The mistake you're making here is thinking that because your choice was intentional then that means it's automatically correct. There's absolutely no correlation between the intention of a choice and the quality of a choice. The claustrophobia, no matter how intentional, simply did not work at all for this short film. Admit that to yourself and you'll lean a lot.
If your reflex is to think that someone criticizing your work is purely and only rude then you're needlessly making it far more difficult for yourself to learn and improve. You're the only one with something to lose in this situation. By automatically ignoring helpful criticism then you're closing yourself off to getting better. Just ask yourself what the point is of you taking that mentality.
As to the comment that there is "no right or wrong way to do cinematography" then try shooting your next project on a GameBoy Advance and tossing the camera in the air wildly while the actors are doing their dialogue. If you're saying there's no wrong way to do cinematography then your footage will turn out great, right? So, obviously there are correct and incorrect choices to make. Go watch any good comedy made in the past 60 years and you'll see they don't film them in extreme close-up. It's because it's incorrect.
You guys should try listening to helpful criticisms!
Took probably three minutes to write it since your cinematography was so obviously not correct.
Unfortunate that it seems like you're choosing to ignore to valid criticism. Not a good mentality if you want to learn and improve. Good luck out there!
Too bad that none of the tech stuff you talked about mattered at all. 50% of the shots were completely wrong. All the shallow DOF close-ups were utterly wrong for the tone of this short. They didn't emphasize the comedy at all. The shots completely detracted from the performances. Would've been much better to stay on the medium shots. If you actually pay attention to most movies, they rarely use hyper shallow DOF at all and especially not on extreme close-ups.
Also a huge portion of cinematography is making sure the shots cut together well. You didn't really take this into consideration. Not necessarily your fault but there were a number of really bad editing mistakes but also your shots didn't all cut together very well. Think about this next time.
Also, aside from your shot compositions, your lighting was all wrong. Light sources coming from several different directions in the close-ups made it look confused and amateurish.
Whatever look you think you achieved by shooting with this camera was completely wrong for this. Should've shot on an S35 camera and put more time into refining the lighting.
Sorry. You should consider completely abandoning working with medium formats because it's clear you don't even understand shooting with any format at all. Best of luck.
You might've learned about the prep that goes into working on blockbusters but that has nothing to do with actually making a good short film.
It was shot fine but that's about it. Nothing the little girl did made sense. Holding up the toy gun when she saw the criminal was the most predictable, silly thing for her to do. How did she know to go get the alcohol and give it to him? Why didn't she just run away?
Also setting the story in the "future" so that you can have a contrived reason for the security system and the game system to be the same was laughable. Very silly for the girl to shut down the security system of the entire house so that she can turn off the parental lock in the game. Also just absurd the escaped convict sees the house has a security system and thinks that he can punch the input pad and that will shut off the security system entirely. Isn't this the future? Wouldn't he know that you can't do that?
Next time work on making the setup of your story and characters far less contrived. Audiences can easily see through things like that. Good luck.
Tarantino has no idea what he's talking about here really. If you turn on a random episode of CSI do you "want" the killer of that episode to kill someone? Sure but only because there would be no story or suspense if there wasn't a murder. So is that subversion on a massive level that happens week after week? He's deliberately conflating different things to seem smart. He was annoyed that he didn't like the movie at first then ended up liking this scene and had to explain it away with nonsense. Nothing profound here.