Reviews for Night 1 of the Post Student Film Festival 2012

Before we begin, let's get that nifty disclaimer in here again:

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.

Also, to all the younger film students, I don’t know any of you personally, and am simply commenting on the films I saw. I assure you, no matter how “mean” I may seem in my reviews, I’m not a bad person. I promise, I’m not a bad man. I’m not a bad man! Help me Mommy!

Well, here we are. Another year, another night one of the Post student film festival, this year's night one being all non-thesis films. It was the year for stabbings, the year of Galjaar Nerway, and for me personally, my final year reviewing the Post film festival (at least, without being a pathetic douchebag). And after gazing upon all that the underclassmen had to offer in my final year as a college critic, I was reminded of that line from Eliot's "The Hollow Men", that this is how it ends, not with a bang but with a whimper. This was not a strong year for Post film by a long shot, and this saddens me greatly. It's not that the students are bereft of potential, but quite a bit of it was squandered, or risks were taken that didn't pan out. Though that is one thing that can be said for the underclassmen, or at least those who hail from overseas, they're not afraid to take risks. So without further ado, let's dive into Night 1:

Ok, with one bit of further ado. I realize these are some personal films, and some are documentaries, or based on people's lives. But I have to judge them as films, and so will likely come off at points as "soulless". Bear with me, I mean no offense to anyone. I promise.

Anita- Gina Massaro

The night opened on a documentary (of which there are an abundance this year, much to all our surprise). Anita is a ten minute documentary which fails to document much of anything. It fails to win the audience to its side of the issue, mainly because it's never very clear on what the issue even is. The film drifts into areas like domestic abuse, parenting, and drug addiction, without ever staying long enough on one subject to make any real point. It seems to almost be an attempt at merely introducing us to a person for ten minutes, and not a very exciting person at that. Just a person who suffered some hardships. So, why should we care? It's just a regular person. The same question could be posed of the critically divisive documentary Dear Zachary, but at least that film attempts to capture the audience's attention (and some would say manipulate their emotions) compositionally, which is the aspect in which Anita is most lacking. The film is divided into practically even thirds; one third is home video footage, one third are interviews with either Anita or her impossible to understand family, and one third are bland black title cards. It seems by the end title card (and one can only tell from the end title card) that the film attempts to shed light on the injustice of the child placement services, but the film spends not enough time on that subject to make an impact, nor enough time on its subjects to make us care about them.

33rd- LJ D'Arpa, Gina Massaro, Whitney Henry, Pat Douglas, Chris Suchy, TJ Waters, Dontae Hawkins

There were only two production lab films, and while neither was stellar, the weaker of the two ran first. Retreading familiar territory for a student film, 33rd tells the story of a young kid with a rough home life who meets a girl but is embarrassed by his family. Hey, at least they didn't try and make a movie with guns, right? The performances range from sub-par to serviceable, the one exception being Bill Kozy (who some may remember from last year's disappointing Ride Along) who gives a stand-out performance as the protagonist's junkie uncle. Nothing is stunning about 33rd, nor is anything horrific (though the cinematography was some of the worst of the night at times). 33rd is just sort of there. It was impossible not to feel a "been there, done that" vibe about the film. It broke no new ground, nor built on anything that had already been done.    It's a fine mixture of serviceable and forgettable.

The Burden- Queen Kim

A brief film about a language barrier amongst criminals, the film makes some strange choices, and is possessed of a style uniquely Kim's, undoubtedly, but I wasn't as smitten as the chuckling audience with the film. It's certainly and odd little film, though I can't say for certain if that's good or bad.

Swindlers- Michael Mirabella

A fun and inventive little Basic film, this is this year's Little Trumpet Player for me. The film takes the burden we all once bore, that of shooting a silent short, and presents a manner in which to do it to which we can all say "Well, why didn't I think of that?" It's visual style and editing choices make the film seem as though silence weren't a requirement but a stylistic choice.

Nazareth- Ian Boswell

In a night full of serious pretensions and dull dramas, sometimes it's nice when someone injects some sidesplitting sacrilege. A hilarious and well-put-together "trailer" for a Christ-themed blockbuster, Nazareth is undoubtedly one of the highlights of the night. It was well-edited, well shot, well written, and spits in the face of every single "deep artist" who made films of anguish and pain. Comedy in student films is rare, comedy done well is remarkable. Nazareth set itself apart in a nigt of students trying so hard to be original. And all with Harry Potter references and securing a place in hell. Bravo, Mr. Boswell, bravo.

Out of the Box-  Kyle Lorber, Connor Gaffey, TK Wu, James Stregelbauer

Out of the Box, a simple little film about a shut in, might be perhaps the best Advanced film of the night. Sure, it could do with some trimming, but overall the film tells a coherent story, with a deliberate pacing, and just because nothing goes 'splodey doesn't make it a boring film. The film matches it's ambition in its execution, with is an impressive achievement when compared to the other films of the night.

Good Samaritans- Ben Schlair

I loathe student documentaries. Let's just get that out there. They're very rarely worth a damn. In fact, in my entire time here at film school, there has been one documentary that has ever fully captured my attention, and that was 2010's DPA and OBI, a film about illegal street racing. Yet this year presented perhaps the most well-shot, well assembled documentary I've seen in my time here at Post. Good Samaritans sets out simply to discuss he increase in civil service enlistment after 9/11, and the first half of the film is sharply executed and quite engaging. It doesn't stay too long on the "talking heads" snippets, as do most student docs, and uses archival footage rather than some cheaply recorded voice-over. In fact, and I rarely say this, the first half of the film should have been longer. Especially since, had the first half been longer and given us more time to get emotionally attached to the subjects, it would have made the second half, a very music-video-esque awkward montage set to "Reckoner" by Radiohead, less insufferable. The film had just barely hooked us when it launched into its montage, and yet there was so much more to be said, it made the ending feel like a cop out. Though despite my reservations about it going all MTV montage at the end, the first half of Good Samaritans is highly worth watching.

Fortune Cookie- ?

A film thrown in last minute, Fortune Cookie isn't overly ambitious, nor does it retread the same territory as almost every other Intermediate film, i.e. murder or infidelity. It's premise is cute, it's precisely the length it needs to be, and its cast, comprised of film students, put out good performances that moved the plot along quite well. The film had some continuity errors, sure, but the only real flaw that it suffered from, though it is a big flaw, is that the entire film hinges on fortune cookie fortunes that were impossible to read, though one can infer the general idea of the messages. Fortune Cookie wasn't stellar, I'll grant you, but it was enjoyable for what it was, which was a flawed but admirable film.

The Actor- Chrissy Sire

How do you solve a problem like The Actor? The film is riddled with technical flaws and areas where potential is squandered. Yet the fact that it has noticeable potential to be squandered is a quality in The Actor I think many failed to notice. There's an undeniable ambition below the surface, an almost nameless quality it possesses that sort of seeps through little cracks in the chaos of the film's production flaws. To watch The Actor is like hearing a sweet melody hidden below the out-of-tune, feedback-laden thrashings of a middle school garage band. The story is engaging, and manages to be original without an ounce of pretension. The performances within the film all fluctuate from adequate to engaging, though the one stand out being Ray Fitzpatrick, whose form criminal compatriot to the protagonist steals every scene he appears in (also, the cameo from las year's Best Supporting winner Alan Bendich was appreciated). At times the actors were hard to understand, particularly Galjaar Nerway (who also wrote the film), who through a combination of mumbling and low audio made his character at times impossible to hear. Unfortunately, despite Galjaar delivering a very believable performance in the role, the film flounders in the area of its protagonist, insofar as the film never really developed his character. We're made to understand his conflict (does he pursue acting or crime?), but we're never really shown that he's conflicted. He's a comfortable criminal until fortune smiles on him, then he suddenly turns good. This character, who should be ripe with conflicting emotions, never lets us in, which makes his tragic end have far less impact, since we've never had the chance to empathize with him. The Actor is a peculiar kind of film that could have really worked in 10 minutes (without delving into any characters and simply making a parable of the plot) or more preferably 40 (really delving into the main character, helping build-up to the sudden, melodramatic ending, but more on that in a second), but at 20 it's a slowly paced film that squanders some opportunities to really connect to the protagonist. Combine this flaw with the sudden, inexplicable ending that throw even those of us who were with it the whole way for a loop of "Really?"; as well as the blah cinematography and the irritating editing (the film faded to black more times than the entire series of Lost), I should be decrying the film as an abject failure. And yet I'm not. Something about The Actor stays with me. Maybe it's the under-developed protagonist. In a typical student film, I'd be disinterested, yet here I genuinely want to know what's on the character's mind. I actively crave some sign of conflict. I care about the character, and whether that's due to the performance, the writing, or the directing, it's certainly something. As I said earlier, the film is ambitious without being pretentious, and has some indescribable quality that makes it worth watching. It's not a great film, but it could be the blueprint for one. It's as though one is looking at one of Seurat's early plans for one of his paintings. It could be the next "Sunday Afternoon...", and The Actor could, by learning from its mistakes and developing, be an engaging feature. Then again, that Seurat sketch could end up becoming nothing, and perhaps I'm one of the few who pushed aside all the soot covering the shine The Actor possessed, or perhaps I'm reading too much into a flawed film. Yet I don't think I am. There's an undeniable je ne sais quoi about the film, and that alone makes it worth the viewing. Though if it fades to black one more god damned time...

The Invitation- Tore Hynnekliev

You gotta hand it to Tore, he's a risk-taker. The film is nothing if not ambitious. Yet if you've ever wondered if a film can be both ridiculous and pretentious, here's your answer. You see, the film presents us with a man dealing with the death of his lover (every year there's at least one student film that attempts to exploit the audience's emotions with a "dead lover" movie. Very rarely is it greeted with anything but a numb gaze. This year was no exception), and so he celebrates their anniversary using mannequins. And...that's about it. We get the point with the first minute, but the film simply stays on this point for the next 10, with shot after shot of "Look, he thinks the mannequins are people!" "Look, he misses his dead lover!", to the point where my scalp was sore from how much it beat me over the head with its premise. And perhaps if the cinematography had been better, or it had been better edited, these scenes would have been engaging, but seeing as it was average on both counts, the film dragged a great deal, and its own self-importance made it laughable. The extremely predictable ending capped this slow experience off on a sour note. Though, to its credit, it was at least less laughable than 2010's Left in the Shadows, which dealt with a similar theme. 

Occupy Your Time- Rich DiLeo

When this screened at the festival, the filmmaker initially complained that they'd started it in the wrong -lace, and therefor they needed to rewind it back 30 seconds to the true beginning. I do so wish they hadn't. It would have spared me at least 30 seconds of the tedium and blaring music of this painfully simplistic piece.

Stockholm Igor Kvall- TK Wu

Well, if the title didn't tell you it was Swedish, the overall Bergman-esque tone sure would. Yet if it was Bergman, it was Bergman at his worst. All of the elements with none of the intrigue. It didn't help that the sound was atrocious, nor that white subtitles laid over a white dress makes for indecipherable dialogue to a non-Swedish speaking audience. Is this what foreign films feel like to the "I hate subtitles" set? Boring shots of boring people speaking a foreign language?

[Untitled]- Gary Malfa, Connor Gaffey, Pat Douglas, Christina Theodorou, Jeremy Benevides, Pat Madden

It would be unprofessional to say "Fuck this movie. It was pointless, simplistic to the point of being mind-numbing, and any time I thought the plot might go somewhere interesting, it just stayed stagnant.", so I won't. Granted, my own personal loathing for films that deal with kids or crime made this a double whammy of suckage for me from the start. Yet set that aside, it was still all around bland. The kind of film professors always say are great short films, yet nobody ever seems to like.

A Time To Remember- Mila Fontana, Mairi Morrison, Pat Douglas, Ryan Campbell, Ginna Massaro, Dani Teman, Chrissy Sire, Jared Gambino

Oh, hi, A Time to Remember. How's it going? Could...could I just get my ten minutes back? Thanks. My god, so many students films have tread that "dead lover" territory that they might as well just pave it over and make it a god damned highway. In all of the bland acting, bland cinematography, bland editing, and bland direction (not to mention the obnoxious "symbolism" of switching from black and white to color, and the atrocious appropriation of Leonard Cohen's "Hallelujah", a song about fucking, mind you. Seriously, don't use a pretty song to mask your lack of emotion within the film), its hard to notice that at its heart is a a cliche but sincere script. Quite honestly, I would have rather just watched the love story interwoven throughout the film than have to sit through all the bullshit mourning. Those scenes were actually fairly engaging. Yet A Time To Remember should stand as a testament that a good script does not mean a good film. Outside the writing, A Time To Remember is Murphy's Law incarnate. Everything that could go wrong did go wrong. I mean, when you have a less realistic vehicular homocide than Collision, you done goofed, my friends. You done goofed.

Wasted- Dontae Hawkins

As a treat, dear reader, I will type here verbatim my real-time notes during Wasted:


-Bad sound, but the film seems intriguing.
-Good idea interviewing people in a food court.
-Too much time spent on people in the food court.
-The voice-over narration is bland.
-I'm already bored.
-Good soundtrack.
-Note to self: Remember how bored you are and we're only a quarter of the way through.
-Doesn't know when to cut away from the interviews after they've said what's important.
-Alright, film, you've made your point. Time to end.
-Odd choice to cut two stills about the food kitchen for the ending.
-Oh, that wasn't the ending. This needs to stop.
-Holy shit.
-I'm about to go throw out a whole shopping cart worth of food, just to get revenge for this being 10 minutes longer than it needed to be.
-I am an angry person.

Goose Chase- Tore Hynekliev

Better shot, better scored, better edited, and 1000% less "artsy" and pretentious, Tore's second entry of the night shows where his real talent lies: Infusing a style and vision into otherwise simplistic work. In another person's hands Goose Chase would have been cutesy and bland, but through it's score and visual choices, it stand out and possesses a charm too few student films had that night. Sure, its symbolism with the geese is more of the bash you over the head material we found in The Invitation, but there's a sweetness and a humanity of which The Invitation was bereft that resides in Goose Chase. It was certainly one of the better films of the night, and shows real potential for its creator, so long as they avoid falling into the typical film school pretensions The Invitation stumbled through, and keeps their heart.

Did We Nail The Audition?- Robert LaRosa

For years, I've tried to criticize LaRosa films as I would any other, but with time I've realized that is impossible. There is a distinct style, a distinct language to LaRosa movies that is undeniable. Like Waters or Lynch or Bakshi, LaRosa sees the world in a much different way than anyone else, and good or bad, no one in this world could make films quite like he does. Bizarre is an understatement, as usual, with regards to the newest film, but unlike his takes on drama, LaRosa let his oddball nature fire at 110%, which results in a film uniquely his. LaRosa isn't even a filmmaker, honestly. One should dare lump him in that category, for that invites comparisons to more traditional filmmakers, and deprives one of truly experiencing his comedic films for what they are. LaRosa is a live-action cartoonist. Like the films of Ralph Bakshi or the Cerebus comics of Sim and Gerhard, Rob's backgrounds are photorealistic, but the characters who exist in them are nothing more than bizarre, colorful caricatures, and while for a normal film this would be a critique, with Rob's film it's high praise indeed. To even pick apart things like poor acting or odd shot choices, awkward dialogue or strange edits is to miss out. LaRosa's films are like Jodorowsky doing the Looney Tunes. You can pick it apart and wind up with nothing, or you can just buy the ticket, take the ride, and be in for something that, if nothing else, is one of a kind.

Something Waltz- Jeremiah Wenutu

You can't really criticize a two minute music video too much, and even if you could, in the case of Something Waltz, I wouldn't want to. It's a perfectly executed video to an incredibly catchy song.

Surprise Party- Conner Gaffey

I hate Tarantino. Not his films, but his influence. The myriad of film students who want to be like him, and just end up making shitty crime movies. Tarantino, in his films, communicates a certain spirit and art mixed in with his violent crime and non-linear structure. What we've got here is failure to communicate. A clear Quentin knock-off, it would have ben more engaging if I gave a damn about any of these characters, but the acting was for the most part so laughable that with the exception of the always captivating Galjaar and an engaging turn from James Stiegelbaeur (I've misspelled this man's name so many times, I don't even know when I'm right), it just feels like kids in suits playing cops and robbers. The only part of the film that had me engaged and didn't feel amateurish were the scenes involving the two cops, Galjaar and James. That should have been the focal point of the film, spare me the other story lines. There's obviously talent here, hopefully it avoids the pitfalls of trying to be cool in the future.

Rolled Out- Jae Kim

Nearly 12 hours later, and I still don't know how to feel about Rolled Out, the sleeper hit of the night. The film is practically a coin toss between well-shot but pretentious and preachy, and Beckett-esque genius. The characters barely move, the emotions of the actors (with a surprisingly captivating turn from Nick Young and Galjaar's best performance of the night) are stagnant, and they simply ruminate on the philosophy of art for 10 minutes, utilizing the framing device of a man being fired from a film for a drinking problem. At first I found the dialogue too direct, just going on and on about commercialism destroying art, but then I thought of My Dinner With Andre, or Waiting For Godot or the experimental theatre from which it stems. 


How can a film seemingly so direct that the characters say exactly that's on their minds (or perhaps act directly as mouthpieces for the director's own views, like some Socratic dialogue) be so open to interpretation? I have yet to even figure out who was right of the two speakers. Was the film saying that those worshipping the almighty dollar are ruining cinema, as Nick would suggest, or is it that Galjaar is in fact a rational, normal person seeing the downward spiral Nick's taking, and telling him to stop being such a self-important "deep artist" and, for lack of a better term, pull his head out of his ass? Is the film siding with the tortured artist, or mocking him? Surely, Nick's diatribes about commercialism destroying art seem valid, agreeable, and in step with the film school attitude, so it would be easy to draw that conclusion, but lines like Nick referring to the cast and crew with "I put up with them" throw a wrench into that whole interpretation. I don't know what the film is trying to say, if it's trying to say anything at all. I don't know if it's good or not, quite honestly. Perhaps it is just preachy, driving a point home with obnoxiously direct dialogue. Perhaps its attractive cinematography and smooth editing distract from an otherwise direct film, or inspire us to dig too deeply. Or maybe every little shot and sentence was carefully crafted to be cloaked in mystery. With Rolled Out, Jae Kim presents the audience with a puzzle which seems to grow more complex the more you try and assemble the pieces.

Being Frank- Galjaar Nerway

Sure, it felt like the 90th film to have a stabbing, and perhaps the writing felt awkward to some, but I utterly respected this film, it's singular take, its performance, it's look. The film proves you can make a compelling film in three minutes, and shows Mr. Nerway as one of the best of his year, both behind and in front of the camera.

My Picks for Night 1:

6 to see:

-Rolled Out

-Nazareth

-The Actor

-Goose Chase

-Good Samaritans

-Something Waltz (Or Did We Nail The Audition? for the adventurous)

6 to skip:

-[Untitled]

-A Time To Remember

-Occupy Your Time

-The Invitation

-Wasted

-Surprise Party

So there end the reviews of the 2012 C.W. Post Underclassmen film festival. A few highlights in an otherwise bland and pretentious year for film. Let's hope night two yields more quality, or at least more laughable crap-tastrophies (I was only afforded one burst of "holy shit" laughter last night), but we can't say for certain. All I know for sure is there will be less stabbing. 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.