MCN Blogs
Kim Voynar

By Kim Voynar Voynar@moviecitynews.com

Check this Out: Bedfellows

A short film really has to stand out from the pack to capture my attention. I’d like to say that I’m very good about seeing lots of shorts at fests, but honestly I’m not. There are always so many features vying for attention at festivals, and devoting a couple hours to sitting through a slew of shorts in the hopes that one or two might really be awesome tends to seem a daunting task in the middle of the insanely long work days the larger fests entail.

Which is why I’m very glad that Pierre Stefanos commented on my post last week about art versus commercial potential in indie filmmaking, and very kindly linked his name to the URL where I could find his short film, Bedfellows, on You Tube.

I’m writing about Bedfellows for a couple reasons. First, because it’s really an excellent piece of short film making: well-acted, well-executed, solid production value, and even very well edited (I was surprised to see Stefanos acted as his own editor, because I am not, as a general rule, in favor of that). The score is lovely and understated and lends itself well to the fairy-tale feel of this little story about finding love in a cynical world. It’s a “gay” film, I guess, in the sense that the characters are two gay guys, but its theme is so broadly universal that I’d hesitate to categorize it strictly as an LGBT film.

Part of why I don’t watch too many shorts these days is that so often, they just aren’t that good. Either the writing doesn’t lend itself to the limitations of short-form storytelling, or it looks like it was shot on someone’s early-aughts crappy camcorder, with little thought given to things like lighting and framing of shots, much less to how film necessitates telling a story not just with a script, but visually through the cinematography and editing. Bedfellows could maybe be derided by the cynical as being a little too “twee” (Gods, how I loathe that word), a little too gently optimistic. It’s certainly not what I would call “edgy,” but I liked it very much. Maybe you will, too.

The other reason I wanted to write about Bedfellows is that the director has done something I haven’t seen a whole lot of short filmmakers do: Found a way to make back at least some of what it cost to make it. Shorts are often made as calling cards, something that will get you to the point where you can kinda-sorta make a living off this whole filmmaking dream you have. Stefanos put Bedfellows out there as a rental on YouTube.

As of this writing, it’s had 502 views, counting my own. I paid $1.99 to rent it, because I was intrigued enough by what Stefanos had to actually say in his comment on my post to want to see what kind of film he’d made. (Important lesson here for other shorts directors: If you want a critic to notice your film, try saying something intelligent and articulate about the art or business of filmmaking when you post a link to your baby, rather than just sending an email saying “Please please please! Watch my short film!” It actually does make a difference, at least to me.)

Now I know you’re maybe asking yourself, “Why would I pay two bucks to see some guy’s short film, when I can see all kinds of stuff by directors whose names I know on Mubi/Netflix/for free.” And I hear you. But I also believe strongly in the vision of folks like Ted Hope for the creation of a strong, sustainable indie film community, and if I believe in that, I have to be willing to put my money where my mouth is, at least on occasion. I figure two bucks is less than what I shell out for a soy latte, and if that contribution helps a filmmaker whose work I like go on to make another film, well, awesome. That’s my ROI. You may disagree with me, and if so I’d love to hear from you in the comments. And if you have other ideas on how indie filmmakers can make money back on their films and keep making more, please, share away.

Meanwhile, here’s Pierre Stefanos’ Bedfellows, for your Monday morning viewing pleasure (WARNING: May not be completely SFW, especially if you work with homophobes or uptight types). You can watch the first two minutes for free, and then decide for yourself if he’s intrigued you enough to pay a couple bucks to watch the rest.

Be Sociable, Share!

2 Responses to “Check this Out: Bedfellows”

  1. Kim, thank you so much for these kind words about BEDFELLOWS. I am really honored for this lovely review and discussion about short films, and feel somewhat flush that my film or my earlier thoughts about distribution inspired it. I’m sure I speak for our hard-working cast and crew when I say we’re thrilled you enjoyed the film and put out such good word about it!

    Just want to let all know that, in addition to the YouTube rental site, BEDFELLOWS can be digitally downloaded from iTunes, via The Film Collaborative’s app ‘FestSelects’, as well being available on the First Run Features DVD, “Fest Selects: Best Gay Shorts, Vol. 1.” The BEDFELLOWS festival run isn’t finished yet, so everyone can keep track of the fall slate of U.S. and int’l fests on the Bedfellows Facebook and YouTube trailer sites! Hope everyone will check it out!

  2. pamela says:

    hi in my country is not available… please meaby you can help me to find another web where I can see the short… i´m very interesting. thanks.

    Pamela (Lima – Perú)

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon