"So, We Killed Our Parents" by Shane Ryan, is to be posted sometime today on Studentfilms.com

The movie was screened in New York on Industrial Television and won 'Best Supporting actor' (Rex Cobalt as Big Man), 'Most Unusual Kiss' and 'Most Weirdest Use of Sex/Nudity' at Oceanside Underground Cinema.

FILM THREAT gives it "4 STARS" and calls it "...a fairy tale for the modern world..."
read the full review here:
http://filmthreat.com/Reviews.asp?Id=6499

Michael-Brian
Alter Ego Cinema
www.alteregocinema.com

I'd like to see what kind of discussion this movie stirs up given the response to "Sane".

Does it matter? Promoters are people too.

Regarding this review:

Nudity is illegal when a actor or actress is portraying a person younger than eighteen, regardless of the age of the actor or actress. Just something I think you should keep in mind Studentfilms.com.

Correct me if I'm wrong - but isn't it illegal if the ACTOR/ACTRESS is under 18 - not the character? I don't think the age of the character matters at all because I can think of a bunch of films where you see a character under 18 naked.

Fast Times at Ridgemont High
Lolita
Kids

etc..etc...etc...

-Chris
Studentfilms.com

yup, at least thats how it works here in Canada, cause then that would mean its ok for a 14 year old to do nudity if they acted as a 21 year old, which isn't so, 100% sure bout that.

Which one are you agreeing to there?

-Chris
Studentfilms.com

I would think you are right Chris. Sounds right to me, anyway. But I do remember there was some controversy when they were shooting Detroit Rock City about showing two characters (in the Church confessional) because of the age of the characters... But that might have been a rating thing. Or maybe just a nervous studio.

ya, i mean that ur right chris, sorry for misunderstanding

No prob.

-Chris
Studentfilms.com

you can add american beauty to the list of movies. I know that in "adult films" they can dress people up to look as young as they want, as long as the "actor" "portraying" the "character" is "over" 18 "." I read that, i dont know it from first hand experience, but noone is prolly gonna belive that so...

Yeah, I was going to say "American Beauty", multi-academy award winner by Stevn Speilberg's company had Mena Suvari playing a 16 year old who gets naked, shows her boobs while making out with and preparing to have sex with Kevin Spacey, a 40 something year old man. Not to mention many movies that appeal to teens these days have girls playing undrage girls getting naked.

Since this film was made in the U.S. and Studentfilms is based out of the U.S. it is not illegal at all. I guess if it were made in Canada and/or posted from a web hosting company in Canada, then it would be. Good to know that!

As to answer Michael K's question once again;

If the directors wish to speak about the film they will do so. Maybe they feel the film should speak for itself. They do participate in watching other films, but maybe they don't feel the need to talk about their own, that's what an audience is for.

As for me being a filmmaker, well that's a very general term. What do you mean? Do you mean am I a director? No. But am I one of the filmmakers involved in Alter Ego Cinema? Yes.

Filmmaking is a team; you have a director, a writer, a d.p., an editor, a proter, a graphic designer, a production designer, etc. I am one of those, so in that term I would say I'm a filmmaker. I'm part of the filmmaking team. But I'm not the director. I was watching "Buffalo Soldiers" last night and the Sundance behind the scenes documentary kept talking about how the filmmakers did this, the filmmaers did that (filmmakers...there was only one director). This meant everybody involved. It said the filmakers did this for sets, then it had a thing with the production designer, the filmmakers shot it this way then a thing with the cinematographer, etc.)

Cinematographer's used to be the one's that ran the show, not the director. But if a d.p. was asked what he did for a living and he replied "I make movies" would that be a lie? No. He does make movies. He plays an important role in it, just like the director, just like the promoter's, just like the people who make the posters and trailers, etc.

I hope that finally answers your question. We are trying to design a company, where filmmakers make movies, I get them out there, and hopefully down the road we'll have more people involved, etc.

Mike-B

quote:

---

Originally posted by BIGMOVIE:
ME: Films, no matter how expressive, can not speak for themselves. No film can eliminate the need for the filmmakers to need to speak of it. ESPECIALLY these pointless graphic and violent travistes you have posted on this site!

---

I personally disagree with that ENTIRELY. I actually find it annoying when directors post huge long posts about what their movie is about and trying to explain it.

I mean, look at hollywood. You don't see directors giving an explanation of the movie before or after the film, to clear things up. If you make a good movie, you shouldn't have the need to explain it to everyone who watches it. You haven't done your job if your movie can't speak for itself. Has David Lynch ever explained Mulholland Drive, for instance? NO. And that film is crazy!

I mean, yes, in making-of documentaries and commentaries, the director may explain the film. But that's just a bonus for interested, avid viewers. They don't base their movie on the fact that there will be a commentary to explain their movie. Their job is to SHOW the audience something. And if they can do that successfully, then there should be no need for explanation.

So, to sum up this whole argument: If you can't make a movie that speaks for itself, then you need to take a look at your skills as a filmmaker and refine your craft.

Thanks. I was gonna mention "In the Bedroom".

The director had to fight to not have any extra features cause he wanted the film to speak for itself. The guy had a statement, he had something to say. You know what it was? His film.

Not that are films even compare to that or Lynch but the thing is a director doesn't have to explain every detail like Durden said. And I've already said enough about it, there's nothing left that NEEDS to be talked about unless Shane, or the directors on the rest of the films, have something they want to add.

You put your film on the site for OTHER people to review it. Not for the director to.

There is nothing wrong with this student film! It shows graphic violence and sex but they are both justified in the story and add edge and realism to the film they speak volumes about the ordeal of what the characters went through. I guess it's arguable as a matter of opinion, but there is a point to the violence and sex, people are just taking it for face value rather than looking at it in context, I've explained it in my review. Oh BTW Shane Ryan keep up the good work.