The Last Time We Met is now available for viewing on YouTube! Watch it now!
I'll wait...
So here's the status thus far: Chris and I are trying to get as many hits as possible on the film's YouTube page. Why? No particular reason; the hits count for nothing when it comes to parceling out awards, and once all is said and done, we'll be reposting an official version (the directors' cut?) with actual credits. I suppose it's just stubborn pride.
One thing I'd like to discuss is the different interpretations we've heard about The Last Time We Met. Before I begin, let's get the namby-pamby stuff out of the way: Yes, everyone's interpretation and opinion is completely legitimate, and cannot by definition be wrong, and all viewpoints are unique snowflakes that place the film in new and original lights. That being said, one particular interpretation we've heard a few times now is completely wrong. I'm speaking, of course, about the "murder" interpretation.
This theory about the film goes something like this: Chris' character is cleaning out my apartment. We flash back to him talking to my character, who seems happy and complacement enough. Chris then sees a bloody tub, and cleans it. Therefore, given that my character seemed happy, he has killed me, possibly out of anger for my giving him bunk advice, and by cleaning up he is getting rid of the evidence.
I can understand why people see the film this way, but it doesn't hold up to further probing. Why would Chris clean out my apartment if he killed me? Why would the milk have gone bad in that short time? Why would he seem so sad rather than nervous and panicky? Why would he leave my Chicago t-shirt behind? No - there is nothing to support this. But I think people fall back on it because it's what they've been led to expect from other films. Murder is so common in our cinema (not that I'm complaining - my own scripts are rife with it) that it's the first thing people reach for, and they don't bother to delve into it or ask basic questions or rummage around their heads to see if anything else is in there.
I don't think one should really take what the filmmakers' were going for as the be-all-end-all gospel of interpretation, except, maybe, as a guidepost of some sort. Here then is my guidepost as to what the hell is going on in The Last Time We Met.
I killed myself.
It's that simple. Chris gets laid off from his job. He comes to see me, a former co-worker who was also laid off. I try to give him some advice on being unemployed. I try to seem happy. Sometime after that, I slit my wrists in my tub. (When writing the script, we kept asking each other how we would kill ourselves in our apartment. Hanging was no good - there's nothing on the ceiling to tie the noose to. Neither of us own a gun. And so we ended up with the wrist slitting.) Having no family, or perhaps with no one else available to do it, Chris volunteers to clean out my apartment.
Seen in that light, I would hope my words come off as sadly ironic/pathetically morbid, particularly "There's a silver lining here." One person said that my words didn't hold any indications of my future status as a suicidee. I disagree. "But you've gotta let that motivate you" and "You have a chance to do what makes you happy" juxtaposed with the bloody tub? I'd say those are pretty strong indicators. And then there's the final line: "What do you have to get up for?" My character certainly has nothing to get up for, and eventually this depresses him enough to put himself out of his misery. Funny enough, this gives Chris something to get up for: cleaning up my mess. I also think/hope that the lines heard while he empties the fridge could also be applied to his mood while cleaning.
Chris' performance supports this interpretation as well (and it is an excellent performance). He's determined to do the job, pauses once in a while to reflect, and has a moment of hesitation when confronted with my remains. As he does it, he replays our last conversation in his head. Hence the title of the film, The Last Time We Met. Which doesn't make so much sense with the murder interpretation, does it?
How long is the space between our last conversation and my suicide? I don't know. I don't think it matters. Perhaps I'd already made up my mind to do it, and was embued with that strange sense of relief and happiness some suicide victims are said to display ("Finally, I won't have to worry about [blank] anymore"). Maybe I'm still wallowing in misery, and hiding it to cheer my friend up. Maybe the beer is giving me a momentary buzz. Whatever. All I know is, there's been enough time between my suicide and Chris' cleanup for the milk to go bad. And that's all that matters.
Disagree? Please leave a comment reaming me out and putting me in my place.
I should say, of course, that not everyone who's unemployed is a depressive mess. A lot of my dialogue was stolen from/inspired by my buddy Lorin, who, as a Michigander in the arts, has found himself between jobs. Lorin is still with us today, I'm happy to report, and doing quite well. In fact, he was kind enough to post his thoughts on our film and our competitors' films on his own blog. As usual, his take is bluntly honest and brutally hilarious.
It's a question that's come up in a lot of the shorts I've worked on recently: How much information do you keep from the audience and let them figure out on their own, and how much do you explain? This question most often came up with A.E. Griffin's Playback.
Is too mysterious? Does it leave too much unanswered? It's a fine line, and I'd rather err on the side of confusion than the side of over-explanation. Chris and I discussed showing more in The Last Time We Met, one or two brief shots me in the tub, alive and/or dead. Ultimately, we nixed it. With a three minute timeline, the short couldn't support any overly dramatic shots that would weigh too much and take away from the rest of the film. If we'd shown that, people would walk away with it in their heads, and that's not what we wanted to emphasize. We wanted to emphasize the aftermath, the burden placed on those who have to pick up the meager remains.
Well, now I'm the one getting too dramatic.
Will we go back and recut The Last Time We Met to make the suicide interpretation clearer? Fuck. No.
Posts
As Billy Wilder said, "Let the audience add it up."
ReplyDeleteGranted Mr. Wilder never met you cuz I'm comfortable in assuming that if he had he'd understand (as we all do) the idea of you being hacked to death by a roomate is far more plausible than you taking your own life.
At least we can all agree it's good. Of course, you might also be dealing with the fact that you cut such a dashing screen prescence that people would never believe that you would take your own life, and that someone else had to do the killing.
ReplyDeleteFirst, I want to say that I liked the film the first few times I watched it, and enjoyed it even more after reading comments that clarified it for me.
ReplyDeleteSecond, I could go through your blog entry, question by question, and tell you why I initially thought it was a story about someone who murdered their friend. I'm not going to do this, because for me, it is not the point.
The point of my comment is this: I did bother to delve into it. I did ask myself basic questions. I did rummage around in my head to make more sense of my first impression. And there was enough for me to come to the initial conclusion that I did. I think perhaps you intended to explain the film more, explain your style more, and ask some thought provoking questions in your entry (and you did). But unfortunately, I'm also getting the implication that I'm a shallow thinker, or slow, because things that were obvious to you and others were not so obvious, or misinterpreted, by me and people like me. Everyone's interpretation was legitimate except for mine. My further probings weren't probelicious enough. I was indeed able to make sense of the title in reference to murder.
I am not a snowflake. :(
I don't see anything wrong in getting it after it was explained to me, and enjoying the moment when it clicks, and going back and discovering what I missed. And if you don't mind folks like us, then great. But if it bothers you so much that some people didn't get it while kind of implying that if I thought harder, I would understand, then perhaps I shouldn't watch them. Which sucks, because I really loved it once I got it. And I'm hanging out with Chris on Wednesday. :)
In response to A.K. Schill: I will address your concerns point by point.
ReplyDelete"First, I want to say that I liked the film the first few times I watched it, and enjoyed it even more after reading comments that clarified it for me."
Thank you! Tell all your friends!
"Second, I could go through your blog entry, question by question, and tell you why I initially thought it was a story about someone who murdered their friend. I'm not going to do this, because for me, it is not the point."
But that's exactly what I'm looking for. If someone could direct me as to why they interpreted it as a murder scenario, that would go a long way toward helping me understand other's viewpoints and growing as an artist. Also, it inspires debate! Debate is fun! That's what the Internet is for, after all: for people to bitch to each other.
"The point of my comment is this: I did bother to delve into it. I did ask myself basic questions. I did rummage around in my head to make more sense of my first impression. And there was enough for me to come to the initial conclusion that I did."
Ah, but what was there to inspire the conclusion? That's what I want to know.
"I think perhaps you intended to explain the film more, explain your style more, and ask some thought provoking questions in your entry (and you did)."
Thank you! Tell all your friends!
"But unfortunately, I'm also getting the implication that I'm a shallow thinker, or slow, because things that were obvious to you and others were not so obvious, or misinterpreted, by me and people like me. Everyone's interpretation was legitimate except for mine. My further probings weren't probelicious enough."
Don't be so hard on yourself (and people like you). Yes, my remarks could be interpreted as having a condescending tone. This is the Internet, after all. If you feel like I'm belittling you, defend yourself. It's your turn to take a crap all over me. What did your further probelicious probings reveal?
"I was indeed able to make sense of the title in reference to murder."
How so?
"I am not a snowflake. :("
Metaphorically speaking, you are. :)
"I don't see anything wrong in getting it after it was explained to me, and enjoying the moment when it clicks, and going back and discovering what I missed."
Neither do I. I watched The Silence earlier this month and it wasn't until after I started reading reviews online that I discovered the obvious: The two main characters in the film symbolize the body and the brain. (At least, that's the most common interpretation.) I mentally slapped myself on the forehead but good.
"And if you don't mind folks like us, then great."
I sure don't.
"But if it bothers you so much that some people didn't get it while kind of implying that if I thought harder, I would understand, then perhaps I shouldn't watch them."
That's a bit straw mannish.
"Which sucks, because I really loved it once I got it."
Thank you! Tell all your friends!
"And I'm hanging out with Chris on Wednesday. :)"
Have fun!
I have to do this in two parts, because it's too long. :)
ReplyDeletePart 1:
Oh, but I did defend myself, and your response is helping me prove my point. :)
Let's assume for a moment that you really thought I didn't know that you were speaking metaphorically when you called viewpoints "snowflakes" (which I think may actually be the case :) ). First, add the words "You think" before my sentence about the snowflake. Now, add a little tear drop to the frowny face. Someone who may not be familiar with my writing style will now know exactly what I was saying - That I was sad that you think everyone else's opinion was unique and showing light on things except for those like mine. And this is more important to me than being true to my writing style. I want every single person who read my comment - my "audience" - to know that I was not angry with you, but saddened by your opinion, and that I also understood what you meant in the first place.
Now, if I didn't want to change it, and I wanted to stay true to my writing style, there are other things I could do. I could address it person by person who misinterpreted me, and say "Sorry you didn't get that at first- it's how I write." Or, I could do nothing and let people come to whatever conclusion about me that they want. I can let them find out by word of mouth or comment (as I did about your film) what I actually meant, and they can enjoy my sentence more the 2nd or 3rd time around in peace. Or, you can take this approach:
"Let's get all of this crap out of the way - all of your opinions are shining some beautiful and different light on my sentence, and it is appreciated. Thank god that's over. Now, on to the people who misunderstood it. I just want to make sure you know that I'm getting annoyed from the fact that you didn't get it right off the bat. I mean, I know that there's enough of you guys that I feel compelled to write an entire blog entry about it, and I know in this entry I'm going to ask a bunch of questions about why you didn't understand it to make it seem like I care about your opinion. But, the majority, if not all of those questions, are meant to be rhetorical, and will imply that it's not my fault for not being clear enough, but that it's your fault for not being familiar with my writing style or thinking hard enough to get it. I mean, come on! Look at the sentence! If you had read the paragraph before that one and paid close enough attention, you would have seen that I obviously was still referring to how I felt you viewed me. I just omitted the words "that you think" from the sentences after a while because they're clearly unneeded. Then I put the snowflake sentence by itself so that it had more of a punch to the sadness. You didn't get that? There's really no other way to interpret that. I even made up the word "probelicious" so that you would know my mood was more false pouty than angrily upset, thus flowing into the snowflake sentence that was clearly still in reference to how I felt when I read your response. Who makes up words when they're angrily upset? I mean, I understand how you saw it that way, but if you were a bit deeper and wouldn't fall back on what is typically shown in mainstream literature, you would have seen where I was going with all of the things I just pointed out to you. Not that I think everyone should see things the way the writer sees it, but you really ought to see things the way the writer sees it. Am I going to change my writing? Bitch, please.
... so who wants to give me a rundown of why they didn't get it?" :)
Part 2 -
ReplyDeleteYou say that you would rather err on the side of confusion than spelling it out for everyone. If I am reading your blog correctly, this is very important to you as a filmmaker. This is great, and you will probably come out with many intriguing and thoughtful works because of it. And if you don't mind people who are going to understand it later, and aren't going to change anything about what you're doing, then the reasons I interpreted things the way I did would probably be of little importance to you. From your blog, I don't get the sense that you value my opinion. You're saying that you did X,Y, and Z, and that should be enough. But it wasn't for me, and apparently, I'm not alone.
That was very nice of you to take the time to go over my response, but you did not, as you said, address it point by point. You split up the point, actually, and acknowledged that I wrote some paragraphs and sentences (I, of course, appreciate the 'thank yous'!). So, here it is:
You don't get the reasons for my initial interpretation of your film, because I don't get the impression that you care. Nor do I feel my interpretations will be respected. I just feel like more things will be thrown back at me as to why I was wrong to think the way I did. And besides, you said it right up there - "I'd rather err on the side of confusion than the side of over-explanation." So if you have no interest in making your works clearer, than you don't have to worry about why some folks got it wrong. And that's perfectly fine. You COULD, however, be a bit less "How could anybody get the plot wrong with all of my clever clues?" about it, unless you only want to keep viewers that will get your style right away. That's what I meant about not watching them. I want to support people who value me, and your blog did not make me feel that way.
But I still want to hug you the next time I see you. ;)
"Oh, but I did defend myself, and your response is helping me prove my point. :)"
ReplyDeleteAy, there's the rub. We have two entirely different points we want the other to address, but the other is not at all interested in addressing what we want them to address, and so we have adopted voices usually reserved for speaking to the very young or the very old.
You would like me to take back/apologize/recognize my foolishness for calling your (and others) initial interpretation of the film "wrong," and for writing about it in a tone that is, in your eyes, dismissive to people who have supported me and my creative endeavors.
I, meanwhile, am still looking for answers as to your interpretation.
Would I value your opinion? Of course. I value all opinions, even those I vehemently disagree with. I wouldn't have specifically invited people to disagree with me in my very own blog if I didn't.
Does that make you wrong to take offense at my perceived tone? No, of course not. And I do have a blunt, opinionated writing style when it comes to movies. I'll tell you why: Because I care so goddamn much. Also, "I think" and "In my opinion" hedging bores the living hell out of me (in terms of art, at least). Plus it's more entertainingly readable. Your eye flies across the page faster when it's not held back by hemming and hawing.
I feel passion in this, and in my passion, my opinion becomes fact in my own mind. Fact that I am perfectly willing to have challenged and changed. I am quite possibly at my happiest when I am having a beer with someone and loudly disagreeing with them about movies, while they loudly disagree back. It does not matter if you agree with me or not, what matters is that you feel that passion, and you voice it. The More You Know (dun-dun-dun).
Now that I've admitted all this, I feel compelled to also admit this: I've gone back and read my entry a few times since I posted it, and I think you're reading too much into it (I hate that turn of phrase, but I don't feel like rephrasing it). In fact, I think you're rushing to judgments about me and being too (gulp!) sensitive. My words were an invitation to debate, not a giant middle finger to people who have been kind enough to support me. (Tell all your friends!)
If someone eventually says "I thought it was murder because...." then I would take that into consideration, and craft a (hopefully) thought-provoking response in turn. Or if someone had a completely different interpretation like "I thought they were gay because..." I would probably laugh, because that was another interpretation Chris and I predicted people would have, and then I would also craft a response in turn. I would have the same response even if they phrased it as "Hey you condescending shithead, your ass got murdered because..." or "Those two guys were totally going at each other because..." or "You and your life are wrong. Here is an outline to my six-part essay explaining why."
The important part of those hypothetical sentences is "because" (and that "why" too). Without that "because," I have to interpret those words as a jump to conclusions (and perhaps it would then be my turn to read too much into things). And that's what I'm looking for here. The Because. Without it, what do we have? It's one of the most important components in the Conclusions Souffle. (Ugh. I'm ashamed of myself for coining that.)
And so now that we seem to be at an impasse, I will make you an offer designed to make neither one of us happy or fulfilled with the outcome.
I offer to make a sincere and heartfelt apology to any and all offended by my tone, snarkiness, and dismissive attitude toward everything everybody ever holds dear in life, if...
...you give me the "Because" I am looking for.