Regards composition etc., it was a very conscious choice to present the material in a straightforward way that accentuated the actors and their characters within the story. We felt that if we had compositions that were too consciously framed, the audience would be paying attention to these elements, and not getting drawn into the film like we wanted. You may not agree with that approach, but I think it’s important to note that it is just as “considered” as other approaches. That said, we would choose other times in the film where these elements were bolder, as in the final sequence with the kite. There, hopefully, the contrast of that filming style to the style seen previously would help tell the story in a different way. Regards the actors, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but the “non-pro” tag threw me. Aside from the smallest of parts, those actors all have agents and are working.

Thanks for the clarification (of both points). With hindsight, “non-pro” was unfortunate shorthand and I withdraw it.

Firstly, Harold, thanks for stopping by. (Harold is the director of The Map Reader, reviewed above) I thought your film was very well photographed with quality DI and some lovely colours — a quality effort that certainly doesn’t signal a low budget. But photography alone is not a visual style. The rest of the elements (composition, framing, movement, etc) I thought were honest but ordinary — good television but not cinema. And I thought all the performances apart from the two leads were fussy — too much stuff going on.

Regards composition etc., it was a very conscious choice to present the material in a straightforward way that accentuated the actors and their characters within the story. We felt that if we had compositions that were too consciously framed, the audience would be paying attention to these elements, and not getting drawn into the film like we wanted. You may not agree with that approach, but I think it’s important to note that it is just as “considered” as other approaches. That said, we would choose other times in the film where these elements were bolder, as in the final sequence with the kite. There, hopefully, the contrast of that filming style to the style seen previously would help tell the story in a different way. Regards the actors, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but the “non-pro” tag threw me. Aside from the smallest of parts, those actors all have agents and are working.

Re The Map Reader, I’m wondering what you mean by “lack of considered visual style” since many other reviews comment on the beautiful visuals. This 200K NZ film has been in competition at many highly reputable international film festivals up against films costing millions, and it has more than held its own visually. Also, to which “non-pro” actors are your referring?

Firstly, Harold, thanks for stopping by. (Harold is the director of The Map Reader, reviewed above) I thought your film was very well photographed with quality DI and some lovely colours — a quality effort that certainly doesn’t signal a low budget. But photography alone is not a visual style. The rest of the elements (composition, framing, movement, etc) I thought were honest but ordinary — good television but not cinema. And I thought all the performances apart from the two leads were fussy — too much stuff going on.

I’m particularly confused by your assertion that if Judd Apatow had produced Role Models it would have been “16% shorter running time”. In fact Role Models is WAY shorter than ANY of the Judd Apatow comedies (and for my money way better paced):

How short a movie ‘feels’ is way more important than how short it actually is. For me, Role Models felt flabby with long unfunny improv sections (Jane Lynch’s bits being particularly repetitive). Listening to screenwriters Wain and Marino on the Creative Screenwriting podcast confirmed a lot of what I thought at the time — gags were left in for self-indulgence reasons, improv was used a lot to cover big gaps in the script and they had to re-shoot a quarter of it (including adding more topless bits).

Superbad: 1 hr, 54 min
Forgetting Sarah Marshall: 1 hr, 51 min
40 Yr Old Virgin: 1 hr, 56 min
Knocked Up: 2 hrs, 9 min
Role Models: 1 hr, 35 min