I support indie films, especially REAL indie films, like this one. But...should one 'give the benefit of the doubt' because a film is indie? 'Forgive certain weaknesses' due to its lack of funding? No, we can't. The film is thrown out there with the 'bigs' and no one (except actors and filmmakers) care HOW it was made: they only care whether the film works or not. Money has NEVER been necessary for this. Talent always has.
What should we expect of an indie film? Do we NEED poor lighting? Do we need, necessarily, a complete lack of aesthetic values? ...Of course not. Nothing stops a filmmaker making sure actors are not in a poor shadowed, back-lit light (sister and brother's walk in the park). Todays' cameras are able to catch the beauty of any light, even if one is Dogma-faithful. I don't remember that Dogma's dogma mentions 'though shalt make absolutely sure not a single picture is beautiful'. It's as though indie filmmakers feel they MUST avoid beauty at all costs (I refer, of course, even to 'rugged' beauty).
Do we expect the indie film story to be flawed? No. All it needs is to submit the film to a generous pro story writer. How are we supposed to feel empathy for the lead girl when she sees her so-called English teacher 'boyfriend' eating another females mouth, when there wasn't the shadow of an idea anywhere that they might have been together in any way. And she was way too level headed for a besotted 13 year-old type crush.
Does one expect fake blood to look ...completely fake in an indie film? No. Everyone filmmaker has a good recipe for fake blood, there was no need at all for that immense flaw. (blood is present 50% of the film).
Does one expect excruciatingly slow story development, insanely long walks from one building to the other, inane gazings-out-of-windows? No. Just show the film to a group of youngsters and they'll put you straight very soon! It feels as though the directors lack of scissors was very much present.
On the other hand. What we DO expect is poor acting. It wasn't the case. Not at all. It was both natural, and even very moving at time, if not funny, in the right places. Do we expect a star performance from the lead? No. But we get it here. Mark my words, this lead girl actress will move fast: she is wonderful, generous, sprightly, and tone-perfect nearly all the way through.
We also rarely expect to be moved by a hyper-indie film: I mean emotionally so, and not just pitifully so. But a couple of scenes in this film are exquisite, like the lead actress' call to her 'boyfriend' at the start of the film, or the rich uncles refusal of a loan: classic scenes, not at an indie level, at any level.
To conclude, a couple of personal taste points: we cant complain of the music: there is none. It's obviously a Dogma inspire decision, but a wrong one. Being a 'Dogma' film has never been a visiting card to anywhere (except Seville maybe). This film truly needed some musical foundation for the lengthy passages mentioned above. And...not specifically a criticism of this film but of SO MANY recent films... CAN YOU PLEASE STOP THIS ABSURD ZOOM-IN/ZOOM-OUT, Winterbottom, Greengrass-style hand-held camera movement!! It Doesn't look more 'real' and only creates severe seasickness and annoyance in the theater. Hand-held camera is just that, NOT specifically moving it on purpose to achieve 'realism'. Rapid zoom-in/zoom-out was an experiment, and a failed one, as so many reviews repeat over and over again regarding the two afore mentioned directors.
I'm a teacher, and this is the sort of work on which I would write 'real potential, poor presentation. Please try again. You are in university now, not high school'.
What should we expect of an indie film? Do we NEED poor lighting? Do we need, necessarily, a complete lack of aesthetic values? ...Of course not. Nothing stops a filmmaker making sure actors are not in a poor shadowed, back-lit light (sister and brother's walk in the park). Todays' cameras are able to catch the beauty of any light, even if one is Dogma-faithful. I don't remember that Dogma's dogma mentions 'though shalt make absolutely sure not a single picture is beautiful'. It's as though indie filmmakers feel they MUST avoid beauty at all costs (I refer, of course, even to 'rugged' beauty).
Do we expect the indie film story to be flawed? No. All it needs is to submit the film to a generous pro story writer. How are we supposed to feel empathy for the lead girl when she sees her so-called English teacher 'boyfriend' eating another females mouth, when there wasn't the shadow of an idea anywhere that they might have been together in any way. And she was way too level headed for a besotted 13 year-old type crush.
Does one expect fake blood to look ...completely fake in an indie film? No. Everyone filmmaker has a good recipe for fake blood, there was no need at all for that immense flaw. (blood is present 50% of the film).
Does one expect excruciatingly slow story development, insanely long walks from one building to the other, inane gazings-out-of-windows? No. Just show the film to a group of youngsters and they'll put you straight very soon! It feels as though the directors lack of scissors was very much present.
On the other hand. What we DO expect is poor acting. It wasn't the case. Not at all. It was both natural, and even very moving at time, if not funny, in the right places. Do we expect a star performance from the lead? No. But we get it here. Mark my words, this lead girl actress will move fast: she is wonderful, generous, sprightly, and tone-perfect nearly all the way through.
We also rarely expect to be moved by a hyper-indie film: I mean emotionally so, and not just pitifully so. But a couple of scenes in this film are exquisite, like the lead actress' call to her 'boyfriend' at the start of the film, or the rich uncles refusal of a loan: classic scenes, not at an indie level, at any level.
To conclude, a couple of personal taste points: we cant complain of the music: there is none. It's obviously a Dogma inspire decision, but a wrong one. Being a 'Dogma' film has never been a visiting card to anywhere (except Seville maybe). This film truly needed some musical foundation for the lengthy passages mentioned above. And...not specifically a criticism of this film but of SO MANY recent films... CAN YOU PLEASE STOP THIS ABSURD ZOOM-IN/ZOOM-OUT, Winterbottom, Greengrass-style hand-held camera movement!! It Doesn't look more 'real' and only creates severe seasickness and annoyance in the theater. Hand-held camera is just that, NOT specifically moving it on purpose to achieve 'realism'. Rapid zoom-in/zoom-out was an experiment, and a failed one, as so many reviews repeat over and over again regarding the two afore mentioned directors.
I'm a teacher, and this is the sort of work on which I would write 'real potential, poor presentation. Please try again. You are in university now, not high school'.
