glad to see you back to work at film conscience Luke! however you look kind of tired in this video like your stressed or not enough sleep or something and that makes me sad =(. dont push yourself to hard kay man? looking forward to the new video.
----------------
sincerely
Derpy

My answers on your questions:

Question 1: I think the first scenes benefit from things moving over the screen, since the grey colors make everything look boring.

Question 2: It think it does, however in a more satire kind of way (like something as Happy Tree Friends). We don't know these people (or things) and we can laugh at their accidents and silly behaviours since we don't have their backstory...

Question 3: There's some interpretation in it, but its rather meak since its not really trying to give us a lesson on it. It speaks a lot for itself...

Question 4: He has potential, but the problem here is that there is no real story present in this work. Its all random bits. I like to see him come up with a gripping story then make the animation around that...

Question 5: Personal Taste. It wasn't all that spectacular to me, I missed some flow of story. However, a lot on Youtube seem to love it. Quality wasn't really the issue here, but more if the things happening inside the animation made an impact on people.

cool. looking forward in seeing your video

Here are the questions you asked as well as my answeres, looking forward to seeing you review! :)

1. Do the first 20 seconds grab your attention?

Yes, because the art style looks interesting and makes me intrigued to know what comes next.

2. Do you think the External world is ment to disturb or shocking? If so, does it work?

Yes and no, I think that is kinda the point of the film. Does it disturb you or not? It sets up these wierd situations and it‘s up to you to decide wether you think it‘s disturbing, shocking, fine or whatever.

I guess thus, the answere to wether it works or not, is the same, yes and no. Depends on how it works for you. Personally I‘d say no, not really. I guess I‘m fucked up in that way, or am I?

3. Is this a film that is ment for interpretation or should it speak for itself?

Mostly for interpretation. Some scenes leave less space for interpretation then others - As in, speak more for themselves - but to me most leave ample space for interpretation. If there was nothing to interpret, the movie would be much less interesting as well as leaving you directionless, confused and very likely bored. Then it might probably only stand as a nich comedy with a few social comments here and there.

4. Do you think David o‘Reiley is a good filmmaker?

Very hard to tell. This film does not exactly represent a good idea of the filmmakers possible qualities in total. You‘d need a bit more consistency for that, imo. There are perhaps some interesting things here and there, but nothing too stand out from what I can see. I‘ll at least say that I‘d be interested to see him attempt a more consistent and less random film next time.

5. Wether or not you actually liked the film, do you think it‘s a matter of the films quality or personal taste?

I liked it, it‘s not a mind blowing piece of film, but it‘s interesting at the least and kept my attention throughout. This is definitly due to my personal taste. Mostly because there are so many different elements to this film that can either turn some people off, go above their heads or simply confuse them. This film seems to be one big „sketch show“. Some sketches work, some don‘t. But it is all tied together with one single theme, this world we live in.

So I watched the film. Do I like it? It's hard to say. I appreciate some of what it's trying to do and say, but I'm not sure that it's meant to be enjoyed.

1. Yes. I was genuinely curious about this grey city and the world that I was about to see. I know not much is happening, but I wanted to see what would happen.

2. I don't know if it's meant to be shocking or disturbing. I wasn't bothered by anything in it. In fact, by today's standards, this film isn't really that bad. I think there was a bit of shock value in a few scenes, but I don't think that was the only reason it was made.

3. This film is definitely meant for interpretation. There's a lot of commentary and satire in it-- of what, I'm not really sure. What you perceive it as really depends on you.

4. Yes. O'Reilly builds a very creative world and some very odd and creative characters in this film, and for all its strangeness, it does have stakes, which I believe you, Mr. Mochrie, said is the most important quality of a film. I really did want to see the little boy succeed at his piano playing, and the animation did flow, even if the story did not. In terms of keeping attention and at least trying to say something, O'Reilly succeeds in film making.

5. It's definitely personal taste. On a technical level, the quality of this film is meh at best, but it's not trying to do great animation. My own personal feelings are mixed about whether the film is good or not, but that's probably because I've seen a lot of weird films lately. I don't know about people loving it, but I can tell that those who are unused to strange and disturbing things would hate it. Heck, a few years ago, I probably would have hated it. Now, though, I can appreciate the film on its own merits, so it's definitely a matter of taste.

I'm really glad you're back and look forward to hearing your thoughts, though this is a really weird film to make a come-back with. I guess the Cinema Snob really is rubbing off on you.

Follow up: After thinking about it for about twelve hours, I have come to the conclusion that this film is definitely meant to mean something different to everyone and the quality of it comes from your interpretation. That said, I find films like this fascinating, know that everyone's going to get something different out of it. Thank you for giving us all something to think about.

First off, like so many have been saying...yay! You're back! It's good to see your stuff again :) Don't work yourself too hard Luke.

Do I like the film...um...I don't know to be honest. I won't say I instantly dislike random, weird stuff like this because I have seen one or two similar projects that I really liked for one reason or another. This...I'll be honest I don't know if I like it. Would I watch it again? Yes. Would I recommend it? Probably not...

1. Oh yes, most definitely. I am no expert on animation but it looked pretty good to me. It kept me interested and I really wanted to see what would happen.

2. I think it is meant to disturb. It reminds me a bit of a small child that has been given WAY to much sugar and has the mentality of an adult who likes weird and disturbing things. At least that is what it seemed like to me. Although, with the way our society is nowadays, I'm not sure what kind of effect that will have on everyone since so many of us are desensitized to this sort of thing.

3. Interpretation, definitely. Now, I'm one of those people who is so sick of everyone trying to find some kind of meaning or analysis in EVERYTHING, even when it seems clear that the particular subject is just meant to stand on its own or just baffled by some of the things people come up with (Catcher in the Rye for example...seriously?) But this, I think was meant for interpretation. There is a lot of comedy, satire and I think the randomness actually may have a point to make in of itself. Though what you see is up to you I suppose. Everyone's own opinion and all that :)

4. Oh yes. O'Reilly seems incredibly creative and whether he IS trying to make a point or not, he sucks us into his world and into the craziness. Whether you end up liking it or not, and despite of the lack of story, I would say he has a lot of potential at the very least.

5. Personal taste. I'll be completely honest. I know little to nothing about "what makes good art," film making, animation or the like. I have very little skill in that so I may seem like I am completely ditzy when I try to talk about things like that in relation to what I like. I like to think I recognize bad animation, but to me this really seems to work. It seems to flow really well and is FAR better than my stick figure drawings lol. Although, I think that the lack of story, the complete randomness will put a lot of people off. I think there is a lot to take from this movie, but I do think it is one a lot of people aren't going to get because it is so random. Again, personal tastes...and I changed my mind. I liked this *nods*


Again, yay for another video!!

I think this was a fantastic short film, I loved it, and would watch it again and show it to my friends to see how they felt about it and see how they would or wouldn't interpret the content.

1. Yes and no, the simple bleakness in the title card and first 25 seconds in and of itself didn't particularly grab me, but in a way I felt it was a set up to play with my expectations. Plus it was very nice looking.

2. I think that it was meant to, as I said before, play with the audiences expectations, which in some sections was done by being shocking or disturbing, but I don't think that was the point. This, to me, is clearly a comedy.

3. I could certainly interpret a lot from this... mainly watching the world from the point of view of an introvert, and seeing the dark humor in society and pop culture.

4. I think O'Reilly is very talented, not just by virtue of the vignettes, but the way there tied together, both artistically and in theme.

5. I think I like this film because of the quality, altho personal taste will always be a factor. It is quite simply written and put together in such a way to be entertaining on the surface while being thought provoking underneath. While watching this I can't help but think about the inspiration, influences, and intent of the film. This to me is, generally speaking, a mark of quality. Also watching certain segments I feel the film maker is almost trying to turn the audience against the film, while other times its daring the audience to keep going. To play with, even manipulate, the viewer like that... well thats what art dose. It challenged me, and made me think.

I loved this. Thank you Luke.

Did I like the film? Not really. Trying to be clever and surreal while not being very entertaining or informative.
1 - Not especially.
2 - It is meant to disturb. Did it in the end? No. At around 7 minutes there was so much going on that my mind sort of shut off and I just watched without thinking too much. It's too much in too little time.
3 - About 5% speaks for itself. About 40% I could interpret into a commentary on culture and such. The rest just seems like random stupidity just for the sake of it.
4 - I think he has quite a bit of potential. A sizable amount of the film was rather clever and was displayed well. There just needs to be more (not restraint but...) meaningful substance.
5 - I think a few scenes were just lacking in any real quality. The rest is mostly a personal taste judgement.

1. No, the first 25 seconds did not grab my attention. Mostly because I could not discern any particular tone or theme that it was meant to generate.

2. It is meant to disturb, and it succeeds.

3. I do not understand this question.

4. Based on The External World, no he is not a good filmmaker. Because in spite of his creativity, his work is neither entertaining, nor cerebral, and thus it is not engaging. Also, I do not see the appeal of the art style.

5. I did not like The External World. This is because of the film's quality. It is unfocused and has no real pacing. I have no idea who this film was made for.

I'm going to be posting my replies one comment at a time for each question as I go along with your video Luke because I am not sure if I'll be going into a lot of details but here goes:

1. The first 25 seconds does sort of grab my attention. The very first shot that is shown after the title card is very high angle view and the exposure of the shot is very high so it is difficult to make out what it is I am looking at. This requires me to look further at it to try to see what it is I am seeing. Then it is til the next shot that I see it's a city. Of course I go right away, "Oh it's just a city. What about it?" But then what I'm getting in the next few shots is a taste of the animation style for the film and I find it very peculiar. And I mean peculiar good since the architecture and anything that's man made is following a color scheme of gray and blue where as the lawn and trees are of course green, but they are showing hues of blue as well. And the drawing style is sort of blocky and I would consider it "South Park-esque." The soft piano music playing in the soundtrack adds to the atmosphere of this blue city since it is emitting a melancholy sense as I listen to it. Then what I would consider the very thing that actually got me into this is seeing child and adult practicing on a piano in an empty auditorium that seems to have been left in quite a mess that's making me wonder, "What happened here? Did the janitor forgot to clean up or something else?" It's making me more interested in going on and see what this could be about.

2. In order for a film to disturb or shock an audience, it must feature content that was purposely placed there in order to feature an idea or concept that hardly anyone has thought of before. For me, I actually do think the External World does deliver on its shock value. Some moments that really stuck with me from the film is: when one of the characters is prescribed by a doctor to a medication called, "Go Fuck Yourself,"; The father and son with the frisbee of death; the strange cute animals that are like happy tree friends (somewhat) on their picnics; the bum going Super Mario with a magical coin box in the alley and it works only once yet he continues to try to make it work; and (of course) the pregnant feces giving birth to a little pile of feces. There were many more moments that made me wonder why were those placed in there. The more I thought about it, the more I realized that there is a purpose for each of those scenes. It isn't trying to randomly throw a silly gaffe at us. It's trying to tell us something. There's a theme to all of this madness that most of us are probably seeing for the first time. I won't consider the External World a horribly shocking film, but there is a lot going on in it.

3. Ain't that the million dollar question. Let me take a moment to compare this to an infamous painting that we all have seen at least a few times in our lives: "American Gothic" (if you have to ask what it is, it's the painting of a guy holding a picture fork with his wife by him in front of a farm). Ever since it went public, art entrepreneurs and critics alike have been debating about the actual meaning of this iconic masterpiece. They don't understand if the artist had a certain point in mind he wanted to make across or he left the painting up for interpretation by the masses. On that equivalency, External World and American Gothic share this same ground. I have already established my belief that the producers of the film have placed the content in it with intentions. There is a purpose for those events to take place. However they never make it clear for what function does the monkey and frog have sexual intercourse or how come an adult is repeatedly hitting a student over and over again because he's having a hard time trying to play a song on a piano. There is no clear evidence hinting to the potential theme of this film. If we are to try to interpret this ourselves much like what happened to American Gothic, there is going to be many different ideas that will be conceived as to what is External World trying to perceive to us. One person may state, "It's about technology because it's mimicking our tech-savvy generation." Another may say, "It's about our culture trying to adapt to this new generation that advances more with each minute passing." The possibilities are endless! Even the people who made this film are probably going to have their different takes, despite having a central goal among them all. So... I say fuck it. This is definitely up for interpretation one way or another.

4. David OReilly definitely seems to have an idea about where he wants this to go. He does a nice job with a continual story that begins with a child learning how to play a song on the piano without making a mistake, and ends with that same character performing the song perfectly. The bits that occur in between to pad out the fifteen-to-sixteen minutes are interesting side stories going on for that--with the exception of the feces giving birth and the digital harking bird bit that only occurs once--we get to see the other bits about a few other times as the film cycles through them. There's this scene about an elderly cartoon home being flooded with blood, there's this loud, obnoxious kid walking into the scenes while banging on a pan, the happy tree friends show that goes on a few times, and some strange sitcom with bunnies and a raccoon. All of those aren't just featured once and then they fade away from memory. They make at least one more appearance until they all gather in the auditorium for the kid's piano recital. I consider that decent story telling on David's behalf. He does his best to keep a story going at least while cycling through the many side plots that are going on. And it does work for him that every cycle the film returns to the kid as we see him still trying to practice on the piano. The art direction is unique which I'll give him credit for. The animation has this online, video game feel to it, making it all seem like this is on the world wide web. David has made an interesting choice using this style and it adds to the theme of this being a World because it is more than likely on a world wide connection. So for me David OReilly does make a fine filmmaker because he's using this form of media to work to his advantage and produce a thoughtful video for people to wrap their brains around.

5. Oh boy. This one I'm really going to have to think about. This should go back to my third reply that everyone is going to have their own different opinions about the External World. It may affect some dramatically, it may feel like a small drop of rain for others. It may be a matter of personal taste for the film, but there is after all some content in it that is universal so that a lot of people will know exactly what it is (this being Pikachu and Mickey Mouse, Hitler and Nazism). But yet because it's in it doesn't mean people will understand the film entirely. This could be leaning more towards personal taste since it is for sure that certain people may have problems with this film for its content. A few people may not see any problems with it telling a message through visual imagery, but some will come after it with torches and pitchforks for being so vulgar. For me video quality plays a certain part in it, but personal tastes can take quite a lead. For example the audio recording of Martin Luther King, Jr.'s famous "I Have A Dream" speech sounds like it was done on some cheap microphone in a gym when compared to the technology that we have now for media recording. Yet hearing that exact same recording can have such a profound effect on listeners everywhere because of the power of the speech. The modern age's ventures into improving the techniques used to create video effects has gone a long way, yet it doesn't matter at all if a home video of a guy in front of a webcam singing along to a song with a wide open mouth could garnish such an impact on our society. Of course to be a successful film, though, you need to be targeting an audience and land that mark. Is it trying to go after teenagers? Adults? People who hang a lot on the internet? Country folk who don't even know what a cell phone is? That falls under David OReilly's job to determine who he is going after when making the film. Video quality can have a bit of an impact, but it is how the film is executed by the director as he sees it, presenting his ideas. He says "to-may-to," we ask, "how do you pronounce it again?"

Man that's a lovely couple of hours spent on this short film. Glad to see you back Luke and I hope my replies are decent.

1. Do the first 20 seconds grab your attention?

Yes, because of the style and its effective setting of mood.

2. Do you think the External world is meant to disturb or be shocking? If so, does it work?

Disturb, no. Be shocking, yes. And it worked some of the time... when you couldn't tell what was coming next.

3. Is this a film that is meant for interpretation or should it speak for itself?

Interpretation. If everything in it should just be taken as is, I think it's too disjointed.

4. Do you think David o‘Reilley is a good filmmaker?

From this, it's hard to tell. No overarching story that he's telling, that we can judge his telling of.

5. Whether or not you actually liked the film, do you think it‘s a matter of the films quality or personal taste?
I did not particularly like it, but a lot of that is personal taste.

I did enjoy the movie. The film takes itself far too seriously and this is mostly to its credit. One of the bits (9:26) I felt was a little too direct and heavy handed but otherwise the deliberately pretentious tone works well.
I wrote two takes on the first 25 seconds: one after 25 seconds of viewing the film and again after watching the full movie.
1A. I am interested. Clearly establishing shots, it sets an expectation that the world is more important than the characters. Also the firm definition of visual aesthetic; so long as it remains constant I will accept the graphical limitations and style.
1B. The establishment of this as a normal day is interesting. I also like that the pace established here - slow and deliberate - remains despite the absurdist non-sequitors.
2. I think it was meant to disturb. The first pass at any of the scenes is comedic but the returns to them and ongoing effects from previous scenes casts a lens on events.
3. I think it lends itself to interpretation but not to an excellent degree. The ongoing scene with the boy and the piano teacher is clearly meant to be interpreted but when something is so clearly meant to be interpreted it feels more like the filmmaker is asking if you understand the message.
4. I think the director could be a good filmmaker but this is a small sample. Still the potential exists but I think that a collaborator would be wise; this kind of collection of shorts often demonstrates a lack of focus on a single story. For example: Douglas Adams was a lot like this and while I love his work even he admitted that he was practically allergic to telling complete stories.
5. Well a certain amount of taste is endemic to any judgement. Hamlet states "Nothing is good or ill but thinking makes it so." Like many minimalist animation styles the film remains consistent except when it deliberately breaks from itself. Ultimately, the quality of the film has only as much effect on the quality of the film as the viewer lets it.
A few asides:
The movie practically reeks of indifference to mass-market viability. This is not necessarily a bad thing.
The part of me that was interpreting the film wonders if I should take the subtitled creatures were speaking Japanese as a commentary on anime or if the language used was arbitrary. It works either way.

1)I live for weird shit like this. I have to say, the first thing I noticed is that unlike live action movies that use CG to replace practical effects & props, the weight-movement looks realistic here, like rotoscoping was involved.

2)It's a pretentious dark art comedy along the lines of MTV's "Liquid Television," Don Hertzfeldt's "Rejected," anything by Bill Plympton, & even less dark things like the art of Shel Silverstein.

3)Humans desperately want their to be a reason behind anything confusing & some people just like messing with other people's heads for kicks. It doesn't seem to have some hidden moral or story like Tale of Tale's "The Path," but I do detect hints of criticism of censorship & human behavior. For example, the cutter in the tub who was ignored by the high man could reflect how humans abstain from coming to the aid of others, telling themselves that it has nothing to do with them & they shouldn't get involved. It could be showing that it's a sick cruel crapsack world full of obscure perversions.

4)Can't judge a film maker on one film alone. Some develop a style, some progress, some regress.

5)I liked it personally, having grown up watching stuff like this, but it's definitely going to be a question of taste.

1. Yes the first 25 seconds grabbed my attention. I liked the look of the train (I'm always interested in what public transport looks like) and then my attention was grabbed by the piano piece.

2. I think it's intended to shock and disturb the viewer, in the sense of make them think. BUT I was more left confused and with a bad taste in my mouth, simply because imagery involving sex, food and excretion are all thrown together haphazardly with no obvious intent and I'm left thinking there is no point, no substance, and nothing to say. Frankly, I think this was all thrown together with no planning or thought behind it.

3. I think it's intended to make people come up with interpretations but I honestly see this as being bland and pointless. The best symbolism is imagery that people are aware of culturally and can relate to, even if it means some research on their part. Any imagery here is mostly related to video games, internet culture and I-don't-know-what, certainly nothing profound or worth thinking about in the context of this animation.

4. Judging by just this piece of work, I would say David O'Reilly is a good: director, producer, animator, editor. A script writer or storyteller he is not.

5. The film does nothing for me. Here's the thing, I liked elements of it. I like the animation, I liked some of the imagery, some of the sketches got a chuckle from me. But when it comes to all the vignettes and how they are pointlessly linked together, I'm reminded of bottom-of-the-barrel 'parodies' that you find on Newgrounds that rely on genitalia and LOLZ RANDOM for the laughs. (So to Newgrounds fans, yes I am aware there are quality videos on Newgrounds, TOME for example.)

I had mixed feelings about this one. There's times I would hate what's going on (ex.: a kid being head-slapped), but there's times I would laugh (even during some of the disturbing parts).

1. The first 20 seconds don't particularly grab my attention. It's not like it bored or alienated me or anything. It's that it could have gone either way. The first 20 seconds could have been taken out and it wouldn't have mattered to me much, if at all. I don't even know what to say about it otherwise.

2. I think it's meant to disturb and shock, in addition to humor, the viewers and to show a certain symbolism about how harsh and generally fucked-up the world can be.

3. In my opinion, this film is meant for interpretation. The symbolism from it could be interpreted differently with each person, depending on his or her values, attitudes, beliefs, life experiences and so on.

4. He's a good filmmaker in the sense that he does productions that are very "artsy" and humorous, yet tend to get shocking and/or disturbing at times. It's hard to say that he's not a good filmmaker when "good film-making" can be pretty subjective and he so happens to have a lot of fans who find his work both brilliant and hilarious.

5. I believe you need to have personal taste for his kind of films. He seems to produce stuff that goes beyond trying to be of "good quality", and instead tries to entertain and give a certain level of "artsy symbolism" to the viewer.

Here is my first post on TGWTG website. I have been here for a while, but I haven't created an account until now. Anyway, I would love to participate in this Audience Participation for this "Film Conscience".

Personally, I don't know what to say about "The External World". It is a mixed bag, while I find the movie interesting. I also don't really enjoy that much and would probably never watch it again. It is a rather confusing film.

1) Yeah, the first few seconds of the movie DID grab my attention. It sets up an atmosphere and has any interesting yet simple theme going on. It is just simple shots of an urban city and contrasts the insanity that comes afterwards.

2) Yeah, I believe the External World was made for shock value. I believe it works as they are some really strange and f**ked up things going on in this film. It is like South Park as it is a work that was probably made to push the limits of audacity. It is a work of art that is a disturbance of the mind.

3) I don’t believe this movie was meant to be interpreted. It really is just a series of disturbing yet random events. It speaks for itself as nothing but strange things flashing on the screen.

4) It really doesn’t show any filmmaking potential. Just random and disturbing bits being put together without any rhyme or reason. It is pretty much like "asdf movie" or "Robot Chicken" except those things were trying to be funny and I don't really know what to saw about this work. The animation isn’t bad but the film doesn’t give me time to appreciate it when besides the beginning, there isn’t a quiet moment where I can really enjoy the film. I don’t really enjoy this movie and I don't feel like watching it again.

5)A little bit of both but more of the latter, I don’t think the quality of the movie isn't that bad but I also don’t think the movie really appeals to me as a viewer. It isn’t like I don’t like disturbing or raunchy material, but I think this movie went a little too far. I guess the movie was trying to push the limits and I think that’s fine, but I guess I just can’t really enjoy it. That said this movie was an interesting one. The film has a little of things going on and frankly, I don't think I'll be forgetting about this movie for a long time. Even now, I don't really know what to say about it but it will definitely not be leaving my head, anytime soon.

I hope my opinion helps you, Luke. I am glad I was able to partcipate in this.

1. Yes, the first 25 seconds do grab my attention. Mostly because of the view we´re seeing and the music on the background, it makes you want to see what´s going to happen next.

2. Yes, I do think it´s meant to shock people. And boy, does it work! The strange imagery and the mostly uncomfortable "jokes" shocked me a lot.

3. Well, most of it I think it´s meant for interpretation but other stuff I think it´s just there to make the film more shocking and uncomfortable - there are some "cheap jokes" in there.

4. It´s hard to say, I did like the animation but the "story"... Not so much. For people that like this kind of stuff I´m sure he´s a good film-maker but for me? I´m not so sure.

5. I think it all depends on the person´s personal taste, I don´t think if this film had more quality people would like it better. It all depends on what a person likes, if you like strange and dark subjects the odds are you´ll probably like this. If you don´t then you should probably skip this film.

So, did I like this film or not?
Well... Though I did like the animation and some of the little stories in "The External World", I think, overall, it isn´t my piece of cake. Somethings in there just make me feel too uncomforable and others I think David O´reilly just made them to make it more "artsy" than anything.
But hey, if you like it, good for you. This film is just not my taste.

I liked the short film, I think it's strange and possibly is trying to say something, but whatever, it was enjoyable, funny at parts, a bit inspiring, definitely something new, I do although think that it's not something that only a few people could just make, I think that anyone creative could make this kind of stuff, possinly the movie was even trying to say that, actually I have no idea.

1. Yes, they do, probably because of the strange art style, that's the most obvious thing.
2. Yes, I think it does, and for most people it will for most scenes, I was only slightly disturbed or shocked
3. Maybe some of the people involved would like it to be interpreted, but I don't think a socio/political message was the main intention of the films production
4. Havn't seen any of his other stuff, but for this film I liked it enough to say yes, though I don't know if It would have kept my attention or patience for a feature length version of the thing.
5. I liked the humour in the external world, which is very subjective, and I didnt mind the weird randomness and found it quite interesting. Although I don't think it is everyone's cop of tea and I don't think the film really has too much 'quality' either. Definitely personal taste.

1. Does the first 25 seconds grab your attention?

That is now impossible to answer because watching the movie for the first time, and already knowing you want my opinion. I paid it significantly more attention than I would otherwise have done. It had my attention only because you had drawn my attention to it.

2. Do you think the External world is meant to disturb or shock? If so, does it work?

It touches on too many themes: drug use, casual & desensitized violence, murder, rape, inappropriate usage of religious symbolism. It's pretty obvious it's trying to disturb.

However being a net user for many years, i have almost become immune to all expressions of violence and hatred. So for me personaly, it doesn't work, it could have if it knew the right buttons to press. But that would have made this a much darker film, with a very different tone.

3. Is this a film that is meant for interpretation or should it speak for itself?

Why just two options? Why assume the film has a meaning at all? We can try to assign meaning to the film, but isn't that just us projecting our own world view and ethics into the scene in an attempt to make sense of it.

4. Do you think David o‘Reiley is a good filmmaker?

Depends on your criteria of good, for me, if i watched the movie all the way through that's something. I wasn't bored, but i wouldn't want to watch it again either. I feel indifferent to the movie, which has to be a point against it.

Would i watch other movies by David: yes.

Would i actively seek out other movies he made: no.

5. Whether or not you actually liked the film, do you think it‘s a matter of the films quality or personal taste?

I like surreal movies, so i guess i also enjoyed this, but I've seen this done better in other works, I would rate this below Salad Fingers (go check that out on newgrounds if you haven't seen it), and that's just my personal taste talking.

It's a film that very deliberately dares you to try and work out what has meaning and what doesn't. It combines incomprehensible madness and surreal comedy with very direct and confrontational social observation: everything in it is some sort of parody of the world we live in, nothing in it is comlpetely alien. I found it to be compulsive, unsettling viewing. I think the guy is a very good filmmaker, because this could very easily have come across like one of those awful "meme" cartoons: a fourth-rate don hertzfeld knock-off, but instead it is something much, much more.

I define art as a decision, or a series of decisions. I call it good art when you can see the effect these decisions have, even if you can't see the actual decisions. Such is the case here, the key word is "deliberate": The External World is superficially "random" but it clearly stirs us like only a cohesive work can.

Well this was an alright little thing, I thought it was pretty decent I suppose. I'm glad it didn't delve into pretension like it could have or this past hour would have been a lot more cinacale on my part.

1.Do the first 20 seconds grab your attention?

They do, but that's purely based on the animation. It has a lush but dank quality to it that certainly has a foreboding imagery about it but still contains an inviting quality to it.


2.Do you think the External world is meant to disturb or shocking? If so, does it work?

If it was meant to follow through on this, I really don’t think that was the intent. The downright delightful art style and animation removed any kind of uncomfortable feelings that could’ve arisen from a few of the moments that were potentially uncomfortable. However, these moments are pretty far and few between and most of the segments range between quaint and joyously dark yet very tongue and cheek at the same time. Most of the oddball scenes that seem to have the faintest intention of shock just kind of left me with a “okay, now proceed…” sort of feeling. It also kind of resembles an animation reel more than an intended film and seems more like dim entertainment and humor rather than intended satire most of the time.

3.Is this a film that is meant for interpretation or should it speak for itself?

In a way, the movie sort of puts a theme that it may or may not be trying to get across and blatantly inserts it into the movie. The scene with the parents looking over their son’s shoulder while he watches something inappropriate on the Internet, while all the father does is turn to his wife and says ”It’s just animation, it has no real effect on anyone,” could sort of make the argument in and of itself. The film is riddled with dark moments that might get a pass just because of the animation and how colorful/adorable the scenery tends to be. If you saw a guy splatter a dog with his car, then shove the soul back into the dog’s body and proceed to make out with it all acted out by people then it would probably get a very different reaction. However, whether David O’Rieley intended to get a message across or was possibly just taking cues from real life scenarios is a little hard to determine. Maybe the two are indistinguishable from each other and I’m just over analyzing though. I do know that many of the scenes do have some sort of meaning or potential for interpretation behind them and not all of the scenes are simply just animation for the sake of entertainment.
Also that bit with the guy in the animation tracking suit flipping off the guy fishing in the sewer? Seriously, what the hell WAS that?

4.Do you think David o‘Reiley is a good filmmaker?
This is a bit of a strange question to answer and if you’re simply judging from first glance, O’Reiley is closer to Don Hertzfeldt than a legitimate filmmaker. But as I feel that ...

...I might not have clarified by now, this is not just an animation reel. There is real meaning behind some of these scenes, some of them connect with each other, there are over-arching themes present throughout the whole thing that do create a sort of scatter plot of connection. In that respect he might be suitable for the title of filmmaker, but as a good filmmaker that might be a little more complicated. The movie looks good, it goes about at a fast pace but not so much as to confuse the audience, there are those elements hidden beneath the surface, and while I can safely say that I was never bored over the course of viewing, there are certainly a lot of moments where O’Reiley is not as clever as he thinks he is. Some of the scenes just rely on vulgar humor or thin pieces of satire present (whether intentional or not) and are just sort of there to pad time to the next segment. There are a few clever ones, such as the boy banging on a pot that becomes a museum display, but I would hesitate in saying that there would be potential to become a fan of O’Reiley’s filmmaking from watching this.

5.Whether or not you actually liked the film, do you think it‘s a matter of the films quality or personal taste?

Not even halfway through the movie the first comparison that popped into my head was the film Slacker. Upon deeper thinking about this, I realized that this could very easily be interpreted as a cartoon version of Slacker. Very few segments have ANY correlation with what came before, some segments had deeper meaning though many did not, and it’s all just sort of aimless happenings mashed together that we’re supposed to see cobbled together and call a film. However, I called this a CARTOON version of Slacker and not an animated version because this is that movie taken to its extreme. First off, let me say that I cannot STAND Slacker or its pseudo philosophical cousin Waking Life. I think that they are both totally abysmal pieces of cinema that I would never recommend that anyone should watch. But while this film has its fair share of aimlessness, bullshit, and other detestable elements of those films, where it rises above those other films is in the fact that it IS a cartoon. Things are more ridiculous, even when there are themes of reality or pseudo-messages onscreen, and things move so fast that things never even have a chance to drag on and bore or confuse you. It’s entertaining, while the other two films I mentioned simply aren’t.
Now for the relevance of that drawn out paragraph. Dictating by personal taste I probably shouldn’t like this movie, but I sort of do anyway. I mean, I probably won’t ever watch it again and if this was feature length I don’t think there’d be any chance of me seeing it, but I didn’t oppose sitting down and watching this all the way through. It’s ridiculous, non-sensacle and abysmal on its own sometimes but I still can’t say I didn’t enjoy it at least a little bit and if that’s true the...

...then the movie must be doing something right.

I...liked bits of it. Some moments were genuinely funny, others were just references, which I've stopped congratulating myself for understanding, and the rest was just mean spirited. Overall, no, but dude might have a future if he concentrated on one thing; humour or freakout.

Question 1: Kind of. It's a mess. The long pause makes me feel like he doesn't know what he's doing and I'm sure that's intentional. Either that or he thinks he's Lars Von Trier. Either way, I was expecting a mesmerising mess.

Question 2: I'm going to say... yes? It's no worse than a Looney Toon, but those were always pushing their lines. As to working, it mostly just made me feel sad. Like, "either I'm too jaded to be shocked by this crap or he genuinely thought this was funny rather than just painful."

Question 3: I think he was intending it to be interpreted. Personally, I don't think any film should be unable to stand on its own. That's a failure in your art. Based on that assumption, it's an objective failure [in that it fails the main objective of the media]

Question 4: I'm going to say, no, but he has some potential to make something worth watching in the future. The ending comes out of no-where and I'm not feeling inclined to analyze it, so it's just a "why" to me.

Question 5: Personal taste. I'm sure some people liked it. I'm sure some folks see more Monty Python in it than I do [I'm sure that's an influence].

Did I like it? Let's put it this way: I liked the British TV show Monkey Dust. This seemed like a poorly animated rip-off of Monkey Dust, not quite as funny or poignant. Given that the guy seems to actually be British, he may have actually been inspired by Monkey Dust.

Question 1: No, because it was just sort of...meh.

Question 2: I think it may have been, but in the same way Monkey Dust was. It was meant to shock in order to make us think.

Question 3: Most films are meant to be interpreted, even if they seem straightforward. This one, even more so.

Question 4: I don't think that I can answer this question based on this. Ask me again when he makes a film, rather than an episode of a dark sketch comedy show.

Question 5: As I said, I enjoy a better-executed version of this, so it is a matter of quality. And that's why I only think it's so-so.