Overall I didn't really like this film, the whole idea was a little uncomfortable for me but I see how it is a play on sexual consent. With stories all over the place about rape, especially on a college campus it is a subject that seems to be discussed a lot. It shows that there are different versions of consent and the details should be discussed (obviously not that in depth). Alcohol is also discussed because that seems to blur the description of consent. Although this is a 2004 film, it still has relevance today and will continue to have relevance in the future, which is the sign of a well made story. The lack of variation in camera angles gave it a claustrophobic feeling. While it is well made I feel like the idea of consent could have been explained in a better manner.
Consent…It’s hard for me to critique the short. I thought the overall production was constructed well and the shots were very uniform. I felt the lighting was a bit dark but so was the script so maybe that was intentional. It was a little uncomfortable that they turned such an extremely serious subject into a joke. It got the point across but I am not sure the message made an impact just because of the way it was presented. However, when it got to the end and I saw that it was written and directed by Jason Reitman it all made more sense. His films are all a bit dark and awkward. It was easy to see the correlation between his other work and this short. Definitely one in which you can see an artist’s style effecting everything he does.
Consent was a little strange. I thought the dialogue between the lawyers was clever, but I was confused about the message of this film. I think it is the title that throws me off. A parody of two new lover's sexual expectations is a funny idea. However, since rape culture has received more awareness over the years since 2004, the idea of mocking sexual consent is a little disturbing. I understand that probably was not the intention of the film, but it did not work for me. There is a joke in there somewhere but it was not executed well. Girls should make guys aware of what they are and are not comfortable with and guys should listen. Maybe this would have been less uncomfortable if she was also planning on having sex that night. He seemed creepy for pushing it and she seemed vulnerable for giving it up easily.
This is an interesting one for sure. 11 years ago I was 9 so I have no idea what the general public's opinion on matters regarding sex were. I do believe that today there's a lot more attention given to rape culture awareness than there used to be. If this short came out today I'd consider it to be parodying the Yes means Yes laws in which case I would understand it. Going off of that, I'm guessing that Jason Reitman caught wind of the change in public attitude (heading towards the awareness spread that we have today) and decided to overstate the direction he thought it was going in. I'm pretty sure his general idea is that the direction we're going in to deal with matters of consent, while it may be effective, is literally the opposite of sexy. In this short this couple discuss sexual favors like transactions and keep it entirely business-like, there's no classic young couple in love to be seen here. Reitman is just depicting the direction he thinks we're going in. Other than that, there appears to be minimal variation in technical work that went into making this short, probably because Reitman wanted the focus to be on the topic and dialogue.
I think this short was much more funny than last week's short. Even though I didn't really like the dark lighting, the story itself was told well and clear enough for me to follow along. There's not much to say on this one but I do like the concept of what goes on in the minds of two consenting adults/teenagers. This is a good short story because it can relate to pretty much everyone. We see the "lawyers" pretty much take the roles of both character's thoughts (What a male would be thinking in this situation and what a female would be thinking in this situation). I like how Reitman used opposite sex lawyers to work things out. To me this sort of took the meaning of how males and females somewhat think alike. At the end of this short the second female character walks in and asks if she should get her lawyer. This part was hilarious and it just solidifies what Reitman is saying about Consent.
I actually found the content of this short to be very offensive. From reading other's comments it seems like that may have been Reitman's intention, but I felt like the whole film was in very poor taste. Technically speaking, the short didn't do much for me either. I felt like the same camera shots over and over got monotonous very quickly. Overall this was probably my least favorite film we've watched so far.
I actually found the content of this short to be very offensive. From reading other's comments it seems like that may have been Reitman's intention, but I felt like the whole film was in very poor taste. Technically speaking, the short didn't do much for me either. I felt like the same camera shots over and over got monotonous very quickly. Overall this was probably my least favorite film we've watched so far.
I think to understand this short you have to understand the new affirmative consent laws in California, which is strange because this short is 11 years old. I think the dialogue was witty and funny I laughed at several lines. I can see how someone could be offended, but I know that that was not the intention of this short. My only problem is that even though it's satire, I'm not really sure what their ground is.
Who doesn’t love a little early Jason Reitman in their life? It incredibly cool from a studying a body of work point of view to see that directing Consent was only three years prior to Juno. From a humor arc perspective, the best way to communicate this humor was to make the entire interaction seem like a business transaction, yet the beginning broke that concept with the poor acting and mediocre writing. It would have been much more effective to have the business theme carried out over the entirety of the piece. However, I thought after the first minute the everything was funny and well done. I am especially impressed with using humor to address a hot topic political discussion. Consent subtly comments on how serious consent is being taken. College walls are decorated with definitions on what consent truly means and this short took an edgy approach to that topic, whether intentional or not.
I thought it was pretty funny. It was probably very easy to make (one room - five total actors), and very inexpensive to make. With that said, it was impressive the amount of entertainment that came from such a low budget. I don't think it was Reitman's intent to address the rape issue. I think he was just making a joke about the legal system and sex. Enjoyed it. Made me laugh.
I didn't really enjoy this. I was bored the whole time, and didn't find it funny. The acting from the main characters wasn't good, and I'm not sure if that was done on purpose or not. Maybe I just don't get the point of this one.
I really didn't like this film, I understand it was supposed to be humorous but I felt like Reitman was making fun of a topic that should actually be taken more seriously. The production was okay, sometimes it was hard to see due to the darkness, but that could just be my computer. The dialogue possibly could have been funnier if it was said differently, but like I've been told is humor is hard and everyone takes it differently. The best moment in the whole thing was mention of "shacker shirts". That was the most realistic line ever to me and I thought it was hilarious. Maybe this would have been funnier if there weren't all the controversial issues dealing with consent nowadays. The film is from 2004 so maybe consent wasn't as hot of a topic back then (wouldn't know since I was ten back then) and this was seen as hilarious satire. The acting was subpar and that kind of took away from the scene. Maybe if it was more SNL like I would have liked it.
Overall I didn't really like this film, the whole idea was a little uncomfortable for me but I see how it is a play on sexual consent. With stories all over the place about rape, especially on a college campus it is a subject that seems to be discussed a lot. It shows that there are different versions of consent and the details should be discussed (obviously not that in depth). Alcohol is also discussed because that seems to blur the description of consent. Although this is a 2004 film, it still has relevance today and will continue to have relevance in the future, which is the sign of a well made story. The lack of variation in camera angles gave it a claustrophobic feeling. While it is well made I feel like the idea of consent could have been explained in a better manner.
ReplyDeleteConsent…It’s hard for me to critique the short. I thought the overall production was constructed well and the shots were very uniform. I felt the lighting was a bit dark but so was the script so maybe that was intentional. It was a little uncomfortable that they turned such an extremely serious subject into a joke. It got the point across but I am not sure the message made an impact just because of the way it was presented. However, when it got to the end and I saw that it was written and directed by Jason Reitman it all made more sense. His films are all a bit dark and awkward. It was easy to see the correlation between his other work and this short. Definitely one in which you can see an artist’s style effecting everything he does.
ReplyDeleteConsent was a little strange. I thought the dialogue between the lawyers was clever, but I was confused about the message of this film. I think it is the title that throws me off. A parody of two new lover's sexual expectations is a funny idea. However, since rape culture has received more awareness over the years since 2004, the idea of mocking sexual consent is a little disturbing. I understand that probably was not the intention of the film, but it did not work for me. There is a joke in there somewhere but it was not executed well. Girls should make guys aware of what they are and are not comfortable with and guys should listen. Maybe this would have been less uncomfortable if she was also planning on having sex that night. He seemed creepy for pushing it and she seemed vulnerable for giving it up easily.
ReplyDeleteThis is an interesting one for sure. 11 years ago I was 9 so I have no idea what the general public's opinion on matters regarding sex were. I do believe that today there's a lot more attention given to rape culture awareness than there used to be. If this short came out today I'd consider it to be parodying the Yes means Yes laws in which case I would understand it. Going off of that, I'm guessing that Jason Reitman caught wind of the change in public attitude (heading towards the awareness spread that we have today) and decided to overstate the direction he thought it was going in. I'm pretty sure his general idea is that the direction we're going in to deal with matters of consent, while it may be effective, is literally the opposite of sexy. In this short this couple discuss sexual favors like transactions and keep it entirely business-like, there's no classic young couple in love to be seen here. Reitman is just depicting the direction he thinks we're going in. Other than that, there appears to be minimal variation in technical work that went into making this short, probably because Reitman wanted the focus to be on the topic and dialogue.
ReplyDeleteI think this short was much more funny than last week's short. Even though I didn't really like the dark lighting, the story itself was told well and clear enough for me to follow along. There's not much to say on this one but I do like the concept of what goes on in the minds of two consenting adults/teenagers. This is a good short story because it can relate to pretty much everyone. We see the "lawyers" pretty much take the roles of both character's thoughts (What a male would be thinking in this situation and what a female would be thinking in this situation). I like how Reitman used opposite sex lawyers to work things out. To me this sort of took the meaning of how males and females somewhat think alike. At the end of this short the second female character walks in and asks if she should get her lawyer. This part was hilarious and it just solidifies what Reitman is saying about Consent.
ReplyDeleteI actually found the content of this short to be very offensive. From reading other's comments it seems like that may have been Reitman's intention, but I felt like the whole film was in very poor taste. Technically speaking, the short didn't do much for me either. I felt like the same camera shots over and over got monotonous very quickly. Overall this was probably my least favorite film we've watched so far.
ReplyDeleteI actually found the content of this short to be very offensive. From reading other's comments it seems like that may have been Reitman's intention, but I felt like the whole film was in very poor taste. Technically speaking, the short didn't do much for me either. I felt like the same camera shots over and over got monotonous very quickly. Overall this was probably my least favorite film we've watched so far.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think to understand this short you have to understand the new affirmative consent laws in California, which is strange because this short is 11 years old. I think the dialogue was witty and funny I laughed at several lines. I can see how someone could be offended, but I know that that was not the intention of this short. My only problem is that even though it's satire, I'm not really sure what their ground is.
ReplyDeleteWho doesn’t love a little early Jason Reitman in their life? It incredibly cool from a studying a body of work point of view to see that directing Consent was only three years prior to Juno. From a humor arc perspective, the best way to communicate this humor was to make the entire interaction seem like a business transaction, yet the beginning broke that concept with the poor acting and mediocre writing. It would have been much more effective to have the business theme carried out over the entirety of the piece. However, I thought after the first minute the everything was funny and well done. I am especially impressed with using humor to address a hot topic political discussion. Consent subtly comments on how serious consent is being taken. College walls are decorated with definitions on what consent truly means and this short took an edgy approach to that topic, whether intentional or not.
ReplyDeleteI thought it was pretty funny. It was probably very easy to make (one room - five total actors), and very inexpensive to make. With that said, it was impressive the amount of entertainment that came from such a low budget. I don't think it was Reitman's intent to address the rape issue. I think he was just making a joke about the legal system and sex. Enjoyed it. Made me laugh.
ReplyDeleteI didn't really enjoy this. I was bored the whole time, and didn't find it funny. The acting from the main characters wasn't good, and I'm not sure if that was done on purpose or not. Maybe I just don't get the point of this one.
ReplyDeleteI really didn't like this film, I understand it was supposed to be humorous but I felt like Reitman was making fun of a topic that should actually be taken more seriously. The production was okay, sometimes it was hard to see due to the darkness, but that could just be my computer. The dialogue possibly could have been funnier if it was said differently, but like I've been told is humor is hard and everyone takes it differently. The best moment in the whole thing was mention of "shacker shirts". That was the most realistic line ever to me and I thought it was hilarious. Maybe this would have been funnier if there weren't all the controversial issues dealing with consent nowadays. The film is from 2004 so maybe consent wasn't as hot of a topic back then (wouldn't know since I was ten back then) and this was seen as hilarious satire. The acting was subpar and that kind of took away from the scene. Maybe if it was more SNL like I would have liked it.
ReplyDelete