I gave this "film" a 2/10 instead of a 1/10 because I was mildly entertained by Jenni and the guy who played the Porter. Kudos to both of you; despite the rancidness of this little movie, I'd probably watch a sequel where you two were the focus.
Other than that? The writing appeared to have been done by ten monkeys who'd never actually settled on one plot, the "cinematography" likely consisted of one tiny video-camera and the editing software that came with it, and the acting is (for the most part) pitiful at best. The characters are mostly bad stereotypes of what an outsider thinks theatre people are supposed to be.
Allow me to clear up any misunderstandings: Not all men involved in theatre are gay. The ones that happen to be gay are typically not "fabulous", overblown, lisping pansies.
Not all directors are psychopaths. In fact, I've never worked with a director who believed in horoscopes or any of the ridiculous BS that guy practiced. (Also, a continuity problem: his fake facial hair was distractingly bad. Next time, even though I hope to God there is no next time, get your actor to grow an actual beard.) Not all techies are genuinely nuts (although Jenni the stage-manager was kinda cool). The ones that look nuts are only pretending to be because they think they're being original.
Now I'll continue. The costuming, for both the actual "story" and the "production" of Macbeth, was rancid. There was no concept for the setting of Macbeth; the witches were wearing synthetic neon wigs, and whichever characters the gay guys played (Malcolm and... ???) appeared to be male strippers. And Ruth, the actress playing Lady Macbeth, wasn't wearing a bra in several scenes. Some women's statures can get away with that; Ruth's definitely did not.
There. Those are most of my strong opinions on this little, um, cinematic adventure. It's nice that so many struggling actors who have only ever gotten bit parts and walk-ons have had this opportunity, but now that "Never Say Macbeth" is a finished product, if any future employers are familiar with it, it's frankly an embarrassment to have on your resume.
Other than that? The writing appeared to have been done by ten monkeys who'd never actually settled on one plot, the "cinematography" likely consisted of one tiny video-camera and the editing software that came with it, and the acting is (for the most part) pitiful at best. The characters are mostly bad stereotypes of what an outsider thinks theatre people are supposed to be.
Allow me to clear up any misunderstandings: Not all men involved in theatre are gay. The ones that happen to be gay are typically not "fabulous", overblown, lisping pansies.
Not all directors are psychopaths. In fact, I've never worked with a director who believed in horoscopes or any of the ridiculous BS that guy practiced. (Also, a continuity problem: his fake facial hair was distractingly bad. Next time, even though I hope to God there is no next time, get your actor to grow an actual beard.) Not all techies are genuinely nuts (although Jenni the stage-manager was kinda cool). The ones that look nuts are only pretending to be because they think they're being original.
Now I'll continue. The costuming, for both the actual "story" and the "production" of Macbeth, was rancid. There was no concept for the setting of Macbeth; the witches were wearing synthetic neon wigs, and whichever characters the gay guys played (Malcolm and... ???) appeared to be male strippers. And Ruth, the actress playing Lady Macbeth, wasn't wearing a bra in several scenes. Some women's statures can get away with that; Ruth's definitely did not.
There. Those are most of my strong opinions on this little, um, cinematic adventure. It's nice that so many struggling actors who have only ever gotten bit parts and walk-ons have had this opportunity, but now that "Never Say Macbeth" is a finished product, if any future employers are familiar with it, it's frankly an embarrassment to have on your resume.