I saw this film last night at the Midwest Indy Film Fest in Chicago. I commend the filmmakers on a beautiful and challenging story and wonderful execution. I strongly disagreed with the length and labored approach in the final edit. I agree with the director that languor and easy films are needed in our fast pace world, yet, here the length is doing your film a disservice. The film lover next to me fell asleep! I struggled to keep interested.<br /><br />As filmmakers you need to take a stand with your beliefs, but you need to realize the risks. Does this particular film need to be 39 minutes, 37, 22? Is that worth endearing the film to this part of the audience, while, this part of the audience falls asleep? I bring this up because I feel the film will lose nothing, and gain so much more, if it was tighter. The idea that you need a labored approach for this heavy theme is not a valid argument. Roman Polanski's "Two Men and a Wardrobe" is soaked with rich themes and is 15 minutes. Marcell Ivanyi's "Wind" is spell binding in the themes it introduces at 6 minutes.<br /><br />Ultimately, the short film is a unique artform, complex and ever changing. There is a certain social contract that exists between filmmaker and audience on what that artform is. What is the general public perception on the range of length of the short film artform? Do you feel the labored edit of your story is justified by the power of the third act and the direction of the characters arc? Why do some people enjoy the pace of "Lost in Translation" but fall asleep here? You can break those conditions whenever you like, and I hope you do, just recognize the risk.<br /><br />To end on a good note, I like your effort now; I'll love your film after a tighter edit.