Google Video. What is it? What does it do? It has google in the name, so it must be good… right?

Well, the service is, or will be. But most of the videos uploaded on it at the moment seem to be pretty lame. I came across a page today with links to what someone thought were a few of the more “fun” videos, and this was one of the links. I figured I’d share, but to be honest, I don’t know why. I mean, it isn’t fun, is it?

Well, okay. I do know why I wanted to share it. Fun or not, that video is a good example of what Son and Foe doesn’t like to see in our slush pile. Let me tell you why:

A few years ago, I remember that the Sci Fi Channel had a short, homemade video contest in which George Lucas acted as the judge. Lots of the videos were creative and entertaining and fun. The one that won was boring and inane–a computer-animated girl singing a schmaltzy song about something-or-another.

Let me revise that: a poorly animated girl singing a schmaltzy song about something-or-another that blew Mr. Lucas away. I’m not sure, but I think the whole event was part of the media blitz surrounding the release of the “first” Star Wars movie. What I do know is that there were only two possible explanations for Mr. Lucas’s decision:

1. George Lucas was bat-shit insane or

2. It was the only one of the entries that the new Star Wars movie could show up (because Star Wars had better textures on its 3-d models).

The movie I linked to earlier (and am linking to again here) is called “Attack of the Space Vampires.” It’s a short, 3-minute ditty that is similar to the one mentioned above–it’s a one trick pony, and a lousy trick at that.

That’s not to say it’s all bad: as part of the filmmaker’s learning experience, it may well be the best thing ever. You have to make a few mistakes first before you learn anything, right? Well, I do anyway. I guess the difference is that I don’t like showing my mistakes to other people.

Besides, it does do a few things right. First, it tells a story. As limited as it is, the actions in the film are enough to support at least three minutes of interested viewing. Another thing it has going for it is that it has an approach that it’s trying out, a technique. A mode. Most of all, it exists. Someone(s) got off their asses, got together, and made something. They deserve respect and admiration for that, if nothing else.

All that aside, though, the film does three things it shouldn’t do:

1. It sucks.

2. It’s bad.

3. It’s not good.

Why does it suck? Well, it manages to be boring with a length of 3 minutes. That’s tough to do, but not exactly an accomplishment. It also sucks because the majority of it consists of CGI scenes that are neither particularly well detailed or stylized, and not making any sort of point: they are necessary to tell the story, but if the only way you have to tell a particular story is a sucky way, then pick another story to tell.

Secondly, the bad: bad actors hamming it up in front of a blue screen with a bad script and bad costumes. Nothing is remotely clever, witty, dramatic, intense, suspenseful (etc.)–although on second thought, the costumes were pretty okay (particularly the mustache).

The most it attempts to achieve is humor, yet it fails because it thinks (for some reason) that people making funny faces at a camera is hilarious. Have you ever been at a family get-together and noticed a relative was filming a home movie and the camera was pointed right at you and you wondered what you should do for like, half a second, and then you did it?

I rest my case. Jim Carey made a fortune making stupid faces. Unfortunately, that means it has already been done–and he had a few other tricks up his sleeves, too.

So it sucks and it’s bad, but why the not-good?

Well, because you can’t just point to attributes (bad CGI, bad acting, heavy-handed humor, etc.) and reach a conclusion about the artistic value of a piece of art, or the entertainment value of a piece of entertainment. MST3K is great to watch precisely because it takes something that sucks and is bad, and makes it good. And there can be deeper levels to everything: Spinal Tap works as a band only because they are dysfunctional. Bush outsmarted everyone by pretending to be an idiot. Magicians make you look one direction, then punch you in the gut with their free hand and take your wallet and run away.

Something like that, anyway.

What it comes down to (and we’re moving away from the world of student films here, I admit) is that what makes Rembrandt a great artist isn’t that he had access to canvas and paint: it’s that he learned how to interpret the world in a way that other people find beautiful and fascinating. If you took away his paints and locked him in a cell with a box of eight Crayola crayons, all different shades of magenta, he would still end up creating masterpieces.

Dialogue, editing, originality, a solid story: these things cost nothing but time and experience, and they can make any movie, or story, worth watching just like George Lucas can’t anymore, or reading, like our submitters hope they have done.

In any case, don’t submit the written version of this film. Write it, by all means, and learn from it. Like this movie, it will probably have moments that are “heading in the right direction,” or even, like the mustache, “friggin’ awesome!” But if your story pretty much sucks, and is bad, hesitate before hitting the send button* unless you know for sure that it’s also really damn good.

(*Actually, feel free to send any old thing. We won’t hold it against you later on, and the worse a story is, the quicker we’re able to put it aside and move on to the next. No harm done.)

(Note: My brother thinks I’m an idiot for thinking something that attempted to be funny is bad, because “humor is one of the most subjective things ever OMFG!!!11.” For the record.)

(Addendum: This video of Russel Peters doing his standup act is great. It’s not all bad in Google Video-land.)