User Reviews

I have just received an e-mail from a friend of mine explaining that "Tropfest" is the greatest festival of shorts in the world. The first event was in Sidney seventeen years ago and last year (2008) it was the first edition in New York. The winner of last year was "Mankind Is No Island" that was shot by a cellular with the budget of US$ 40.00:.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrDxe9gK8Gk .

The director Jason van Genderen shows an awesome creativity, presenting a beautiful message of how people is lonely today in a big city and he uses the famous messages of unconditional love for the cities ("I Love New York" and "I Love Sidney") to question if the dwellers are in love for the people or for the place. He asks if you have talked to your father, mother, son, daughter or any other people close to you today. He also shows a great sympathy to the homeless in New York and Sydney. All of these messages are disclosed through words or sentences in signs and billboards shot by his cellular on the streets of both cities. The result is an unique and absolutely original short. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): Not Available

This short film was the winner of 2008's Tropfest NY shorts festival and it deals with the topic of homelessness in the cities of New York and Sydney. Most people who have mentioned this film to me have done so with tears in their eyes it seems because they have been moved by it and urged to address the problem – so I was interested to see what it did. Technically and creatively it must be said that the film is a good idea. A very good camera phone is used to captures words from parts of signs to spell out sentences in time to music while we also get images of the homeless on the streets. No doubt it is a good idea which is pulled together well.

However it is the content that gives me pause and makes me think that perhaps people are judging the film by how worthy it is as message rather by how good it is as a message. I only had two problems with the content of the film but the thing is, there are really only two or three aspects to the film. The most obvious aspect that jarred with me is the music. It is a horrid tinkly affair that sounds like the type of music used in a TVM death scene where a mother declares love to her daughter after so many years apart – except more manipulative and corny. OK for some people this will work but I hate when the music is so much of a part of the feelings. The second issue sits alongside the music because it is the "dialogue". Like I said, technically and creatively I liked the way the words are done but the actual sentences are so corny and sentimental – and they and the music together are almost patronising to the viewer in terms of how heavily the "worthiness" and "sadness" are piled onto us in such a short period of time.

Voters at Tropfest do not agree and I'm sure many viewers will not either but I have to call it like I see it. Credit to van Grenderen for his idea and the worthiness of his aims but the corny sentiment kills even the basic aim of raising awareness because it is so obvious and manipulative in how it delivers the message that I found it quite patronising.

This video is very moving and touching. It explores the realm of man kind and the way poor people live. The signs and words portrayed in the video present a message that enables the viewer to feel a connection with what the director was saying and feeling. This video expresses difficult but true circumstances of life and gives great insight into creating a better world all around. I liked the creativity of this short film. The technique was not only unique but also eye- catching. It created a touching story as well as a good, true view of life's troubles. A truly amazing short film. I also enjoyed the film because of the use of technology. This video exemplified the fact that no matter what the idea, one is capable of capturing any image, even with the simplest forms of technology. Technology should not hold one back from creating a masterpiece. You never know what you're capable of until you try. This film showed this perfectly. The use of a cell phone is what struck me the most. That means ANYONE can make a short film. The creativity is the key to making an impacting film. This is my favorite short film because of its expressions, music, use of resources, the signs, and the portrayal of real life circumstances. It all ties together perfectly.

This is damaged goods. Everything in it may look reliable and powerful, but a careful reviewing will reveal how false it is.

The film is apparently born from a clever visual idea, supported by editing. Images caught in two cities, that merge to give us a message. And editing is the key cinematic tool to achieve that message. But the deceit is that, besides a few images of homeless people and true city daily life, all the footage is in fact filmed words edited to make readable sentences. And all the rhythm is given Not by the filmed words, but by the music that follows it. So, we may be led into thinking that this actually has any cinematic value at all, when in fact it is a lazy effort, disguised as an honest amateur work. It took me several viewings to understand what was wrong.

A minor complaint is that the message is patronizing, numb, bloodless. IT tells you what you know, and it doesn't tell it from any interesting perspective. It's wrapped with the silly notion of treating viewers like children, in a way not even children (or specially children) should be treated. Many viewers enjoy being treated like that, that's probably why this film had such a success. Well i don't.

If you want a piece of editing where images are the key to the emotion and the music is just an additional support, watch this commercial:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfFZ5dcGaJw

Take out the sound in a second viewing and check how the editing stands. Do it with this "mankind..." and see how dead it becomes. IMDb doesn't file commercials, but comparing the film i'm commenting and the example i'm linking, maybe they should.

My opinion: 1/5

http://www.7eyes.wordpress.com