The old idea of two angels on someone's shoulders is here combined with the equally old idea that it is the female one which is the evil temptress. The text on the upload page for this short film also informs that the references to fire and burning could equally be taken as a reference to venereal disease, which amused me, but is not the subject of this short film. Instead we have the location of the Players Club used for the depiction of the women tempting the man, while the "owner" of these two angels delivers the monologue.
In terms of content it is fairly straightforward, but yet it fits well and is delivered with professionalism. The film is presented with an appropriately seductive edge of lushness and richness, and the camera is in no rush as it takes in the characters and the surroundings. The dialogue is perhaps not expanded on beyond the immediately fitting, however it still works, and it is accessible even if some of the dual meanings suggested does not really come through. The rich tones of James' delivery adds to this feeling – I remember him from Oz most notably, but he is strong here. His performance is not only in the voice but also in the eyes, engaging with the camera when it adds value – which it does. The sound design is good – at times James seems to be speaking in narration, but it pretty seamlessly moves to the direct-to-camera without sounding like it was done in a studio, or that it is different from the narrated lines.
This film was released after a month of no films, which had been preceded by a month of busy releases around the NYC Times article, and the 100th film coming out; it was a big gap and I did miss the project, and this richly solid film was a welcome return.
In terms of content it is fairly straightforward, but yet it fits well and is delivered with professionalism. The film is presented with an appropriately seductive edge of lushness and richness, and the camera is in no rush as it takes in the characters and the surroundings. The dialogue is perhaps not expanded on beyond the immediately fitting, however it still works, and it is accessible even if some of the dual meanings suggested does not really come through. The rich tones of James' delivery adds to this feeling – I remember him from Oz most notably, but he is strong here. His performance is not only in the voice but also in the eyes, engaging with the camera when it adds value – which it does. The sound design is good – at times James seems to be speaking in narration, but it pretty seamlessly moves to the direct-to-camera without sounding like it was done in a studio, or that it is different from the narrated lines.
This film was released after a month of no films, which had been preceded by a month of busy releases around the NYC Times article, and the 100th film coming out; it was a big gap and I did miss the project, and this richly solid film was a welcome return.