MTRehfield

As the writer/director of the film in question, I know any comments of my own will be regarded with much skepticism, but when what I set out to do is so misunderstood, I feel it necessary to explain my intentions. The film itself is about those small moments that we go through every day, my belief being that those small moments can be just as compelling and/or entertaining as the big moments that make up most Hollywood films. The film's being shot in one continuous take is in itself a novelty, of course, but the intent was to create a framework for events that the viewer can get caught up in, and knowing that there was not going to be a cut, most viewers locked into the particular rhythm of the film to see what was coming next. As DV became a viable way of making a "film," I was able to do this without cheating, which was what initially attracted me to the technology.

It's difficult to go into a project that one knows will most definitely not be for everyone, but if these experiments with content and form can't be done on the independent level, then where? As for one reviewer's contention that I've "set back true independent film-making," I only wish the film had gotten the exposure to make such an impact. But if the rest of the critique is to be believed, perhaps I can assume that that's just another thing I've gotten wrong.