the pacing and composition of the entire piece. My only critique is that the hand-held aesthetic didn't work well for the old man scenes. Obviously these sort of decisions are subjective but a shaky camera seems to mesh with the spontaneity of childhood and not the isolation you seemed to be shooting for with the old man.

Either way, great short, loved the look, looking forward to the final draft.

 

[One Films]

Not to break up the great debate '08 . . . but I really like the look of this short and had a few technical questions/comments. What lenses were used? What lighting package did you use? Was there a prevailing philosophy for the lighting? It seems to consistently lean towards hot, white light countered by deep shadows and silhouettes. Seeing that this rough cut was pulled from the proxies, I'm excited to see was can be done with the actual grade.

Wait, you want to talk about how we actually shot the film in this forum, not it's content?!?

We used Zeiss Superspeeds and white promists / NDs. We had a TINY lighting package (one 1200w HMI and one 2' 4x Kino) and a bit of grip gear. Two cameras

As for the philosophy—that pretty much sums it up. High contrast, pools of soft light, highlights that blow, etc...

 

[Sean Rawls]

Thanks for the quick response! How many ND's did you stack for the exterior scenes? Did you get any of the IR problems people have described when using multiple ND's? (http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=9412)

That's cool you were able to achieve this look with such a small package reminds of a Portland style production (underfunded and tiny).

 

[One Films]

Thanks for the quick response! How many ND's did you stack for the exterior scenes? Did you get any of the IR problems people have described when using multiple ND's? (http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=9412)

That's cool you were able to achieve this look with such a small package reminds of a Portland style production (underfunded and tiny).

We never used more than an ND 1.2, as far as I can remember. And no, I haven't seen that IR problem at all.

 

[Fabián Aguirre]

With the handholding and love theme, its easy to miss the bottomline, that is, the unnatural sexual relationship between two men (and two pre-teen boys in this film). Why do I say unnatural? The male reproductive system is made (yes I said made) for the fertilization of an egg of a female. One part male, one part female. The man and woman unite, the sperm passes through the female where it collides with an egg. Somehow a human grows in the womans womb and nine months later the man and woman have a family. This is plain as day. Do you eat food with your nose? No, of course not, the mouth is for eating food. Do I need to ask these same questions regarding sex between two males?

Hear me on this, I dont hate people who claim to be gay. Its just that gay sex is incorrect.

This film could be added to the list of gay propaganda that strives for "equal-rights" and I am sure it will win awards at festivals for that very reason.

With all due respect to the author of the above quotation--

The attempt to use the premise of eating food with your nose as something unequivocally similar to homosexual intercourse is one of the best philosophical fallacies I have ever encountered. Not only do heterosexual couples engage in similar, "unnatural," sexual activities (such as oral sex), but more than 1500 species of non-human animals are known to engage in some sort of "homosexual" ritual-- and no, this isn't personal speculation taken right out of a hat. In fact, there is so much scientific evidence to support this claim that it is almost non-reputable. Homosexuality is so natural and has been around in the animal kingdom for so long, that in some instances has been attributed as beneficial to a species' evolutionary continuation.

"...in the fruitfly Drosophila melanogaster, mutant alleles of the fruitless gene were found to cause male flies to court and attempt to mate exclusively with other males."

"While the homosexual bonding system in bonobos represent the highest frequency of homosexuality known in any species, homosexuality has been reported for all great apes, including humans, as well as a number of other primate species."

"Both male and female lions have been seen to interact homosexually."

Yep, wild kitties are acting in "incorrect ways," too.

"Male lions pair-bond for a number of days and initiate homosexual activity with affectionate nuzzling and caressing, leading to mounting and thrusting. About 8% of mountings have been observed to occur with other males, while female pairings are held to be fairly common in captivity but have not been observed in the wild."

Other animals commonly observed in homosexual behavior include dolphins (wild observations), golden-lion tamarins (I witnessed this in person in a captive environment), and leopard geckos.

Homosexuality is a biological (thus natural) behavior that is common in individuals within populations and species, and our lack of understanding or knowledge on a particular issue should not lead to comments based on bigotry or plain ignorance. Sure, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but there are most certainly better opinions, or more correct ones, than others.

Now, onto the more relevant topic of discussion, I'd like to thank Ryan for posting this. The piece is visually stunning, and the score left me speechless. I cannot wait to see the end result!

Kindest regards,

Fabián Aguirre

• Heterosexual human ape (Homo sapiens).

www.fabianaguirre.com

 

[Seamus McFlannel]

Hey guys, don't be hatin'. Don't be judgin'. If we're not to judge anyone or any action; why are y'all judging Hunter. Callin' him ignorant and bigoted! Man, that's cold.

 

[Seamus McFlannel]

Come to think of it; why am I judgin' your judgin'? Man, I'm ignorant and bigoted.
Now I'm really screwed up for judgin' myself.

 

[Júlio Taubkin]

I'm judging him inappropriate, for bringing up a discussion on homosexuality to a technical forum, especially since because of his post the movie was removed and I never saw it.

Dang, those frame grabs made me curious!

 

[vovin]

Well it is clear that "hunterrichards" doesn't know much about nature if he considers recreational sex between... well any genders, really, unnatural - considering that animals have recreational sex with just about anything =)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Amc4n0PQAx0 <--- This is in swedish, although I believe it is quite possible to understand anyway. Just some examples of various species conducting pedophilic, zoophillic and necrophilic acts. =)

It's all natural baby =)

 

[Seamus McFlannel]

Hunterrichards' main contention is not against recreational sex, but against unnatural sex; specifically, homosexual sex. I would agree with him; it is unnatural. Just because I hold that position does not make me fearful. In other words, I'm not homophobic. I'm not afraid of homosexuals, I simply think that the behavior is disordered. Because of that, I am neither fearful or hateful.

I also have friends who are homosexual; I'm sure we all do. The point is, I don't hate them or fear them. Again, I simply believe that in the area of sexuality, they are disordered.

The use of examples of certain behaviors that occur elsewhere in nature to prove that similar behavior in men is normal, assumes that because it occurs in the "wild", that it is ordered. I would reject that argument.

A lot of this stems from my worldview, which would be identified as a Christian worldview. One of the basic tenets of a Christian worldview is that all of creation is fallen. It has been corrupted, and that would include the animal kingdom. My guess is that Hunter's worldview might be similar.

So to use the "some animals do it so it must be normal" argument doesn't hold much water from this perspective. Certainly to point out that various species engage in pedophilia or necrophilia doesn't do much to bolster the argument. I don't think that many people would sanction that behavior in men. Neither would the ingestion of one's own feces, or the eating of one's young be considered healthy or moral (both of these behaviors occur in nature) Furthermore, I don't think that those who expressed disdain at those kind of behaviors in men, would be considered phobic or hateful.

I don't think that those of you who disagree with me are necessarily ill-intentioned. I can't know your intentions. But neither can you know mine, or Hunter's.

I don't think that you are necessarily mean-spirited because of your positions. I would hope that someone who argues from my perspective would be accorded the same latitude.

I do think that those of you who disagree with me are wrong. How would I not? If I thought you were right, then I wouldn't disagree with you.

I assume you think that I am wrong. Fair enough. But I would ask that you would accord to someone who thinks differently than you some respect and tolerance. I would suggest that you argue the argument and refrain from accusations against a person's motives, character or intelligence because of philosophical differences.

Thank you for your indulgence,
Seamus+

 

[Fabián Aguirre]

A Lesson in Logic

A Lesson in Logic

Wow, there are better examples of fallacious arguments in this thread alone, than in many college-level, Logic texts books. Let's take it one step at a time.

Just some examples of various species conducting pedophilic, zoophillic and necrophilic acts... It's all natural baby =)

To say this is to introduce another element to the argument, which makes the statement above nothing more than another philosophical fallacy. My original point was established in an attempt to show the inadequate use of terms by some to express their reaction to that which they do not understand-- namely, sex between two men. The problem from the beginning has been that no one has established the definition of any of these terms (unnatural, disordered, etc.), so everyone is using them interchangeably.

To compare homosexuality in the natural world with pedophilia and necrophilia is ludicrous at best, as the latter are illegal acts in most places and always conducted without the consent of the victim (children are not said to have the intellectual capability to make informed choices of this sort, and dead people, well, they don't engage in voluntary sex either). But because this isn't a conversation of legal grounds, vovin's post is not a very sound argument.

Now, back to the original point regarding terminology...

Hunterrichards' main contention is not against recreational sex, but against unnatural sex; specifically, homosexual sex. I would agree with him; it is unnatural. Just because I hold that position does not make me fearful. In other words, I'm not homophobic. I'm not afraid of homosexuals, I simply think that the behavior is disordered. Because of that, I am neither fearful or hateful.

The statement above is also an unsound argument as the first premise does not support the conclusion. You use two different terms (with two different meanings) to prove your argument:

"Homosexual sex is unnatural... [because] that behavior is disordered."

A point that is once again reiterated here:

I also have friends who are homosexual; I'm sure we all do. The point is, I don't hate them or fear them. Again, I simply believe that in the area of sexuality, they are disordered.

Again, so far you have provided no premises to support your conclusion (that homosexual sex is unnatural), except by saying that it is "disordered," a completely ambiguous and subjective term.

The use of examples of certain behaviors that occur elsewhere in nature to prove that similar behavior in men is normal, assumes that because it occurs in the "wild", that it is ordered. I would reject that argument.

Again, either we're speaking different languages or someone else is writing on my behalf. "The use of examples of certain behaviors that occur elsewhere in nature" was to prove that it occurs in the wild-- that it is biological and natural in the very sense of the word. No one ever mentioned anything about orderly or disorderly behavior. By the way, what does it mean to say that disorderly sex is disorderly? That homosexuals disrupt your life by engaging in private homosexual behavior? And if a small percentage of homosexuals were to engage in public behavior (holding hands?), would that be disorderly (disrupting)? Why, because of fear, perhaps? But you've already indicated that you do not "fear" homosexuals. So why disorderly? Because they have anal sex in a "disordered" fashion? Hmm... I'm not even sure what that means. But wait, what about heterosexual couples who engage in anal or oral sex? I guess I'm not sure what you mean by "disorderly"... or what it has to do with natural. If you mean disorderly in that it is not ordered, not neat, not methodical, not systematic... are all natural things methodical, neat and systematic?!

A lot of this stems from my worldview, which would be identified as a Christian worldview. One of the basic tenets of a Christian worldview is that all of creation is fallen. It has been corrupted, and that would include the animal kingdom. My guess is that Hunter's worldview might be similar.

Ah, now we're getting somewhere! If "a lot of this stems from" your "worldview", your Christian view, then your argument makes much more sense. Just because your highly-revised and reinterpreted book clearly indicates that homosexuality is unnatural (which, by the way, it doesn't), does not mean that it is so, at least not in the context of a "worldview." It's like saying that God exists because it says so in the Bible-- it kind of begs the question, you know. You're assuming the very thing you're trying to prove. Ahh... see, begging the question, and therein lies another philosophical fallacy :shifty:

So to use the "some animals do it so it must be normal" argument doesn't hold much water from this perspective. Certainly to point out that various species engage in pedophilia or necrophilia doesn't do much to bolster the argument. I don't think that many people would sanction that behavior in men. Neither would the ingestion of one's own feces, or the eating of one's young be considered healthy or moral (both of these behaviors occur in nature)

I agree (see above). Although I'm not sure what "morality" has to do with the consumption of feces, but yes, I agree with you on this one. Still, what does that have to do with the natural history of homosexuality?

I don't think that those of you who disagree with me are necessarily ill-intentioned. I can't know your intentions. But neither can you know mine, or Hunter's.

That, on the other hand, is a perfectly sound argument:

1. Everyone has intentions.
2. People can never always know others' intentions.
3. Therefore, I don't know your intentions, and you don't know mine.

I don't think that you are necessarily mean-spirited because of your positions. I would hope that someone who argues from my perspective would be accorded the same latitude.

I don't think you're mean spirited.

I do think that those of you who disagree with me are wrong. How would I not? If I thought you were right, then I wouldn't disagree with you.

As I said before, there are such things as "better opinions."

I assume you think that I am wrong. Fair enough. But I would ask that you would accord to someone who thinks differently than you some respect and tolerance. I would suggest that you argue the argument and refrain from accusations against a person's motives, character or intelligence because of philosophical differences.

I hope I have argued the argument in the most respectful, most tolerant of ways, and I do truly appreciate your input and sensible exchange.

It's too bad the link to the short film was removed, and I for one hope the threads are merged (moderators?), and not deleted. Hopefully Stewart will be so kind as to allow us access once it is finished (Stewart?), so that the technical (and creative) discussion may continue. It is truly magnificent.

Kindest regards,

Fabián

___________________
fabianaguirre.com

 

[One Films]

It's too bad the link to the short film was removed, and I for one hope the threads are merged (moderators?), and not deleted. Hopefully Stewart will be so kind as to allow us access once it is finished (Stewart?), so that the technical (and creative) discussion may continue. It is truly magnificent.

Wow. I can't tell you how excited I am that a 2.5 minute film has sparked such a robust conversation.

We took the roughcut down because we've locked picture and are now scoring, mixing, and timing (not for fear of controversy). I will definitely post the final piece when it's done.

Thanks again for all the comments.

 

[Fabián Aguirre]

Wow. I can't tell you how excited I am that a 2.5 minute film has sparked such a robust conversation.

We took the roughcut down because we've locked picture and are now scoring, mixing, and timing (not for fear of controversy). I will definitely post the final piece when it's done.

Thanks again for all the comments.

Great news!

Cheers,

Fabián


___________________
fabianaguirre.com

 

[Joyfool]

Wow. I can't tell you how excited I am that a 2.5 minute film has sparked such a robust conversation.

We took the roughcut down because we've locked picture and are now scoring, mixing, and timing (not for fear of controversy). I will definitely post the final piece when it's done.

Thanks again for all the comments.

Great news.

On a side note, Stewart. What's up with "Whisper"? I don't get it...everyone that's seen it wonders why it didn't get a theatrical run. Can you share your experience with releasing Whisper?

Thanks

 

[Brandon Fraley]

what if i like sticking cake up my nose? it's not hurting anyone. Leave people alone, we love who we love. I like vanilla ice cream while all my friends like chocolate. No one gives me shit about it and why should they. I didn't choose to prefer vanilla just as they didn't choose chocolate. And one is no more harmful than the other.

And there are few things i find more offensive than comparing gays to pedophiles.

 

[Jarred Land]

man.... they must be putting something in the water again this week

 

[wshultz]

Again, either we're speaking different languages or someone else is writing on my behalf. "The use of examples of certain behaviors that occur elsewhere in nature" was to prove that it occurs in the wild-- that it is biological and natural in the very sense of the word. No one ever mentioned anything about orderly or disorderly behavior. By the way, what does it mean to say that disorderly sex is disorderly? That homosexuals disrupt your life by engaging in private homosexual behavior? And if a small percentage of homosexuals were to engage in public behavior (holding hands?), would that be disorderly (disrupting)? Why, because of fear, perhaps? But you've already indicated that you do not "fear" homosexuals. So why disorderly? Because they have anal sex in a "disordered" fashion? Hmm... I'm not even sure what that means. But wait, what about heterosexual couples who engage in anal or oral sex? I guess I'm not sure what you mean by "disorderly"... or what it has to do with natural. If you mean disorderly in that it is not ordered, not neat, not methodical, not systematic... are all natural things methodical, neat and systematic?!


___________________
fabianaguirre.com

The other day I saw a clip of a tortoise humping an overturned salad bowl. It was too slow to seem disorderly but he was methodical and systematic. It was vaguely disturbing.

Jarred, you got anymore of that good tasting water?

 

[One Films]

Great news.

On a side note, Stewart. What's up with "Whisper"? I don't get it...everyone that's seen it wonders why it didn't get a theatrical run. Can you share your experience with releasing Whisper?

Thanks

Ha, well... that's a long melodramatic tale that can't be fully told on these boards. Central characters include the MPAA, other scary movies with kids, etc. PM me if you want the whole story.

s