archived-videos The Dumpster - A Short Comedy

[Skreamings]

There are few things more tempting in life than the lure of an empty dumpster in your neighbor's driveway. But when that neighbor is a jerk, things can get a bit tricky.

This short film screened at 11 film festivals across the US and Canada last year.

http://vimeo.com/27754937

Please share it with your friends.

 

[dandevans]

It just makes things more difficult for true geniuses like me.

Nice punchline

The reason I wrote my script was because the story and characters (well, at least one of them) were there in my head before I decided to make a film. That just seemed to be the best medium in which to tell that story - so now I'm trying to learn all the stuff I need to know to get that story across in the best possible way. And it's shitloads of stuff to learn to be honest, but it's fun trying. If it makes some people laugh then it will have served its purpose.

Like Gonzo said, this film is going to end up costing me a few thousand pounds I expect - why would I spend that to tell someone else's story?

And yes, some great directors make great films with other peoples great scripts but in actual fact a lot of the stuff I really really like is written and directed by the same person / persons - eg The Coen Brothers, Terry Gilliam, Tarantino etc - its not like there's no precedent for it working and I think the slightly weirder stuff tends to benefit from it, perhaps because the ideas aren't diluted by committee.

As for the dumpster film itself - it was ok. Looked nice, held my attention, made me smile a couple of times, ending was a little weak, didn't blow my mind. But I could say the same (or a lot lot worse) about thousands of big-budget Hollywood movies.

I agree there is a propensity on the internet for things to just become great big circle jerks with everyone telling each other how great they are with no justification (have you ever been on deviantart?), but slamming stuff harder than it deserves is equally unhelpful.

 

[Dreadylocks]

Wow Gary. I wasn't really looking for a critique.

To be fair, and for future reference, if you're not looking for critique it's better to post in the 'Promotion' section. The 'Screening Room' sort of implies that you're looking for feedback

@Gary, you really love Charlie Chaplin, huh?

 

[garylloyd]

To be fair, and for future reference, if you're not looking for critique it's better to post in the 'Promotion' section. The 'Screening Room' sort of implies that you're looking for feedback

@Gary, you really love Charlie Chaplin, huh?

Harold Lloyd, Buster Keaton, Laurel and Hardy ...



That said, remember this Chaplin scene?

Here's the set-up: at the beginning the flower girl is blind. Chaplin does something to raise money to get her an operation that will restore her sight. He goes broke doing it, becomes destitute and never sees her again until one day as he's walking down the street, he turns and she's sitting there arranging flowers.

She has no idea who he is -- she was blind and he left before her operation. Now looking at him, she finds the poor beggar amusing. She offers him a flower and he tries to run away. She calls to him and he stops.

She gives him the flower, then a coin, but in the process of giving him the coin she feels his hands and because this was her way of knowing people when she was blind, she recognizes his hands as that of her savior:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9i7w-QUnp4

The thing to watch out for and study here is Chaplin's incredible timing, movement and facial expressions. Watch his quick turn as she stands up and his dash to get away, second turn, then step toward her.

These are the things a masterful director brings out. These things, in my opinion, is what a filmmaker who's a weak writer can concentrate on and become a genius at.

I'm 50, but if I was 20 or 30 I'd realize my limitations and not write until I tried my hand at scenes like this one.

Why not? No one under 50 will know where you got it from.

 

[Dreadylocks]

I'll take that as a yes. lol

 

[Alcove Audio]

Chaplin may have been brilliant, but he spent a long time learning his craft. There were many who influenced him, coached him and encouraged him; and he worked his tail off all the time. He didn't hit it out of the park with his first short, or his second, or his fifth. They were very nice, but had weaknesses - just like the early work of almost every artist who is working at honing their craft. He became a great director because, aside from his innate talents, he worked with great directors and learned from them.

 

[dlevanchuk]

The thing to watch out for and study here is Chaplin's incredible timing, movement and facial expressions.

but until then NO ONE IS ALLOWED TO POST/SEND THEIR VIDEOS ANYWHERE!!
Just strap Chaplin to yo talentless faces, and drink Chaplin Funk Juice for breakfast, lunch and dinner!




I think somebody has a man crush on Charlie..

 

[Skreamings]

I guess I should jump back in here. As I mentioned before I know my short has some problems, but it got the job done. That it doesn't measure up to the standards of "True Geniuses" like Gary doesn't really bother me. By the way, that True Geniuses comment pretty much confirms that you are the same guy who was on the Nicholl's Fellowship Facebook page wreaking havoc.

I think it's great that you think I'm still a kid. After 20 years in the business I must look pretty good for my age.

And as for Laurel and Hardy and Chaplin and Buster Keaton, I studied them all in Film school, but that wasn't what I was going for here. In fact I was trying to avoid the whole pratfall and silly face approach to this. That's not funny to me. I had a guy on my crew who kept telling me to get the actor to go bigger with stuff, but I just wanted him to pull it back in. I'm more into subtlety in humor, like you might see in a Coen Brothers film.

Everyone has their own tastes. Mine are the opposite of Gary's.

 

[garylloyd]

I guess I should jump back in here. As I mentioned before I know my short has some problems, but it got the job done. That it doesn't measure up to the standards of "True Geniuses" like Gary doesn't really bother me. By the way, that True Geniuses comment pretty much confirms that you are the same guy who was on the Nicholl's Fellowship Facebook page wreaking havoc.

I think it's great that you think I'm still a kid. After 20 years in the business I must look pretty good for my age.

And as for Laurel and Hardy and Chaplin and Buster Keaton, I studied them all in Film school, but that wasn't what I was going for here. In fact I was trying to avoid the whole pratfall and silly face approach to this. That's not funny to me. I had a guy on my crew who kept telling me to get the actor to go bigger with stuff, but I just wanted him to pull it back in. I'm more into subtlety in humor, like you might see in a Coen Brothers film.

Everyone has their own tastes. Mine are the opposite of Gary's.

I would have added two more layers to your short.

I'd have had an opening scene with the prospect of going in three directions then I'd have somehow made all three plotlines converge at the end.

For example ...

1. How to get the dry-wall in the dumpster.

2. How to tell the wife you have a mistress.

3. How to tell the neighbor his wife is the mistress.


A opening Voice Over seems the only way to start this way.

"Although I was looking out the window at my neighbors dumpster calculating the amount of time it would take me to rush over and dump the drywall in it, I had a few other things on my mind: 1. How to tell the wife I was dating her best friend, and (2) How to tell the neighbor it was his wife I was dating."


It really doesn't matter what the three plotlines are, but it should be three.

Now the challenge becomes not merely rendering a straight-forward plot the way you did, but forcing yourself to somehow include the two other ones.

The interesting thing about this method is even if you don't have a smidgen of humor, it forces you to be funny because how else can you bring these three things together?

Meanwhile, the audience is thinking "This is ridiculous. No way he can get resolution here."

So it also increases the interest factor three-fold.

You've given yourself a math problem to solve.

Don't worry about dialogue and scenes; don't even worry about humor or jokes. You just want to fit the three plotlines together -- if you can do that the humor will fall into place.

In fact, you'll find sometimes the more far-fetched the plotlines are, the more funny the short turns out.

For example:

1. How to get the drywall in the dumpster.

2. How to tell the wife you're gay.

3. You suddenly are able to speak Mandarin Chinese perfectly and don't know how that can be.

No way you can resolve those three things in a short without cooking-up a hilariously funny story.


Overblown and ridiculous dialog is good.

 

[Skreamings]

Overblown and ridiculous dialog is good.

Maybe you should spend more time working on your own scripts than trying to figure out ways of changing the plotline of a movie that was shot over a year ago and has already toured the festival circuit.

By the way Overblown and ridiculous dialog sucks.

 

[garylloyd]

Maybe you should spend more time working on your own scripts than trying to figure out ways of changing the plotline of a movie that was shot over a year ago and has already toured the festival circuit.

By the way Overblown and ridiculous dialog sucks.

Have you read my scripts or are is the ritalin backing up again?

And when you say "toured the festival circuit" do you mean won awards or toured and not won anything?

If the latter don't you think critiquing is in order?

Overblown and ridiculous dialog gets you from scene to scene. In comedy it's a great tool. Then after you finished the first draft you can go back and fine tune it.

 

[garylloyd]

I suppose I should say for the record "The Dumpster" wasn't dreck.

But with the exception of the photography, it was hardly art.

Ordinarily, we'd tell the young filmmaker to cut some of the dialog; in this case, he should have added more.

We would also tell him the importance of subplots -- even in shorts!

We would tell him to use more care in casting -- the neighbor seemed funnier than the lead.

There was also something wrong with the wife although I can't quite put my finger on exactly what. Her dialog wasn't bad, but she wasn't robust enough for some reason.

Finally, young filmmakers are going to have to rid themselves of the silly notion that they can only do their own scripts. Most shouldn't be doing their own scripts. Earlier I made the point about Stanley Kubrick getting Terry Southern to write the screenplay for Dr. Strangelove.

Think about that for a moment.

Kubrick was a New York City boy born and bred. Southern was a Texas boy who had served as a Lieutenant in the Army during WWII. The film was heavily military, no way Kubrick could have got the crazy general right or the gung-ho B-52 pilot, Texas boy Slim Pickens, right by himself.

In short, we have no patience for filmmakers who don't realize their limitations, no patience for these fellows who think they're ARTISTES who must have complete creative control.

 

[Skreamings]

So is anyone under 50 considered "young" to you?

I have read a few of your short scripts and can't say I was impressed. Appalled might be a better word. As evidenced by your posts you have tendency to be wordy and that is more than clear in your scripts. You suggest I add words to my shorts. I suggest you take most of them out in your scripts. I find it amusing that when Chaplin is your idol you don't focus on less dialogue, the way he did.

And until you actually get on the circuit with a film I don't think you have much to say. Getting into a festival or two is hard enough. Getting into a lot means something. And after sitting through a bunch of awards ceremenies and seeing which films won, winning an award doesn't always mean it was the best film. By far.

I'm bored Gary. I'd rather focus on my writing and I think you should too. Good luck with your films. And if you actually make something someday maybe I'll see you on the circuit.

 

[Gonzo_Entertainment]

I caught this at the SoCal Independent Film Festival when I went to see CrackerFunk's Antihero with ZenSteve. I remember it getting some laughs from the crowd. I enjoyed it. Wasn't blown away, but it's a solid short.

Had to smile when I saw the credits. I know Sinohui and the gang at Emerging Artists - have worked very closely with John Tulin. Not sure who's still there, but we shot a table read there early last year or so.

Congrats on the accolades!

He's actually my current editor. He edited 109 and I have hired him to edit my web series. We met at a film festival last year.

 

[garylloyd]

So is anyone under 50 considered "young" to you?

I have read a few of your short scripts and can't say I was impressed. Appalled might be a better word. As evidenced by your posts you have tendency to be wordy and that is more than clear in your scripts. You suggest I add words to my shorts. I suggest you take most of them out in your scripts. I find it amusing that when Chaplin is your idol you don't focus on less dialogue, the way he did.

And until you actually get on the circuit with a film I don't think you have much to say. Getting into a festival or two is hard enough. Getting into a lot means something. And after sitting through a bunch of awards ceremenies and seeing which films won, winning an award doesn't always mean it was the best film. By far.

I'm bored Gary. I'd rather focus on my writing and I think you should too. Good luck with your films. And if you actually make something someday maybe I'll see you on the circuit.

You're really not supposed to do that, Skreaming -- most especially to someone who took the time to critique your work in the painstaking and comprehensive way I did.

You're not supposed to say things like "I was appalled." That's rude and unhelpful.

My critique was specific and rational. Yours little more than an emotional attempt to strike back.

So let's try it again.

Here's one of my scripts. She me the courtesy I showed you. You say it's wordy and most of the words need to be taken out -- show us where.

http://www.blackscripts.com/?wpfb_dl=8

 

[Skreamings]

Sorry I don't have the time to spend all day teaching you how to write, so lets be brief.

PALOMA (ON PHONE) He’ll be here any minute now. His
name is Sergio. He charges $500 an hour, but Tyra says he’s worth every nickel of it. Oh, and here’s the cute part: He doesn’t speak a word of English -- hehehehe... isn’t that fun?

"His name is Sergio." (Expository - you can reveal this at the door with him saying his name.)

"$500 an hour." Again, we find this out at the door when he asks for it.

I don't care who tyra is and what her opinion is.

And again, the lack his ability to speak english is revealed at the door.

My point is, "Get to the point," and stop being so wordy.

You also have a ton of typos which is the true sign of an amateur.

 

[Gonzo_Entertainment]

EXTREMELY wordy.

Show me, don't tell me. It falls into the trap most beginning screenwriters fall prey to of people jabbering at each other in a way that people would never do in the real world. If you're Tarentino or Kevin Smith and you write brilliant dialogue you can get away with a certain measure of that. If you don't you can't.

She could have opened the door and given him the money and we would have known everything you spent a page and a half jibber jabbering about.

 

[Skreamings]

You know Gary, this is exactly the kind of film that would be easy to make. 5 actors, one location. You have the camera, why don't you bang this one out and show us how amazing a filmmaker you are. True Genius, right? Show, don't tell.

 

[garylloyd]

Sorry I don't have the time to spend all day teaching you how to write, so lets be brief.

PALOMA (ON PHONE) He’ll be here any minute now. His
name is Sergio. He charges $500 an hour, but Tyra says he’s worth every nickel of it. Oh, and here’s the cute part: He doesn’t speak a word of English -- hehehehe... isn’t that fun?

"His name is Sergio." (Expository - you can reveal this at the door with him saying his name.)

"$500 an hour." Again, we find this out at the door when he asks for it.

I don't care who tyra is and what her opinion is.

And again, the lack his ability to speak english is revealed at the door.

My point is, "Get to the point," and stop being so wordy.

You also have a ton of typos which is the true sign of an amateur.

Not sure you use the term "wordy" correctly, Skreamings. In dramatic dialog it's meant to mean using 2, 3, 4 words when one will do. It does NOT mean eliminating background information central to the plot.

Here's the referenced dialog:


PALOMA (ON PHONE)
He’ll be here any minute now. His
name is Sergio. He charges $500 an
hour, but Tyra says he’s worth
every nickel of it. Oh, and here’s
the cute part: He doesn’t speak a
word of English -- hehehehe...
isn’t that fun?


Had "Sergio" been removed, as you suggest, we'd have no way of immediately knowing it was him upon his appearance at the door. It could just be some guy named Sergio something that would have remained unclear for several beats. Not good. Likewise, letting on he doesn't speak English sets up the running gag that plays out for most of the play.

As to eliminating "Tyra says he's worth it" -- that eliminates a key part of character. Tyra is of course ex-Fashion model Tyra Banks. This was my way of letting the audience know Paloma is a world class model at the tippy top of her game.

So what you call "wordy" is actually a four-line paragraph used to set-up everything else that follows. Moreover, everything that follows is action and one-liners so if you're using this opening paragraph to characterize my work as "wordy" your characterization of the whole play as "wordy" is unsustainable.

Finally, here's the main thing, Skreamings:

My short is funny -- yous isn't.

 

[Gonzo_Entertainment]

"So what you call "wordy" is actually a four-line paragraph used to set-up everything else that follows"

Which to be frank is the amateurish way to do it. Especially with a phone call, which like VO is ALWAYS playing with fire and to be avoided unless it REALLY makes sense and is necessary.

A shot of a magazine cover with her on it would establish her as a top model.

The way the gigolo looks and how she reacts to him at the door would let us know he's a gigolo, without ever having to say it.

Now this is coming from a guy who has made films where the first line of dialogue isn't spoken until 6 minutes into the film, so I am at the other extreme, but...

 

[Skreamings]

Make the film Gary. Stop talking and actually make a film.