New (I think) art film idea!

[Goliath]

Inspired by this thread (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=325). I should warn you that the descriptions of the film are somewhat grisly and probably not for the weak of stomach.

We have a background consisting of a nursery, along with a baby and a man (a woman could play this part, too, but for the sake of simplicity and consistency, I'll refer to this character as "the man"). The man lays the baby in the crib. The baby starts crying and screaming.

We cut through several seconds of various attempts by the man to calm the baby down (he sings to it, holds it tight, etc), but nothing works. With a sigh of resignation, the man puts the baby back in the crib and ponders what to do next.

The baby starts to cry and scream louder (and continues to cry and scream throughout the rest of the film). The man's hair starts to go from brown or black to white. His hair then goes from white to grey as a look of complete terror forms on his face.

After his hair goes grey, it starts to fall out. As his hair is falling out, his brains (represented by a greyish sludge) start to ooze out of his ears. His skin has turned far more pale and pasty.

After his hair completely falls out and his brains have oozed out of his head, his face starts to literally fall off of his skull. The flesh and muscle from his face fall, making a resounding "Splat!" on the floor. He collapses backwards, being slightly propped up by a corner behind him.

Then the rest of his skin and flesh seem to peel off of him. His clothes start to disintegrate, as though they were hundreds of years old and poorly kept.

As time elapses, we see muscle and organs disintegrate, until there is nothing left but the skeleton. At about this time, the bones collapse more into a pile (since there are no real bone connections holding the man's skull in place).

Time keeps elapsing. The bones start to shrink a bit, looking more britle. Cobwebs form over them. Then they slowly start disintegrating into dust...until all that's left of the man is a pile of bone dust.

The dust then blows away in a breeze.

The end.

Whaddaya think?

[viscousmemories]

Sounds kinda like five minutes of Hellraiser. What would be the point?

[Goliath]

Sounds kinda like five minutes of Hellraiser. What would be the point?

Pinhead's not a crying screaming baby, though.

The point is that I thought it'd be fun to think of a film that portrays a (huge) exaggeration of how I feel around crying, screaming babies.

If you don't like it, that's fine...in fact, I doubt that this thread will be at all popular. It's just an idea that I had, so I thought I'd throw it out there..."think what you like, and say what you think", as it were.

[viscousmemories]

Pinhead's not a crying screaming baby, though.

The point is that I thought it'd be fun to think of a film that portrays a (huge) exaggeration of how I feel around crying, screaming babies.

If you don't like it, that's fine...in fact, I doubt that this thread will be at all popular. It's just an idea that I had, so I thought I'd throw it out there..."think what you like, and say what you think", as it were.
Ah, okay I get it. I wasn't dissing the idea, I just honestly didn't get the point. I told you I don't know a nice way of saying "what's your point?" :P Anyway yeah I get frazzled by crying, screaming babies too. I doubt very highly that I would be very good at taking care of one, despite the fact that I think I'm pretty good with kids. (With some exceptions).

[JoeP]

Have you seen Scanners? You could portray the baby exploding your head (sorry, "the man's").

[livius drusus]

I think it would be really cool in claymation. Seriously. I'm not being flippant here at all. I know you wouldn't get the anatomical study details - which may well be a dealbreaker in terms of your vision - but I think it would be a really cool perspective, and you could get your point across in a novel way.

[Goliath]

Have you seen Scanners? You could portray the baby exploding your head (sorry, "the man's").



Yep, I've seen Scanners...putting that twist on it would be more inaccurate, though...the sound of a crying baby doesn't make my head want to explode, it just makes me feel old and tired...



I think it would be really cool in claymation.



Yeah, that could definitely work...I wasn't really concerned with the major anatomical details, anyway. I'm kinda thinking of the same kind of creepy claymation that was in Tool's Sober video. Hmmm...now if I only had the slightest bit of artistic talent. LOL...



Ah, okay I get it. I wasn't dissing the idea, I just honestly didn't get the point. I told you I don't know a nice way of saying "what's your point?"



Oh, I didn't find it rude at all...I just wasn't sure whether you liked it or not (in fact, I thought that you might not, since you did start the cute baby thread, and all..). I threw the "you don't have to like it" statement in there just to be safe.

[Scotty]

To end it though, you have the mother walk in with a friend (switch roles if you like):

Friend: "What's wrong with him!"

Mother: "Oh, he does this every time the baby cries."

-Scott

[JoeP]

To end it though, you have the mother walk in with a friend (switch roles if you like):

Friend: "What's wrong with him!"

Mother: "Oh, he does this every time the baby cries."

-Scott
Now this is starting to sound like art. I imagine the mother with a Danish or Norwegian accent:
"Ooe, he do this efery time the baby cry."

[Adora]

I'll start with a relevant quote...

"Art is defined by the realisation by the audience that what they are looking at/experiencing has a purpose. We don't need to know what that purpose is, we just need to know its there."

I think it was Kant... though I'm not sure.

ANYWAY, reading this, I didn't get the purpose at first, and I think because of the excessive visual nature of it, you're not going to get across any subtle hints about how you are around babies through. It just sounds like it's an evil demon baby making you go weird and horrific.

[viscousmemories]

I'll start with a relevant quote...

"Art is defined by the realisation by the audience that what they are looking at/experiencing has a purpose. We don't need to know what that purpose is, we just need to know its there."

I think it was Kant... though I'm not sure.

ANYWAY, reading this, I didn't get the purpose at first, and I think because of the excessive visual nature of it, you're not going to get across any subtle hints about how you are around babies through. It just sounds like it's an evil demon baby making you go weird and horrific.
See Goliath? I didn't see a purpose so I related it to a horror flick. Of course I didn't express that half as eloquently as Adora just did, but still. :yup:

[Goliath]

...you're not going to get across any subtle hints about how you are around babies through.

Well, subtlety has never been one of my strong suits... :wink:

Now, I'm afraid that I'm the one who doesn't get it. Why is subtlety required here?

[viscousmemories]

Well, subtlety has never been one of my strong suits... :wink:

Now, I'm afraid that I'm the one who doesn't get it. Why is subtlety required here?
I could be wrong but I think the important point isn't that there should be subtle hints, but any hints. Unfortunately (and of course only in my opinion) just putting a screaming baby in a room with a rapidly aging person doesn't necessarily indicate any correlation between the events.

[Goliath]

...just putting a screaming baby in a room with a rapidly aging person doesn't necessarily indicate any correlation between the events.

Hmmm, I guess you're right...to someone who isn't despised by children and who doesn't get a headache after hearing a screaming baby for more than a few minutes, I suppose there wouldn't be much of a connection.

Hmmmm.........

[viscousmemories]

Hmmm, I guess you're right...to someone who isn't despised by children and who doesn't get a headache after hearing a screaming baby for more than a few minutes, I suppose there wouldn't be much of a connection.

Hmmmm.........
But that doesn't mean the correlation couldn't be implied by the cinematography and acting, really. I mean I can imagine how it could be filmed in such a way as to communicate that intent, it just wasn't obvious in your pitch. :)

[Adora]

Well, subtlety has never been one of my strong suits... :wink:
Now, I'm afraid that I'm the one who doesn't get it. Why is subtlety required here?

Oh, I didn't mean that. I mean that in such a film, if it were to be made, any references to one's reaction to crying babies would be lost amongst the overwhelming visuals. So the purpose may be unreadable to the average audience.

Let me relate this to a more current movie: The Day After Tomorrow. It was a load of shit, and we all agree it was a load of shit, but what a load of shit it was. It was a big budget Special Effects movie, with no real purpose to it. Or, if there was any kind of real purpose to it there, it was lost to the impact of the imagery taking over the viewers experience.

Maybe, in years to come down the track, if an observant film theorist or critic was to watch your movie and realise your purpose (intended or not) that would be nice. This happens with a lot of movies, especially horror ones. But generally when horror movies first hit the screens, even if they are more complicated than the one you suggested, the subtle (or not so subtle) purpose and messages are generally lost to the audience who is being effected too much by the suspense, gory visuals, emotions, and other more base reactions happening in them. This is why such genres are called "Low" art- because the purposiveness (the realisation by the audience that it has a purpose, but not necessarily the realisation of what that purpose is) is not identifiable straight away by the majority of the audience.

Anyway, this is just my opinion. I think it would be fun to watch just for the visuals if they were pulled off really well. But if I didn't know the sort of reason you stated above for making the movie, I would just make the "Demon Baby" connection in my reading of the film. But hey, that's not to say you can't go ahead and make it. Tonnes of films are made, and make money, and become popular, that really really lack purposiveness. But generally, if you want to classify it as an "art film" or "arthouse flick" you need a stronger sense of purpose coming through.

[freemonkey]

I'll start with a relevant quote...

"Art is defined by the realisation by the audience that what they are looking at/experiencing has a purpose. We don't need to know what that purpose is, we just need to know its there."

I think it was Kant... though I'm not sure.

ANYWAY, reading this, I didn't get the purpose at first, and I think because of the excessive visual nature of it, you're not going to get across any subtle hints about how you are around babies through. It just sounds like it's an evil demon baby making you go weird and horrific.

The point is that I thought it'd be fun to think of a film that portrays a (huge) exaggeration of how I feel around crying, screaming babies.


I'll further Adora's point by saying that I think the very best art is that which people can connect their own thoughts and emotions to.

So, I'd like to propose an ending to your film:

The screen fades to black, but we can still hear a baby wailing. Blackness for a few seconds, as we think we're waiting for the credits to roll. As the lights slowly come up and the camera pulls back (baby still crying), we see we're in a movie theatre, but none (or most) of the audience is moving. Finally, we see that these people have suffered the fate of your main character.
:popcorn: :fight: :popcorn: :heckled: :popcorn:

[livius drusus]

This thread is cool.