I thought this film did a good job of making a serious topic humorous and bringing it to people's attention in a light-hearted way. At the beginning I thought the acting was really bad, but once the lawyers came into play, I thought it was funny. The script was written really well with the scene playing out like a court room case and having the lawyers go back forth trying to find a middle ground for the two clients to agree upon. Visually, I thought the lighting was a little dark and the shots weren't really all that interesting. The narrative definitely carried this short film.
This short film was really funny in my opinion and it did a good job about bringing awareness to a serious issue happening at the moment. Visually the scene seemed to be dark and dull, but it really fit the mood of the scene in the fact that it was meant to be sexual. The two lawyers were funny as they went back and forth with each other and congregated with their clients to find middle ground on their contract. Overall this was a good film on a serious topic.
This short was actually quite hilarious. Although the lighting and some of the continuity issues do most definitely show themselves, the story does play out in a humorous way. Listening to the different formality's, and knowing exactly what the lawyers meant, for sure made me realize I have a very dirty mind. All in all, I really enjoyed this one.
Consent by Jason Reitman made a serious and awkward topic humorous in a way I wasn't expecting. I agree with Allison in saying that I was confused by the bad acting at the beginning and didn't really know where it was going but once the lawyers popped up it made sense. I also feel like the lighting was a little too dramatic for the narrative but I think the director was wanting a very over the top and extreme feel to add to the fact that lawyers were present in the situation. The short took an awkward and serious situation and played it up to be even more serious with lawyers bantering back and forth but also made it humorous and lighthearted because of how extreme it was to involve lawyers.
Going to be honest here, I am not a fan. First of all, it started out like a middle school sex education video. The acting was horrendous, which I know is not the filmmaker's fault, but the script did nothing for them. The writing seemed like it was meant to purely educate kids on consent, but then it made fun of consent. I understand that this was meant to be a comedy on when consent is necessary and what consent actually is, but the way that they satirized it made it feel to me like it was just making fun of consent all together. It seemed like the audience was aimed to be a seventh grade sex ed class, but if you showed that to a bunch of seventh graders, they would laugh and say, "That's ridiculous! Consent is stupid, just like the filmmaker is making it out to be!" On a technical level, there was a weird vignette situation, looked like it was made in the nineties, shot wise, there was zero dynamic. So sorry to anyone who just read this, just being honest!
Dan Bryan: Oh, what a surprise, this was written by a man. Well, actually, a quick trip to IMDb reveals that this was actually only *co-written* by Jason Reitman, son of Ghostbusters director Ivan Reitman; it was also written by Michele Lee (who has exactly no other writing credits to her name as compared to Jason's 9), who actually was at one point married to Reitman. She is not anymore, and Reitman has not remarried. Make of that what you will. I get that the movie's trying to make light of a sensitive topic, and most of the film's edge *is* taken off by the sense that we, as the audience, shouldn't think too hard about the subtext. I was actually getting into the fun of it, but the movie sort of lost any right to feign innocent fun in my eyes when the last text of the credits said "Romance Deserves Better Than This." Little extra pushes like that make me question how serious the filmmakers' intent and expectations on the reception by the audience of the subtext are. Is this movie *seriously* saying "don't interrupt the emotional flow of sex by stopping to clarify consent, just let things happen! It's more romantic that way"? Consent's a serious subject matter, and while anyone certainly has the right to poke fun at it, that last message makes me wonder just how much the filmmakers want the audience to seriously consider dismissing pausing foreplay to ask for consent just because it's being a buzzkill. Not trying to be a prude here, I just put safety first. As for the technical aspects...well, yeah, the acting was a little wooden, although I liked the pantomiming between the two teens while their lawyers talked. There are no interesting shots or angles here, and what was with that bizarre black circle surrounding the shots that gave the whole sequence tunnel vision? Like, what did that *add* to the piece? I want to think this was just trying to be a quirk, dirty, funny sketch with a bit of a pointed statement to it that you can take or leave, but that last text in the credits really bothers me. It's one thing to raise a point of contention about a serious topic, it's another to insinuate an assertion that romance itself is being harmed by the unfeeling logic of clarifying consent. That last little message was just so pointed that it forces me to question Reitman's perspective.
This short was very interesting and it was filled with humor, if you knew what the lawyers were referring to. I thought it was cool that the lawyers were the ones showing the emotions for their clients and clearing the air of everything on the contract. This is a serious issue we have today and girls are getting taken advantage of. All in all I really liked this short because it had a lot of hidden meanings that added humor to the piece.
I was not excited to finish this film out when it began with Lizzie McGuire quality acting, but I liked the turn it took. I do think it plays up the importance of clarifying what is agreed upon by both parties before anything happens, and it makes it clear that consent is a legal issue. I also thoroughly enjoyed the agreement that the girl would be given a few [shack] shirts to wear around campus to prove that she owns the boy's social life. I think this film was generally relatable for most college students.
I could appreciate the comedic approach to this film if it weren't a subject that is so serious and touchy given the sexual assault problems in colleges today, but I'm not going to add to the noise of that any further. I thought it had good comedic pacing as it got further in. The acting of the lawyers made it way more bearable than that of the two on the bed. I thought the sudden appearance of the lawyers was a good comedic touch as well.
I could appreciate the comedic approach to this film if it weren't a subject that is so serious and touchy given the sexual assault problems in colleges today, but I'm not going to add to the noise of that any further. I thought it had good comedic pacing as it got further in. The acting of the lawyers made it way more bearable than that of the two on the bed. I thought the sudden appearance of the lawyers was a good comedic touch as well.
I was torn by this film. On one hand I thought it was very funny. On the other hand I felt like a topic such as this should be taken more seriously. I understand trying to make light of a serious topic in our world today, but not in this case. The actors were not good. I felt like even if that's what the director was going for it was too much. I have had friends affected by this topic and it's really no laughing matter. But I do commend the director for their creative look on this.
At first the acting was very annoying to watch but once the lawyers came into play I began to really enjoy this film. I liked that it was short because it got to the point without adding extra unnecessary information. I found this film to be really funny and grew to like it after the first little bit. I liked how the writers used subtext instead of blunt terms when the lawyers were going through the articles. Overall, this film did a good job at shining a comedic light on such an awkward topic.
Wilson Weirich: Consent’s camera work/cinematography works well as a comedy sketch, but past a generic back and forth reversal shot it’s pretty uninteresting (but most sketches are shot this way, so it works just fine). Since comedy sketches can typically have very straightforward camerawork, the quality of the short leans heavily towards the acting performance and the scriptwriting, which in my opinion weren’t all that great. The two main actors’ performance was cringe-worthy and their dialogue wasn’t much better. A redeeming quality was the lawyers had mildly entertaining lines and delivered them well, so there wasn’t much to complain about there. Although it was an interesting and amusing idea to have lawyers argue over how characters would hook up, the acting and writing fell flat for me.
Wilson Weirich: Consent’s camera work/cinematography works well as a comedy sketch, but past a generic back and forth reversal shot it’s pretty uninteresting (but most sketches are shot this way, so it works just fine). Since comedy sketches can typically have very straightforward camerawork, the quality of the short leans heavily towards the acting performance and the scriptwriting, which in my opinion weren’t all that great. The two main actors’ performance was cringe-worthy and their dialogue wasn’t much better. A redeeming quality was the lawyers had mildly entertaining lines and delivered them well, so there wasn’t much to complain about there. Although it was an interesting and amusing idea to have lawyers argue over how characters would hook up, the acting and writing fell flat for me.
I thought this film did a good job of making a serious topic humorous and bringing it to people's attention in a light-hearted way. At the beginning I thought the acting was really bad, but once the lawyers came into play, I thought it was funny. The script was written really well with the scene playing out like a court room case and having the lawyers go back forth trying to find a middle ground for the two clients to agree upon. Visually, I thought the lighting was a little dark and the shots weren't really all that interesting. The narrative definitely carried this short film.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis short film was really funny in my opinion and it did a good job about bringing awareness to a serious issue happening at the moment. Visually the scene seemed to be dark and dull, but it really fit the mood of the scene in the fact that it was meant to be sexual. The two lawyers were funny as they went back and forth with each other and congregated with their clients to find middle ground on their contract. Overall this was a good film on a serious topic.
ReplyDeleteThis short was actually quite hilarious. Although the lighting and some of the continuity issues do most definitely show themselves, the story does play out in a humorous way. Listening to the different formality's, and knowing exactly what the lawyers meant, for sure made me realize I have a very dirty mind. All in all, I really enjoyed this one.
ReplyDeleteConsent by Jason Reitman made a serious and awkward topic humorous in a way I wasn't expecting. I agree with Allison in saying that I was confused by the bad acting at the beginning and didn't really know where it was going but once the lawyers popped up it made sense. I also feel like the lighting was a little too dramatic for the narrative but I think the director was wanting a very over the top and extreme feel to add to the fact that lawyers were present in the situation. The short took an awkward and serious situation and played it up to be even more serious with lawyers bantering back and forth but also made it humorous and lighthearted because of how extreme it was to involve lawyers.
ReplyDeleteGoing to be honest here, I am not a fan. First of all, it started out like a middle school sex education video. The acting was horrendous, which I know is not the filmmaker's fault, but the script did nothing for them. The writing seemed like it was meant to purely educate kids on consent, but then it made fun of consent. I understand that this was meant to be a comedy on when consent is necessary and what consent actually is, but the way that they satirized it made it feel to me like it was just making fun of consent all together. It seemed like the audience was aimed to be a seventh grade sex ed class, but if you showed that to a bunch of seventh graders, they would laugh and say, "That's ridiculous! Consent is stupid, just like the filmmaker is making it out to be!" On a technical level, there was a weird vignette situation, looked like it was made in the nineties, shot wise, there was zero dynamic. So sorry to anyone who just read this, just being honest!
ReplyDeleteDan Bryan:
ReplyDeleteOh, what a surprise, this was written by a man.
Well, actually, a quick trip to IMDb reveals that this was actually only *co-written* by Jason Reitman, son of Ghostbusters director Ivan Reitman; it was also written by Michele Lee (who has exactly no other writing credits to her name as compared to Jason's 9), who actually was at one point married to Reitman. She is not anymore, and Reitman has not remarried. Make of that what you will.
I get that the movie's trying to make light of a sensitive topic, and most of the film's edge *is* taken off by the sense that we, as the audience, shouldn't think too hard about the subtext. I was actually getting into the fun of it, but the movie sort of lost any right to feign innocent fun in my eyes when the last text of the credits said "Romance Deserves Better Than This." Little extra pushes like that make me question how serious the filmmakers' intent and expectations on the reception by the audience of the subtext are. Is this movie *seriously* saying "don't interrupt the emotional flow of sex by stopping to clarify consent, just let things happen! It's more romantic that way"? Consent's a serious subject matter, and while anyone certainly has the right to poke fun at it, that last message makes me wonder just how much the filmmakers want the audience to seriously consider dismissing pausing foreplay to ask for consent just because it's being a buzzkill. Not trying to be a prude here, I just put safety first. As for the technical aspects...well, yeah, the acting was a little wooden, although I liked the pantomiming between the two teens while their lawyers talked. There are no interesting shots or angles here, and what was with that bizarre black circle surrounding the shots that gave the whole sequence tunnel vision? Like, what did that *add* to the piece? I want to think this was just trying to be a quirk, dirty, funny sketch with a bit of a pointed statement to it that you can take or leave, but that last text in the credits really bothers me. It's one thing to raise a point of contention about a serious topic, it's another to insinuate an assertion that romance itself is being harmed by the unfeeling logic of clarifying consent. That last little message was just so pointed that it forces me to question Reitman's perspective.
This short was very interesting and it was filled with humor, if you knew what the lawyers were referring to. I thought it was cool that the lawyers were the ones showing the emotions for their clients and clearing the air of everything on the contract. This is a serious issue we have today and girls are getting taken advantage of. All in all I really liked this short because it had a lot of hidden meanings that added humor to the piece.
ReplyDeleteI was not excited to finish this film out when it began with Lizzie McGuire quality acting, but I liked the turn it took. I do think it plays up the importance of clarifying what is agreed upon by both parties before anything happens, and it makes it clear that consent is a legal issue. I also thoroughly enjoyed the agreement that the girl would be given a few [shack] shirts to wear around campus to prove that she owns the boy's social life. I think this film was generally relatable for most college students.
ReplyDelete-Lydia Eichler
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI could appreciate the comedic approach to this film if it weren't a subject that is so serious and touchy given the sexual assault problems in colleges today, but I'm not going to add to the noise of that any further. I thought it had good comedic pacing as it got further in. The acting of the lawyers made it way more bearable than that of the two on the bed. I thought the sudden appearance of the lawyers was a good comedic touch as well.
ReplyDelete-Corey Carpenter
I could appreciate the comedic approach to this film if it weren't a subject that is so serious and touchy given the sexual assault problems in colleges today, but I'm not going to add to the noise of that any further. I thought it had good comedic pacing as it got further in. The acting of the lawyers made it way more bearable than that of the two on the bed. I thought the sudden appearance of the lawyers was a good comedic touch as well.
ReplyDelete-Corey Carpenter
I was torn by this film. On one hand I thought it was very funny. On the other hand I felt like a topic such as this should be taken more seriously. I understand trying to make light of a serious topic in our world today, but not in this case. The actors were not good. I felt like even if that's what the director was going for it was too much. I have had friends affected by this topic and it's really no laughing matter. But I do commend the director for their creative look on this.
ReplyDeleteAt first the acting was very annoying to watch but once the lawyers came into play I began to really enjoy this film. I liked that it was short because it got to the point without adding extra unnecessary information. I found this film to be really funny and grew to like it after the first little bit. I liked how the writers used subtext instead of blunt terms when the lawyers were going through the articles. Overall, this film did a good job at shining a comedic light on such an awkward topic.
ReplyDeleteWilson Weirich: Consent’s camera work/cinematography works well as a comedy sketch, but past a generic back and forth reversal shot it’s pretty uninteresting (but most sketches are shot this way, so it works just fine). Since comedy sketches can typically have very straightforward camerawork, the quality of the short leans heavily towards the acting performance and the scriptwriting, which in my opinion weren’t all that great. The two main actors’ performance was cringe-worthy and their dialogue wasn’t much better. A redeeming quality was the lawyers had mildly entertaining lines and delivered them well, so there wasn’t much to complain about there. Although it was an interesting and amusing idea to have lawyers argue over how characters would hook up, the acting and writing fell flat for me.
ReplyDeleteWilson Weirich: Consent’s camera work/cinematography works well as a comedy sketch, but past a generic back and forth reversal shot it’s pretty uninteresting (but most sketches are shot this way, so it works just fine). Since comedy sketches can typically have very straightforward camerawork, the quality of the short leans heavily towards the acting performance and the scriptwriting, which in my opinion weren’t all that great. The two main actors’ performance was cringe-worthy and their dialogue wasn’t much better. A redeeming quality was the lawyers had mildly entertaining lines and delivered them well, so there wasn’t much to complain about there. Although it was an interesting and amusing idea to have lawyers argue over how characters would hook up, the acting and writing fell flat for me.
ReplyDelete