Hi all,
Just thought I'd post a link to our most controversial film - Safe Blokes . It's about date rape. Oooh, yes I know. Controversial. But think Brass Eye paedophile special, we're trying to make a serious satirical point. Hope everyone likes it. It'd be interesting to get a female perspective. All criticism welcome and we can go more into the motivation behind the film later but, initially, it'd be nice to see if people understand what we're trying to say without explanation.
Thanks, Ladma
can't see it ladz. might just be me. by me, i mean my computer
I get a dead link too.
Should be able to press play in our player. If not, maybe myspace will work?
Okay, I got around to watching this. On the positive side of things - the intro was very slick, the sound work, particularly in the street interview section was accomplished (I've seen that footage before somewhere - where did you filch it from exactly?), and the timbre of the voiceover was spot on. On the downside, it was very repetitive and moved sluggishly. Go back and watch the Brass Eye special and compare its gag rate to yours, I think you'll be surprised how many they cram in and how fast it moves. It is a tough subject matter, so you have to be very careful to treat it intelligently. For me, the intro achieved that. The rest of it did not.
Thanks David, much appreciated. I don't think you've seen the street footage before - we did that ourselves. I understand the criticism of being slugglish - it could benefit from an edit but it was our second effort so our 'shit filter' and script editing techniques were not as they are now. We're much tighter and efficient with things now, but partly the pace is due to the slow public information/charity videos which we were parodying.
Also, when I referenced the Brasseye Special, I was drawing comparison to the touchy subject matter, not the quality of humour. I would never in a million years equate us with Chris Morris. I wouldn't even equate us with Karen Taylor...
Right - female opinion. Yes - a VERY VERY touchy subject. I wasn't sure what to expect. I did find it somewhat unsensitive - but I looked beyond what had happened to girls I know and saw what you were trying to do. Yes, very slick, and I thought the editing was very good. I did laugh at the clown section, only cause I got my defenses up for no reason, to be thrown back in my face. Shock factor ahoy.
It really was very much like those films we are made to watch about women safety...which made me laugh a little. Overall - I don't want to like it (as i don't find the subject funny) but I do. CONFUSION!
I think I smell a porkie. I know I've seen that street footage before, and it wasn't rape the kids were being interviewed about...
I haven't seen the footage before but yer, agreed with David on that they were not being interviewed about rape. Were they actors?
To work as a satire, it needs to be blatantly obvious that the interviewees are being asked different questions (rather than it being a subject of debate). Probably the answers should be more OTT in the context. (Remember, Brasseye sent paedophiles into outerspace, etc.)
Haha, you might smell a porkie but it’s not from here. You won’t have seen the footage in any other form unless you’re one of us. And you’re not me. So that leaves two people… so still a maybe. You’re all right obviously, they’re not talking about rape and they’re not actors. We took a certain liberty with the editing and, occasionally, the audience doesn’t recognise this. This can be good for authenticity but it is less funny if you think they’re actors. It’s a fine line. We were asking them questions about where they go out, where to meet women, how much they drink, how much they spend etc.
I agree with Johnny that you need to know that they’re being asked different questions but most people do. Everyone in this thread seems to have picked it up. You’ve always got to alienate some people in satire who don’t understand it because you have to tread the fine line between reality and unreality. I agree the questions could’ve been more over the top but I think much of that section works because the answers that the men give are still misogynistic, chauvinistic and macho. They’re one step removed from talking about rape – talking about “lovely dirty sluts” who will be completely intoxicated and unable to think straight is not particularly a civilised mentality.
Quote: EllieJP @ November 23, 2007, 1:37 AMIt really was very much like those films we are made to watch about women safety...
And well done Ellie, that is completely the motivation. Apart from we were coming from a male perspective regarding the websites and leaflets we’d been on which preach ‘how not to be threatening to women’. It’s usually patronising rubbish which, quite frankly, would be read by people who had no inclination to rape at all. Moreover, it serves to demonise men and creates a dangerous culture of fear and division.
out of interest did you get release forms from the guys you interviewed? have you had any comeback. I ask as we're about to do some 'street' filming and debating whether to get release forms done or not.
It depends how official you are. That was just a student film so 'on screen' releases are fine. That just means you film asking them whether they want to be filmed. If you're doing anything commercial then you would need signed releases. Being on the street with lots of equipment means that any moron would speak to you really.
I thought that was actually pretty decent, I wasn't sure at first but the second half of it was really funny and I got the point it was making. And also it wasn't trying too hard to be Morris-esque, which I've seen a few other internet videos along similar lines try to do, with all the weird voices and Morris style vocabulary.
So yeah..well done. 
