h1

Mr. Hush

October 1, 2013

Give some thought to what’s going on in Mr. Hush and suggest some ideas of what you think it’s about, why you have your interpretation, and how the cinematography relates to it.

Advertisements

16 comments

  1. Mr Hush… Well the acting was so horrible at time it was hard to notice anything else. I like the idea that it’s a horror movie but at the same time they were also making fun of the idea of “horror” films. There was couple long distance shot in some scene of the movie, seeing the characters playing outside the house in the beginning, then at the waterfall dream scene.
    A lot of the movie have close up shot, and the camera following the actors/actress by running or moving up and down.
    The make-up for the vampire ending scene was very very dramatic and bad. But at the same time the over dramatic of it make that scene extremely funny.
    Camera focusing and blurring happens a lot during the movie, and the fact the the poke fun at the movies is not realize till the end of the movie make it very frustrating. I didn’t even pickup that the psycho was a vampire till the end. I sort of pick it up when he said he had to be ask to “enter the house” i thought he was a vampire but the rest of the movie it was so confusing that it was hard to guess until the end.


  2. In what was quite possibly the worst picture I have ever seen, Mr. Hush does nothing exceptional to stand out, other than being a pitiful attempt at entertainment. The audience has no idea what is going on until the end of the picture, when Mr. Hush is revealed to be a vampire. The make-up on the vampire was something the director should not be proud of, Its almost as the artist had their eyes closed while applying the make up. The cinematography in this movie was okay to say the least about it. The wide angle shots while conversations at tables were going on was interesting. Not even the cameras could hide the acting that was going on in this film. The director leads us on random journey’s then cuts us off with no lead what so ever, such as the random laughing.
    I really had no interpretation of this film through the first 3/4 of the movie. The only thing I could take from this movie is that the murders were obviously leading to something, although I don’t think anybody really knew what that was


  3. I don’t see the need to complain about acting, story, or anything like that. “Mr.Hush” , I believe is a satirical homage to the classic horror films of the 80’s. It’s not a film meant to be taken seriously, but to appreciate it for what it is really doing. Cheesy effects, make up, writing, acting, just like how some of the horror films were back then. Now days, we see a movie filmed in HD and expect inception. “Mr. Hush” was made just like an 80’s horror film, but we don’t appreciate it as much, due to our high expectations of what modern technology can produce for a film today. I admit , at first it was hard to interpret exactly what I was watching but it became clear enough to me in time. Looking back, clean to the title screen, the “M” in Mr. and “H” in hush, had the ends of their bottoms extended to look like fangs. Then when Mr.Hush arrives at Hollands door for the first time as the Reverend, if anyone knows a thing about classic vampires is that they can not just walts on in, they have to be personally invited in to the house of their victim. Right then I knew he was a vampire. Another indicator of what exactly I was watching was when Mr.Hush’s assitant was introduced. The actor who plays him is a Stephen Geoffreys, mainly known for his role in the original “Fright Night” horror film of the 80’s, which is also a vampire flick. In horror films depth of field is always a huge part of the movie. Often times things are left in the background out of focus , for us to try and catch, but at the same time be subtle. David Lee Madison over exaggerated the depth of field and focal lengths by constantly switching what was in focus. This being another play on horror films. It may not have the best acting but I can appreciate it for what it’s for.


  4. With the film Mr. Hush, I really didn’t know what to do with it until the very end. For most of the time, I was under the impression that it was an actual horror movie (albeit not well filmed or containing good acting). I really couldn’t piece anything together because there were no real clues as to the reason for the killings. The focus was, I believe, supposed to be narrow due to the shots always focusing on the middle ground only. Finally at the end of the film, the antagonist is revealed to be a vampire which explains all of the previous events. However, I still did not see the merit of this film as a horror film. As for it being a parody of a horror film, if that was the intent, the director did not do a good job of supporting it. I would not have thought of it if someone else hadn’t suggested it during class. Although that would explain the poor acting and basic camera shots plus the bad puns like “A vampire killed with his own bat,” I really do not think it was obvious that this film was either serious or a parody at first glance. Considering all the evidence, however, I would lean more towards parody rather than honest horror.


  5. After the first day of watching Mr. Hush, I wasn’t sure how I would describe it. I didn’t know if I would call it a horror film, or a comedy, or maybe something in between. I wouldn’t say I was scared by the film, but it definitely had the elements of a scary movie. By the end it became more obvious that Mr. Hush was a satire of a scary movie. I think it became obvious that the film was not meant to be taken seriously when we finally see that Mr. Hush is an exaggerated blue-skinned vampire. I think after that point in the movie, viewers know that it is ok to laugh and make fun of the idea a little bit. As far as cinematography, I noticed a few repeating patterns. One thing I noticed was that Holland was often shot in a close up. Also, a canted shot or tilted angle was used a lot when Stark was on screen. When discussing the cinematography, my group also commented on how there were not a lot of wide shots used and that most scenes focused on the characters themselves rather than the background. For the most part, I thought a lot of the shots used were fairly basic and that in some cases the shots used added to the humor of the movie, like towards the end when there is a quick extreme close up of Mr. Hush’s drooling vampire mouth. I don’t know if I would recommend Mr. Hush as a good movie to watch, but it was pretty entertaining and I did not find myself too bored while watching.


  6. With the bad acting and the terrible, jerky camera movements, it was easy to tell that this film was a satirical spin off of other horror films. There really was not anything particular going on in “Mr. Hush.” There was someone gonig around murdering people that we could have been trying to solve, but there didn’t seem to be a set plot. I noticed the director used a bunch of different depths of field. There were lots of scenes were there was a person in focus and a peroson blurred out. One example was when the vampire was stabbed, the piece of wood was in focus while the vampire was blurred out. There were little hints about the killer being a vampire throughout the movie, but they were poorly included. For example, when the Reverend showed up at the door, he needed to be invited in; vampires can’t just walk in. There were some scenes in the movie that I felt were just random, such as the flashback with his grandma. The director could have transitioned that better into the movie. It was a funny movie to watch, but it definitely needed some work.


  7. I noticed a lot of camera movement in Mr. Hush. For many of the conversations, the actor’s faces were filmed in close-up, and it appeared as if the camera was handheld. During these conversations, the shots cut back and forth from one actor to the next, and back again. Long shots were used primarily to establish setting, or to watch action during which there occurred no dialogue. This film also made use of a lot of camera angles — especially during the scene in which Mr. Hush’s lackey was running through the woods (for no reason in particular). Many shots were taken from extreme high and low angles, filtering through the trees or peering up from the ground, with a deep focus showing blurry rocks or grass in the foreground.


  8. If this film was a joke, I didn’t laugh. If the purpose of this film was to pay homage to cheesy horror movies, the filmmaker should’ve take notes from Sam Rami’s Evil Dead Trilogy or Robert Rodriquez’s Planet Terror. I honestly think they originally wanted it to be a legitimate horror film, but everything they realized how terrible everything was after they shot it, so they made it into a “farce.” In terms of cinematography, the film had WAY too much handheld shots. Why make it a handheld shot when the person is sitting still? Maybe I just don’t know anything about filmmaking.


    • I enjoyed this film more than Clerks. It had a bad campy feel and with the “you need to i nvite me in” I had a thought that it might invole vampiers or werewolves. In thinking about the cinamatography, it was boring enough to focus on it more so than if it was really good. It also adds a intoduction the editing if you think about it some.


  9. I did not notice this movie was a satire until closer to the end. I thought at the beginning it may have been but once I realized that nobody could make that bad of a movie and acting on accident I knew they were making fun of horror films over exaggerated nature. I laughed at the acting consistently as I think the director intended. The handheld shots really emphasized the ‘panic’ that some horror films try to emulate. The extreme close ups also proved useful for satirical purposes. The scene with the bat was also a joke in that the bat resembled a penis the way they framed the shot. I thought this movie served its purpose for making fun of horror films but I would have no desire to watch it again.


  10. Mr. Hush was very…..interesting to say the least. At first what I thought was just extremely bad acting I later took as intended acting. In the beginning I assumed that the movie was serious, but as soon as Mr. Hush turned into a vampire I reflected on the entire film up unto that point and suddenly felt as though it was intended to be a comedy, or mocking other horror films. (Like Dracula). I especially thought this when Mr. Hush made a joke after being stabbed “funny a vampire killed by his own bat.” The whole movie was poor quality and poor acting. This can be seen in the cinematography as well. There seems to have been no tripod used the entire film due to the shaky camera movements and unstable shots. The camera did however use allot of selective focusing and different depths of field. There were also a number of close up shots and switching back and fourth from face to face during a conversation. Also there were a number of extreme angles used from up above and down below throughout the film.


  11. At first I thought that Mr. Hush was about a man who had some type of connection to a sick killer who loved to torture him and this was backed up by the fact that his parents, his wife and girlfriend were all killed by the same person at different times in his life. While watching I found that the killer was actually a vampire which sheds light on why he is always drinking blood. I figured that the movie would deal with something supernatural because there was a lot of framing in the form of threes with the shots usually formed with two girls and a guy in the middle.


  12. MR. HUSH was a really bad movie. Reading the above interpretations was the 1st time I ever heard of this movie being satire. I agree with the above post where someone said they think they were making a serious horror movie and then when it was all cut together decided it was supposed to be satire because it was so bad (reminiscent of another film travesty, Tommy Wiseau’s THE ROOM). Acting: lame. Music: Painful. Cinematography: No idea what they were going for, what they got was crap (a simple ND filter would have helped the obviously tacked on ending), I’ll never forget the jarring effect of the husband and wife scene near the beginning in the kitchen with the camera swinging around everywhere. Sound: multiple blow-outs, was no one monitoring the levels? Yet MR. HUSH gets distro while many superior films lie in waiting, never to be seen. I refuse to believe this was a satire, non of it was even remotely entertaining or funny (good satire is funny), the film was promoted at horror conventions and on horror forums, the director wanted to make a horror film and failed.


  13. Personally, I was uncertain of what was going on throughout much of Mr. Hush until even after I watched it – I had to take some time to digest what I had seen. The acting was so atrocious to me, I still can’t decide if the actors were really good at acting poorly, or if they were just really, really bad. However, since the purpose of this post is to discuss the cinematography and how it relates to the story, I will get to that instead.
    To begin, I think the camera movements were deliberately dramatic in order to match the tone of the drama in the movie. Whenever bad things would be happening in Holland’s life, due to Mr. Hush’s vendetta against him, the camera would become quite shaky, representing the instability of Holland’s life. For example, whenever Mr. Hush makes his first appearance in the beginning you can really see the camera movements become more precarious whenever he takes the knife and murders Holland’s wife. Another interesting type of camera movements that Mr. Hush incorporated were a couple of shots which featured a subjective point of view. One of these shots took place in Holland’s dream scene, when he was running through the woods after his visit with young grandma, and the camera was bouncing up and down as if we were seeing things through Holland’s eyes, and we were running through the trees as well. The other scene that used a subjective point of view was similar to the one I just mentioned, but this scene featured Kat running to the sheriff’s office, with the camera bouncing, allowing us to see what Kat sees as she runs for help. I think that the point of using a subjective point of view in these spots helps to put the viewer in the action and helps them to experience the stress that the character is experiencing in the movie.
    Another technique that this movie utilized a lot was a shallow depth of field. At many different points in the movie when one character would be speaking, there would be a very shallow depth of field where only the speaking character is in focus. One example of this can be seen in the beginning when Holland and his wife are sitting in bed talking, in which the focus is on Holland and the wife is blurred out. Another example of shallow depth of focus is when Mr. Hush comes down the steps to the basement with a knife, and there is a close up shot and focus on the knife in which the background is blurred. A final example of a shot with a very shallow depth of field occurred in the basement, where there is a close up profile shot of Mr. Hush with the sharp focus exclusively on him as he speaks, so that in the background directly behind him you can just barely make out the extremely blurred out Holland tied to a pole and wriggling around. I think that the purpose of using a shallow depth of field in this movie is to help the viewer know what to focus on at certain times (and maybe to help distract from the bad acting).
    The final technique that I will be discussing that was used in Mr. Hush is camera angles, levels, and distances. At different points in the movie there were some high angle shots and low angle shots with the camera looking up or down on a character. One example of a high angle shot can be seen in when Holland is first seen tied up in the basement, and the camera angle is up high with the camera looking down on him. An example of a low angle shot can be seen when Mr. Hush’s assistant is running around outside, and there is a close up shot of his converse shoe from a low angle, looking up on him as he sneaks around. There are also some other types of camera angles used, including a canted, or dutch angle. An example of this type of angle can be seen when Mr. Hush has a knife to Kat’s throat while she is tied up in the basement with Holland, and the screen tilts as the intensity of the drama escalates. I think that these different types of angles and shots are used, similarly to the camera movements mentioned in the beginning, to help convey a sense of instability and stress.
    In conclusion, although Mr. Hush wasn’t my own personal favorite and I’m not sure exactly what they were getting at by making it, I do think that the cinematography was fairly well thought out and effective, and a good example to use for us to learn about the different aspects of cinematography.


  14. Thank you to all of the students who came out to see Brian and I lecture. We were overly impressed at how smart and passionate the students of IUP were. We hope you enjoyed it as much as we did.

    David Lee Madison
    Director
    Mr Hush


  15. Mr Hush was a very interesting film. There was not much substance to it at all and it was, in my opinion, very poorly done. The acting really didnt make much sense and the filming was poor as well. Now, to note on the shaky and weird filming, we could tell that it was a cheap, low budget spin off on the horror film industry. I believe that the reason reception was bad was because we dont see this cheesy, camp horror films much anymore and it is very stylized to the eighties and that what people sometimes expect. Another thing that threw me off was that there was much more close up facial shots than normal. This is something that we as audience members are not used seeing this and it can sometimes be jarring.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: