What the hell is that supposed to be, Kent TV?
Written by Matt B · first published 15/10/2009
Get ready to watch the most utterly diabolic five minuets of film work you are likely to see.
After the brow beating that Tony Flaig gave the announcement that Kent TV were going to sink a pile of money into making a "soap" for the YouTube generation and then the dismissive negativity that Luke Edwards handed it I really wanted to find a way to praise this film just to be different. It just was not possible.
From the moment the film opened you could see where the budget had gone - the title sequence. Which right there shows us that Kent TV understand the Youtube generation about as well as your average conservative councillor understands what life on an estate is like.
The problem was that the title sequence was good. Too good.
What followed was a limp peace that can best be described as an advert for Canturbury wherein the script writer(s) blandly tell us what can be found there. This is backed up by a series of lifeless mid distance shots. What was called for with that script were images that counterpoint the claims of the character with a little irony but sadly this civic work could not break out of it's County Council funding to lampoon the capital of Kent.
I'd be impressed if this was the work of a bunch of people with no money and a bit of time on their hands but this was a paid for and therefore 2professional" attempt. Such an attempt is granted no leeway for fault. The sad fact is that no amateur film maker would be able to let themselves just do a quick vignette of Canturbury without not only getting on the campas of the University but showing the darker under belly.
It was a totally wasted opportunity when she said music that was begging for a shot of the worst noise making to be found on the streets, some drunken singing or someone doing evil things with a penny whistle. When you watch it - and you will if you haven't already because you'll not believe my telling you how bad it is - watch for that bit and tell me if I'm not wrong.
The film itself was clearly not even of an am-dram standard. The vocal acting was flat to the point of lifelessness. The girls seemed keen enough but weak directing and uninspired camera work left them wanting. The first half ran like a public service announcement.
Check the ending. I'm not sure but I think they were trying for menace. Steven Berkoff she was not. Again the director should have worked with actress and camera crew to create something of an atmosphere. Even a little backing music could have created some tension... sadly this never happens.
Honestly someone get those guys a copy of Stanislavski's An Actor Prepares please. I'm sure Michael would have one kicking about as it's required reading at Thanet College for A-Level students.
Speaking of students I wouldn't mind betting that the film makers are at best, A-Level students of film. They seemed to forget the purpose of pans, tracking and zooms. Transitions between shots do not have to mean that you stop filming - they mean you have to know how to use the camera.
The breaking point for me was the shocking editing around the shot the character opens the front door. Please never, ever use that cut again - it never works ever. If you can't think what else to do use a close up of the door let it open let the character act and then pull back to show what is being reacted too then cut to the face shot. Trust me this looks a thousand times better.
When you have such a short time frame to edit to you can not afford to throw away screen or voice time with things that do not advance the plot and if the acting was wooden, the directing non existent and the camera work lacking in handling experience then they all shine compared to the writing.
One of the first thing a writer learns is the rule "show don't tell". Why say "Jane liked animals" when you can have Jane walk down the road stopping to pet a cat and throw a ball for a dog. The same is doubly true in a visual medium.
The mistake of telling not showing is even easier to make if you tell the story first person perspective because the main character can waffle on without doing anything. In film first person perspective is much like the voice over. Voice over should be used rarely because it is hard to get a good effect.
Voice over remains popular because it is "easy" (for the writer) to establish background and back story but you leave the actors with nothing to work with and the director and camera crew padding to fill the voice time. When scripting for film it is vital to remember that the primary tool of the actor is the words you give them to say so make sure they have some words.
Instead of leaving the poor girls flapping about the set trying to look interesting they should have put the characters on stage and make then say something as soon as possible. Most writers learn early on "when in doubt open with action".
Very few actors can act with no words to say. It's hard and these were not seasoned professionals with aeons of acting experience. The script was unfair to them and did not give anyone the chance to shine try though they did.
The writers problem (and I am sympathetic here) is that he only had two speaking actors to work with and a plot that did not put them together. Exposition by conversation is hard to do under such conditions but not impossible. It would not have taken much (except a decent director and some acting skills) to have the let main character speak to someone on the phone. Sure it's old hat but it works - the character would be allowed to come to life on the screen and have motivation for getting a house mate.
Luke might compare it to Spaced but in Spaced had Simon Pegg whose entire face can act and the creative team would have shown you a one shot character saying "sorry" or just shrugging and then an super close up of the Simon Pegg saying "what am I supposed to do for a flat mate now?" inside of 3 seconds they would have had an opportunity for Simon to be slightly funny and told the audience why he was looking for a new house mate.
Instead we get a shot of a dirty plate...
Lost opportunities for character development. Then we have the search for a house mate which rather than a typical "no, no, no, god no" sequence of bad candidates we get a series of Interchangeable Emmas trying to pull off the "no,, no, no, god no" without much luck. It's not easy to be unlike-able in a funny way and less likely that you can find four or more capable bit actors to do it. Could they not have found a biker, a priest or a goth (Thanet has a few) and gone through the typical (if slightly offensive) sub-cultural stereotypes. Yes it would have been shite but at least it would have told a story.
With the trope in question you are trying to show as many people as possible demonstrating why they are unsuitable. It's a comedy staple so it has to be funny. (Duh!)
If I was to edit that film down for pace and story telling it would come in under seventy seconds and only then because the other option would be to drop all of it and start again with a shot of some cheese and a commentary by Mick Mercer. It'd be just as relevant to the lack of plot.
Seriously though short story telling is an art. You remove everything that you do not need or can get along without and then you tell the story going back over it after to remove anything else you can.
There is a reason why good writing so often has two actors on set - it means that they can talk and talking is doing something. doing something is, by the way, what your actors should be doing at all times.
If that is the maximum quality of the writing, direction, acting and camera work then for £20,000 I could give you about three hours of top quality story telling. That's roughly thirty episodes at five minutes a pop - a month of something new every day. Well done Kent TV for blowing that all on computer manipulation and minor special effects.
Astro turf - Kent TV you're doing it wrong.
After the brow beating that Tony Flaig gave the announcement that Kent TV were going to sink a pile of money into making a "soap" for the YouTube generation and then the dismissive negativity that Luke Edwards handed it I really wanted to find a way to praise this film just to be different. It just was not possible.
From the moment the film opened you could see where the budget had gone - the title sequence. Which right there shows us that Kent TV understand the Youtube generation about as well as your average conservative councillor understands what life on an estate is like.
The problem was that the title sequence was good. Too good.
What followed was a limp peace that can best be described as an advert for Canturbury wherein the script writer(s) blandly tell us what can be found there. This is backed up by a series of lifeless mid distance shots. What was called for with that script were images that counterpoint the claims of the character with a little irony but sadly this civic work could not break out of it's County Council funding to lampoon the capital of Kent.
I'd be impressed if this was the work of a bunch of people with no money and a bit of time on their hands but this was a paid for and therefore 2professional" attempt. Such an attempt is granted no leeway for fault. The sad fact is that no amateur film maker would be able to let themselves just do a quick vignette of Canturbury without not only getting on the campas of the University but showing the darker under belly.
It was a totally wasted opportunity when she said music that was begging for a shot of the worst noise making to be found on the streets, some drunken singing or someone doing evil things with a penny whistle. When you watch it - and you will if you haven't already because you'll not believe my telling you how bad it is - watch for that bit and tell me if I'm not wrong.
The film itself was clearly not even of an am-dram standard. The vocal acting was flat to the point of lifelessness. The girls seemed keen enough but weak directing and uninspired camera work left them wanting. The first half ran like a public service announcement.
Check the ending. I'm not sure but I think they were trying for menace. Steven Berkoff she was not. Again the director should have worked with actress and camera crew to create something of an atmosphere. Even a little backing music could have created some tension... sadly this never happens.
Honestly someone get those guys a copy of Stanislavski's An Actor Prepares please. I'm sure Michael would have one kicking about as it's required reading at Thanet College for A-Level students.
Speaking of students I wouldn't mind betting that the film makers are at best, A-Level students of film. They seemed to forget the purpose of pans, tracking and zooms. Transitions between shots do not have to mean that you stop filming - they mean you have to know how to use the camera.
The breaking point for me was the shocking editing around the shot the character opens the front door. Please never, ever use that cut again - it never works ever. If you can't think what else to do use a close up of the door let it open let the character act and then pull back to show what is being reacted too then cut to the face shot. Trust me this looks a thousand times better.
When you have such a short time frame to edit to you can not afford to throw away screen or voice time with things that do not advance the plot and if the acting was wooden, the directing non existent and the camera work lacking in handling experience then they all shine compared to the writing.
One of the first thing a writer learns is the rule "show don't tell". Why say "Jane liked animals" when you can have Jane walk down the road stopping to pet a cat and throw a ball for a dog. The same is doubly true in a visual medium.
The mistake of telling not showing is even easier to make if you tell the story first person perspective because the main character can waffle on without doing anything. In film first person perspective is much like the voice over. Voice over should be used rarely because it is hard to get a good effect.
Voice over remains popular because it is "easy" (for the writer) to establish background and back story but you leave the actors with nothing to work with and the director and camera crew padding to fill the voice time. When scripting for film it is vital to remember that the primary tool of the actor is the words you give them to say so make sure they have some words.
Instead of leaving the poor girls flapping about the set trying to look interesting they should have put the characters on stage and make then say something as soon as possible. Most writers learn early on "when in doubt open with action".
Very few actors can act with no words to say. It's hard and these were not seasoned professionals with aeons of acting experience. The script was unfair to them and did not give anyone the chance to shine try though they did.
The writers problem (and I am sympathetic here) is that he only had two speaking actors to work with and a plot that did not put them together. Exposition by conversation is hard to do under such conditions but not impossible. It would not have taken much (except a decent director and some acting skills) to have the let main character speak to someone on the phone. Sure it's old hat but it works - the character would be allowed to come to life on the screen and have motivation for getting a house mate.
Luke might compare it to Spaced but in Spaced had Simon Pegg whose entire face can act and the creative team would have shown you a one shot character saying "sorry" or just shrugging and then an super close up of the Simon Pegg saying "what am I supposed to do for a flat mate now?" inside of 3 seconds they would have had an opportunity for Simon to be slightly funny and told the audience why he was looking for a new house mate.
Instead we get a shot of a dirty plate...
Lost opportunities for character development. Then we have the search for a house mate which rather than a typical "no, no, no, god no" sequence of bad candidates we get a series of Interchangeable Emmas trying to pull off the "no,, no, no, god no" without much luck. It's not easy to be unlike-able in a funny way and less likely that you can find four or more capable bit actors to do it. Could they not have found a biker, a priest or a goth (Thanet has a few) and gone through the typical (if slightly offensive) sub-cultural stereotypes. Yes it would have been shite but at least it would have told a story.
With the trope in question you are trying to show as many people as possible demonstrating why they are unsuitable. It's a comedy staple so it has to be funny. (Duh!)
If I was to edit that film down for pace and story telling it would come in under seventy seconds and only then because the other option would be to drop all of it and start again with a shot of some cheese and a commentary by Mick Mercer. It'd be just as relevant to the lack of plot.
Seriously though short story telling is an art. You remove everything that you do not need or can get along without and then you tell the story going back over it after to remove anything else you can.
There is a reason why good writing so often has two actors on set - it means that they can talk and talking is doing something. doing something is, by the way, what your actors should be doing at all times.
If that is the maximum quality of the writing, direction, acting and camera work then for £20,000 I could give you about three hours of top quality story telling. That's roughly thirty episodes at five minutes a pop - a month of something new every day. Well done Kent TV for blowing that all on computer manipulation and minor special effects.
Astro turf - Kent TV you're doing it wrong.
Think you can do better? · read more items categorised Thanet · Don't miss a thing: Subscribe Today · Help: what's a feed? · This site is operated on set principles of policy and disclosure read them here
Waste and recycling collections may be suspended say council 
Sir Head wrote:
I think i might film some stuff haphazardly and get someone called Ester who was born near easter with an overblown sense of self importance and a sense of humour bypass to narrate it and call it "Cnaterbury (sic)- The place where that bloke with the funny hat does his thing" - probably work just as well.