Mrs. Jingles is a faux-sequel to the ever not-so-popular Mr. Jingles. This short film is a look at the pitfalls of indie filmmaking.


This film project is a consideration of the independent film making industry. As a person who is very much into independent (rather than mainstream) film for my own interest, I sometimes wonder how certain films that seem to have subpar qualities are able to make distribution.

In 2002, I saw a film called S.I.C.K. (Serial Insane Clown Killer). This film has a low production value, some of the worst acting, as well as the plot being shrouded behind loads of sex scenes. Needless to say, the film was a miss by my personal as well as general film standards.

In 2007, I saw a film called Mr. Jingles. The concept was very similar to S.I.C.K, and once again lacked the characteristics of a quality film. I wondered how this film was distributed, and topped my long-standing “worst film ever seen” list. I found out later the film was a sequel to S.I.C.K. also named 2 S.I.C.K. (If I had know that I would never had wasted my time or money). It struck me odd that a major distribution company like Lionsgate would distribute a film that boded such value. The question of how a sequel could survive the industry had me confused; yet interested.

There are a variety of indie horror films that work well. Those that have good production value or at least good plot , characters, dialogue, etc. Then there are the films that have such terrible production value, that they surpass bad, and find themselves back to a humorous standpoint. This is normally plotted under “Comedy-Horror”. Such was not the case with either of these films.

In order to expose the haphazardness of the distribution corporations based on production value, I made the film a trilogy with: Mrs. Jingles. In this film you will find all the major flaws with indie filmmaking that should have been caught by editors, directors, cast, distribution company, or anyone working on the film. By making Mrs. Jingles seemingly have good production value with the DVD Case, DVD Menu, Intro, etc. Often times consumers are tricked with eye-catching artwork and seemingly good plot description, so by using these tactics, I can expose the flaws in the film by creating very polar themes. This film was built from the ground up. I did the costume design, set design, music, filming, editing, etc. I tried to do this so over the top that it then became funny and thus more successful than the predecessors.

Outlined Flaws through discontinuity and flawed logic in plot & production. Some of these are more apparent than others.

  • Tripod can be seen in windows.
  • Mrs. Jingles wig can be found throughout the film in various places.
  • Justine exclaims she did not kill Mrs. Jingle’s husband (in a very serious and genuine tone), but her name was on the death note.
  • Various objects are in different places throughout shots (coats, clothing, etc.).
  • Final battle scene is in night vision and just before the chase scene; the two characters are wearing inside clothing – cut to them outside wearing winter clothing.
  • Circus Tent – can see cupboards that they were tacked to.
  • Can see me filming in the bathroom scene in the mirror.
  • During the chair death scene, audio is out of sync.

These are all just a few examples of conscious critique on distribution.  I did not want to just make a film that was a spoof of corny horror films, but the actual production and execution of a film, in general, and critique the almost trickery of the quality of work that is perceived and then executed to consumers. The distinguished appearance between a film meant to be satire and a film just going way beyond the cutting room is the point of Mrs. Jingles