Disclaimer: I wrote these reviews for my own sake, and as there have been some interested parties, I have posted them here on my personal blog. Participants in the film festival are more than welcome to read these, but it should be warned across the board that I am not kind and complimentary in all my opinions. This is Read At Your Own Risk material, and are simply critiques of the film, and should in no way be perceived as personal attacks or insults at the individuals behind them.
It is my conviction that if we have any hope of breaking into an industry as competitive and vicious as the film industry, than we had ought to do our best to be as honest with each other as possible. It is unfair to any creative individual to coddle them and say "Good job" if that's not how we truly feel. Roger Ebert doesn't give out A's for effort, and we owe each other the same courtesy.
There is always a courage that comes with presenting something one has put their heart and soul into. Bearing one's creative products before a mass audience is an act which requires some level of bravery, and that bravery should be commended. However, that bravery stems from the fact that one bears their soul in the knowledge and awareness that their creative wok may be subject to ridicule and criticism. Take out the possibility of said ridicule or criticism, and you remove the bravery. And in removing criticism from a learning environment such as film school, you abolish any possibility of improvement. So it is with this sentiment in mind that I encourage those open to critiquing, no matter how harsh, to read on.
In addition to the usual warnings and disclaimers for the reviews, I feel the need to jump in yet again for this one. Because night 2 of the festival contained the Thesis films of my year. That means that for the most part these films were made by people I'd spent 4 years working side by side with, people I've grown with. These people are some of the best friends I've ever had. So I'm conflicted, because it would seem mean to critique their films, but it would be unfair to lie through my teeth and say I loved every minute of every one. So I'm faced with a conundrum. And then, of course, there's my readers to think about. All...what, like, 2 of you? Anyway, for three years now, film students have been able to come here and get an honest, unfiltered opinion their film. Am I always nice? No. Am I always right? Nah, there have been at least one or two films that time has altered my opinion on. But I'm always honest. And my hope is that it fosters honesty in everyone else, so that at the end of the festivals in the future, when people shake your hand and say "Good job", they mean that. So I implore all of you, my friends, to treat the critiques as such, and not as personal jabs, just as I will treat your films as just that, films, and not use them to attack you as a person. God knows, I've almost consistently given Rob LaRosa negative reviews (with the exception of this year's one-of-a-kind Did We Nail The Audition?) and yet he has continued to be one of my closest and most loyal friends. So, now on to the reviews (which, let's not forget, no one is required to read):
Polo, D.R.- Jess Frederickson
A warning to all documentarians: If you make a film about your family and the charitable work they do, you run the risk of coming off as self-important and narcissistic. Now, I personally know Jess, and she's far from narcissistic, and yet even I could shake the vibe at certain times. This little raincloud that dangles above makes it difficult to focus on the subject at hand, which is aid work in the Dominican Republic. On this subject, the film mixes interviews and on the scene footage in an engaging manner, but suffers from the fact that it runs in circles in regards to its topic. For example, the film repeatedly interviews an elderly Dominican woman, who simply speaks about getting her house repaired scene after scene after scene. Is Polo, D.R. a compelling film? If one can forbear that specter of self-importance, yes. Is it well directed? Absolutely. Well shot? Sure. But the editing is where it stumbles. I just kinda wanna jump in and jumble it around a bit. All of the pieces are there to make a great short documentary, there's just a much better way to assemble the puzzle.
Black Dawn- Marc Riou
Though Tilt of a Rose had (like Paige's thesis the year prior) to be run off of a laptop, it seems to me Black Dawn truly got the Raw Umber treatment (refer back to my comments on last year's festival for a better explanation of Raw Umber). Marc Riou, whose cinematography has never failed to garner heaps of praise in my past reviews, brought his A game with his thesis, doing some of his best work to date. It's undeniable that the man probably sees in film shots. Some men undress people with their eyes, Marc color corrects them. The opening sequence of Black Dawn, with its moving cameras and dream-like color creates a fascinating atmosphere and automatically makes an engaging film, a film which wears its influences (Hitchcock, early Nolan) on its sleeve with pride. Yet why I recall Raw Umber is that, like Raw Umber's 40 minute run-time was cut down to 20 because of this department's idea that "shorter is always better" (it's not) someone took a FCP razor blade tool to Black Dawn harshly, hacked it up, and left it wearing a Glasgow smile of incoherence. Those around me who'd worked on the film seemed perplexed that I barely understood it, but those who were in the same oblivious boat as me were lost at sea in Black Dawn. It was a mystery film that gave away its mystery too soon (we see the protagonist place a note in the back pocket of his lover, later we see him writing a note, so that when the twist is revealed that he's been writing the notes the whole time...we kinda knew that from the start), doesn't develop the mystery or the characters enough to make us care about the notes (it was originally something like double the length, and I can't help but feel as though had we had those extra minutes, we would have had time to be drawn in by the mystery. A good tale of intrigue is as much about making us dig for information as it is giving it to us), and the ending was far too abrupt to help the already lost make any sense of it. The "reveal" is so jumbled and rushed as to barely make sense, and the only thing we get from it was that he was planting the notes himself, which we sorta knew from the beginning, and the film never really shows us much of him being haunted by these notes, making it less of a compelling mystery and more a statement of fact.
There is such promise to Black Dawn, there really is. This is not The Screaming we're dealing with here, nor Left In The Shadows of yesteryear. It's twist can be a good one, its mysteries compelling, but only if the filmmakers remember that we don't know what they know. We don't go into the film knowing all its secrets, nor do we want to know right away. Black Dawn shouldn't be Inception, pumping us with info every 5 seconds. It should be like Memento, a slow burning piece of intrigue and style. It's got gorgeous cinematography, good performances (particularly a great turn from the female protagonist), and the makings of a very engaging story, if the filmmakers just let the plot breathe a bit. Give it back those extra minutes, please. Because right now Black Dawn feels like a game of Clue, where as soon as the board is set and the first dice roll occurs, somebody grabs the envelope from the center and tells us it was Colonel Mustard in the dining room with the pistol. A good mystery needs to build. Right now, Black Dawn is a mess, but if they let it breathe, and reject "shorter is better", I'm certain that new film will yield such cinematic pleasure that I implore my readers to keep a eye out for it.
Tilt of a Rose- Nugent Cantileno
Many a time, I've liked a film I've seen come out of Post. Occasionally I've been impressed by them. Very rarely am I blown away by a film. In fact, only twice. In 2010, it was Hansel & Gretel. In 2011, The Pornographer. This year, I stunned to find myself clutching the edge of my seat, ignoring the Quicktime timeline, forgetting I was watching a student film, forgetting I was even watching a film from this decade, getting lost in the brilliance of Tilt of a Rose. Cantileno's near flawless thesis was a crowd favorite, and it's easy to see why. Authentic, gorgeous cinematography, period-perfect style, a script with twists and turns at once classic and unexpected, and a cast who hits every beat of the film brilliantly. At times the editing strays from period authenticity, and the ending is a bit muddled, but even with those little stumbles, Tilt of a Rose is still the best, most ambitious thesis this year. With a film of this scale and style, it was go big or go home, and I had low expectations once I heard "period piece". Yet no matter how high I could have set the bar for my expectations of Tilt, the film would have leapt over it with the ease of an Olympic pole vaulter. Nearly every aspect of the film excels, even in areas it shouldn't have, like in the case of its leading actress. Clearly, from the dialogue and the setting, the role of Rose Rogers begs for Norma Desmond incarnate, a loud, vulgar lush. But instead, lead actress Suzanne Lenz never lets her vulnerability hide, even for a second. She starts out the film a sweet, dough-eyed girl, and ends it, not bitter, but clearly battered and beaten down. Yet while this isn't what the role seemingly calls for, Lenz's performance actually enhances the film. It helps the audience connect to this character, and see her less like a mad woman and more a mirror image of today's breakdown-prone female celebrities. The true star of the film, though, is the scenery. There has never been finer art direction in this school than what was on display in Tilt of a Rose, from the 40's film-esque rain storm, to the booze-bottle laden den, to the gorgeous bedroom with its ominous portrait. The film is a visual delight with a plot to match, and stands as an absolute must see of the night.
Us & Them- Carrie Ferrante
The clip from Us & Them screened last night (7 minutes of an hour long film) served several purposes. One is that it showcased some brilliant performances from its two lead actors, as well as quite possibly Ferrante's finest script to date. Another is that it wet the audience appetite for the feature. Though, finally, the main purpose it served for me was to remind me that short films need merely to hint at a bigger picture, not necessarily paint the entire thing in a few minutes. This short created enough drama and intrigue to make one crave the rest, and that's owed almost entirely to its two stellar actors, particularly it's lead actress Elizabeth Spano, from whom Ferrante's dialogue seems to just roll with ease, completely natural, as though the words were written just for her. Yes, without context, trying to follow the story is a bit disorienting, and to judge it as a big picture would shed a harsh light on it. But it was never the clip's intention to tell a whole story. Instead just to plant a seed in the viewers mind, to make them either crave the feature, or to create it in their own heads. And either way, I'm certain those viewers are in for a hell of a show.
The End of the Great American Business Man- Robert LaRosa
It happens all the time with movies, this strange phenomenon that just because a film deals with an emotional subject matter, we automatically assume it's good. That just because it has the potential for good drama, it is. That's how Life is Beautiful got an Oscar, that's how The Blind Side received critical acclaim. It always happens, even on a small scale here at Post. Last night, I seemed to be the only person who wasn't smitten with The End of the Great American Business Man. I appreciate that it dealt with a heartbreaking issue, and I appreciate the sincerity that was obviously there. I will also gladly concede that this is a far better film than Rob's previous dramas (Collision and Fixation), and that his heart and soul burn in every frame. However, Business Man is a decidedly average film that dips far too often into the realm of the melodramatic. The characters are under-developed (originally the film was double the length, and perhaps the characters would have more dimension if the film hadn't fallen prey to "shorter is better"), the cinematography, while crisp, feels a bit detached at times, the ending is abrupt and awkward with almost no resolution, and the script falters here and there, with characters consistently saying exactly what's on their minds. Yet all these transgressions could have been forgivable if the performances weren't so wooden. With the exception of Sara Percival, who appears as the fiancé of the main character, the actors all are bereft of sincerity in their performances. There's only one scene in the entire film where I can believe that even one character is an actual human being, and that's when the protagonist, John, stands, tears in his eyes, outside his former workplace. Beyond that, the acting is so mechanical it sours the whole film for me.
Unless, of course, I'm viewing it wrong. Perhaps LaRosa is taking a Cassavettes-esuqe approach, his film not meant to be realistic, but rather a Norman Rockwell painting gone wrong. Taking the bland, lifeless performances often given by the "ideal American family" movies and plays of yore, and turning it on its side. Perhaps the title, "The End of the Great American Business Man" is an indication that John isn't meant to be a real individual at all. That he is merely a symbol of the American Dream incarnate. That every fake feeling moment is meant to parallel those artificial moments in the Leave It To Beaver, Norman Rockwell ideal America we once believed in. That John Miller is the new everyman, that his life is what has become of the ideal American Family. That the American Dream is a bleak, bitter lie, a perpetual downward spiral where hope rises but never pays what it promises.
Or perhaps I'm reading too into it, and it's just an average film. Whatever.
Sins of the Father- Jae Kim
Jae Kim, like his idol Mr. Scorsese, has never been one to shy away from religion in his work. One of his earliest films was a man frustrated by the lack of respect for God in his church. Even Shadowplay is riddled with religious imagery. Yet never has the religious aspect been so prominent, nor so accessible, as in Sins of the Father. The story is of a priest who loses faith (if he ever had it at all) and quits the priesthood to look after his father, recently released from prison. The priest, played by Lance Marshall, plays the part well, but it's the father, David Woodrow, who steals the show. The man's as gritty and real as the atmosphere the film's brilliantly passive cinematography (shot by Galjaar Nerway, who apparently can't suck at god damned anything) creates, and elevates what would have been an engaging, meditative film to brilliant heights. The film sets a bleak tone from its start, and never lets it go, depriving us of the cliche epiphany to instead give us a man who starts and ends in the same place, drifting listlessly, searching for something to hold on to, and have a glimmer of purpose on the horizon. Yes, the Catholic guilt aspect of the film is on the surface, but dig deeper, and the priest isn't necessarily wrestling with faith in God. He is us, all of us who have ever struggled for purpose. His service to a heavenly father is only to fill the void of his own, and both "father figures" stand simply to give him some sort of goal, since he has nothing to want for himself. The film brilliantly hints at details it thankfully never sours the tone by delving into, such as the priest's alcoholism, the alter boy's (and perhaps even the priest's) closeted homosexuality, and his horrific childhood. Sins of the Father is a brilliantly, deliberately paced movie, and truly a work of art that's as accessible as it is personal.
Opportunity- Chris Jakobsen, Jae Kim, Galjaar Nerway, Nick Young
Opportunity is a brilliantly composed documentary on a fascinating subject, but while it sheds light on a topic very few even think about, it rotates between three individuals, students from Sweden, China and Malaysia, who all reiterate the same points. The Malaysian girl likes working in America, and doesn't want to go back; the Swedish man walks us through the immigration process; the Chinese student feels isolated. The film is engaging visually through its entire run-time, but makes it's point about halfway through. This is perhaps the one case where the "shorter is better" rule would apply. Compositionally the best documentary I've seen in this school, but perhaps a bit too redundant, and maybe a little too detached, to really make the impact it wanted to.
La Misfit- Alan R. Holloway
La Misfit is what its title suggests: a misfit. It stood out in the festival, for reasons both good and bad. It had an interesting idea, and a simple story that could have really hooked people, but a combination of miscast roles, dull performances, strange pacing, and weak cinematography (from the otherwise constant Marc Riou. And yes, before someone comments, it is like finding out there's no Santa Claus for me), La Misfit seems like the film was put together with 25% of the effort it deserved. I'll be honest, I believe in La Misfit. Did it work? No. But if I could grant two films do-overs this year, it would be The Actor and La Misfit. And I'll tell you why: Janey Gemmell. For me, she saved the film from utter mediocrity, because while at times no one else on either side of the camera seemed to really give a damn, she gave it her all. Streep 2.0 she may not be, but there was a commitment within her performance that help capture my attention, and helped me notice the potential beneath the rush-job chaos. Yes, the film is flawed in many ways. The imaginary friend role could have been far more animated, and since it wasn't, the times when that character was on screen slowed the pacing exponentially. There's a subplot with a girl attempting to seduce the Janey's love interest which could have been fleshed out more, and at times the film loses its footing, like when its score kicks in, and has the vibe of an 80's direct-to-video edu-tainment film. Yet thanks to Janey, and the character she brings to life, a character with more dimension than some of the bigger, more well composed films of the night, a few key editing choices, and a few moments of real emotion from her help smooth out the bumps and make elements that would otherwise make a train-wreck sort of form...well, a misfit. If the films in the film festival are all well-trained athletes, competing for who is the most perfect, La Misfit sits in a corner, picking up the towels, gazing from a distance in a strange little hat. It's an imperfect film, for sure. I'm not going to sit here and tell you La Misfit necessarily deserves your love and attention. It has a laundry list of flaws that make it falter. What I will say is that La Misfit does deserve something: A second chance. If the director ever decides to give it another go, he'd have my full support. There'd be a lot of changes to make, a total overhaul almost. But if he does, I pray he listens to one piece of advice if nothing else. Keep Janey Gemmell. It's because of her that I believe in La Misfit.
Praxis and I- Jerry Wenutu
What a curious little thing Praxis and I is. Well, not little, since it clocks in at 19 minutes, which is a tad more than it should. But it is curious. Undoubtedly the documentary that feels the most thrown together, it's also one of the best. It stands in direct contrast to the other documentary highlight, Opportunity. Everything sleek about Opportunity is met with chaos in Praxis and I, and it works. Because where Opportunity felt detached, Praxis was truly in the moment, capturing a cultural movement from a vantage point as both a member (Jerry visited the Occupy Wall Street protests) and a leader (launching an Occupy Post campaign). It's difficult to separate personal politics from a documentary so politically charged, but I can at least say that Praxis would benefit from trimming some of the more crazy footage. If you're trying to show that the Occupy movement is an important and serious social event, don't show me the crazy woman screaming about how her ancestors were slaves and she wants reparations. The actual people interviewed for the documentary are calm, rational and engaging people. There's no need to give in to sensation. Those stereotypes of the crazy, left-wing hippie need to be overcome, not fed into. Yet when Praxis is on its game, truly documenting the movement, and not the outlying whackjobs, it's spot on. Jerry's passion is prevalent in the documentary, and it captures a spirit no other doc here at Post ever has, and not a lot even out in the real world do. The segments on the semi-childish "Occupy Post" movement could be trimmed down, as it trivializes the actual Occupy movement, and feeds into the idea that the Occupiers in Zuccoti Park are all spoiled college kids. The documentary needs to focus more on the diverse protestors, and be careful not to give the movement's opposition fodder to shoot them down. Because clearly the documentary has an agenda, and I'd rather just see it sharpen its weapons than try and be objective. This could be a great time capsule, if only it knew exactly what to capture.
Bloom- Thomas Waters
Bloom is bad. Let's just get that out of the way. It's boring, overly long, and the only thing that even vaguely saves it is the acting. It's not even one of the movies that's fun to hate. I have no passion to even rip it to shreds. It's just a lame duck, drifting through the viewers consciousness for a few minutes before fading into the realm of forgotten films. Any rage I may have had towards Bloom for robbing me of some precious minutes would come out later, but more on that in a moment. Let's first discuss something that was the very opposite of Bloom...
Sleepwalker- Petter Holmsen
Brilliant. There's little other way to describe it. This stellar film transcended the realm of student films and is undoubtedly the best non-thesis film I've ever seen. Sure, it does the stabbing thing every non-thesis film seemed to do, but I'll forgive it, because everything from the script, to the acting, to the cinematography and the editing was flawless. When Jon Stewart review the 2011 musical The Book of Mormon, he claimed "It's so good it makes me angry", and there's no better way to sum up my feelings on Sleepwalker. It's a phenomenal film, the kind you don't see often, and I'm glad it happened while I was here to see it. Petter, if you're reading this, listen to me: If anyone tells you it's "too long" or to make any drastic changes to the film you've made, call me. Anytime. Day or night. Because I will gladly tell that person to go fuck themselves.
The Next Four Days- Ryan Markoe
Loaded. Black Friday. Claire. The Predator's Prey. Harvest. Carousel.
Above are what I like to call "The Sinister Six". These are, without a doubt, the six worst movies I've ever suffered through here at Post. Each contains horrific writing; from there the flaws can range from terrible acting, visionless directing, nauseating cinematography, or just a general lack of any god damned coherence. Why do I bring them up here? Because The Next Four Days might rule as their king.
Not because any one element of The Next Four Days is worse than the worst of the Sinister Six, but because of the length. This train-wreck robbed me of 30 minutes of my life, and I am out for blood. The story of two kids mixed up with drugs, I've never more prayed for someone to overdose in my life. And yet somehow I doubt that if they both dropped to the ground and twitched whilst foaming at the mouth, I couldn't be brought to give a damn. Honestly, their heads could explode, and it wouldn't interest me. The pacing was horrific, the editing choices littered the film with insanely unnecessary scenes, and the film took such odd turns with such lifeless suburbanite characters that it felt like Bellflower's afterbirth. It was painful. Every minute the film ran on. Perhaps, just perhaps, the film could be saved with a shit ton of editing, but even the most skilled Final Cut surgeon might not be able to help too much.
Can we also mention my damn near sea-sickness from the cinematography? It's like every scene was shot like a fight scene in the shitty new Bond films. Was the camera man actually hopped up on drugs when he filmed it? That would explain just how god damned shaky it was.
I'm not alone here. After the ten minute mark, the phones came out and a symphony of whispers and giggles filed the room. 30 minutes is way too long for nothing to happen, and it felt like 29 of those minutes was the absurdly long chase scene, wherein the protagonist repeatedly hurls a laptop that he literally broke into a home to steal, regardless of the fact that he probably shattered said laptop several times.
And should we even get into the "fuck" issue? The film had the characters say it so many times my row in the theatre had concocted a drinking game for it, but we realized had we actually consumed alcohol, we'd have to have our stomachs pumped by the midpoint. Hell, if we'd actually even committed enough to take a drink of water every time they said "fuck", we would have drowned.
If it were 10 minutes, I could have dealt with it. It would have fallen in with Fall and Welcome Back in forgettable crap. But no. 30 minutes. The longest film in the festival, and undoubtedly the worst. Not one soul in that theatre didn't die a little during that obnoxiously long, poorly planned chase scene, and I feel I could rant for hours about it, and not feel any better.
I'm honestly not trying to insult the filmmaker. I'm sure he worked hard on it. And as I said, maybe with a lot of editing it can be salvaged. But I sat amongst the crowd. I felt the boredom and frustration. It needs to be said, so that it might help. And lord I pray it does. But until then, all hail the king of the Sinister Six!
My picks for Night 2:
3 to See:
-Sleepwalker
-Tilt of a Rose
-Sins of the Father
3 to Skip:
-The Next Four Days
-Bloom
-Polo, D.R.
And, well, 1 to skip in favor of seeing the feature:
-Us & Them
So there end the reviews of the 2012 C.W. Post Thesis film festival. It's all over now. I shall never again review another Post student film, and it saddens me that my last ever review had to be so harsh. And I was just saying the other day how my reviews had mellowed out. Once again, this was intended as healthy criticism, and was not meant to make anyone cry. I welcome all disagreements and commentary (beyond "You suck") and encourage a healthy dialogue, as that is the only way we are going to improve. There's a comments section for a reason, folks!
But seriously, thank you all for four years of good and bad. To quote the great Jerry Garcia, what a long, strange trip it's been.
