And it looks like there is a solid, black, plastic object that is sort of "leaning" away from his body, with wires trailing from it.
Could it be a walkie talkie? I heard they use these still on sets and makes sense in a secluded area.
It definitely could be. Maybe it was intended as an "easter egg"? You know, like how you can supposedly see "inappropriate" things in Disney films, such as the priest sprouting an erection
in The Little Mermaid
? Critics will be able to eternally point to that scene in the film, and no one will be able to tell whether it was a wireless mic, a 'walkie talkie,' or merely the ties from the Harris character's costume vest. I mean, has anyone from Disney ever officially stated/admitted that the priest really is getting a chubb? Can you dismiss it as just a "fold" in his vestments? In the end, everyone just eventually settles into a detente
where all parties wind up agreeing that, yes, there is some ambiguity at play. I think the challenge to the filmmakers going forward will be one of interpretation (this is allegedly a production supported by an organization that rather vainly calls itself "Interpreter"), or, rather, the control thereof. There are definite means of controlling whether or not viewers see--or *think* they see--a wireless mic clipped to the back of the Martin Harris actor's waistband. Indeed, those methods have been discussed--including CGI. But there is another, cheaper road forward, of course: one where you just shrug; or you try to say that anyone who makes this criticism is a "jerk"; or whatever else.
That said, just look at the clip/"trailer." There is no denying that, even if it *is* Harris' vest-tie, it's very easy to mistake it for something that contemporary viewers would have far more commonly seen--i.e., a wireless mic. I mean, I don't consider myself an expert on men's fashion--from any era--but I do believe that is the first back-laced vest I have ever seen on a man. And I know the basic premise is there (I can't help but think of that awesome, cream-colored suit jacket with back-belt that Jack Nicholson sports in an early scene in Chinatown
). So, I guess they've got to rely on the very dumb logic of filmic communication: Can they assume that, because they've shown an earlier scene w/ Harris running, and with (odd, to me at least) back-tied vest, that viewers will then continue to assume that back-tied vest w/ strings visible, is indeed the back-vest
, and not a goof-up on the part of the filmmakers, by "accidentally" leaving a wireless mic in the scene?
Look: this is a controllable thing. It's going to come down to how much they care. DCP can try to write us off as hostile "nobodies" if he wants. But if he does that, this ambiguity will remain in his film.
ETA: were requests for donations made at the end of the free panel event--i.e., the one that was not part of the official LDS Film Fest (which actually required the purchase of tickets(, but was "tacked on" to the end of it?
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14