|
SENEF 2004 - DIGITAL EXPRESS - COMPETITION - FILM NOTES by Al Razutis: (Reference notes taken in order of viewing.)
Scripted drama – shot in low-resolution video – home movie look – multi-screen throughout. Plot revolves around family breakup, faked kidnapping, loss of sister, recollections of surviving sister. Simultaneous (family member) points of view represented in each screen, sometimes same action represented in different frames, gives way to simultaneous and disjointed (in time / space) points of view of the ‘narrator’ (as storyteller). Opening parts are very interesting (simultaneous family member points of view). Kidnapping scene is compelling. But ‘scary ghost’ sequences are kitch and fake. The ‘old couple’ is terrible (acting). Then, later in the film some multi-screen content borders on ‘arbitrary’, shifting in point of view (arbitrarily), moving from subjective (character view) to objective (narrator view). The multi-screen strategy seems at times amateurish, ultimately it becomes it’s own subject where the ‘technique’ takes over - including a 42 screen mosaic which makes no sense. The ending (‘what happened to the sister’: did she come back, did she ‘never come back’ – says the grown up sister) is rather clumsy, not believable, and the film becomes lost in its own lack of resolution of the questions it puts forth in the first place. Scripted drama – shot in low-resolution video – dysfunctional family going through a countdown to X-mas day. Plot revolves around poles of alienation, anger, boredom, intoxication, and ends with a (off screen) speech by the Queen on the subject of ‘family values’. Shot like a cross between home movie and straight drama. The narrative format (style) is quite conventional although the use of DV portable camera makes it possible to get 'close' (and unnerving). Terrible lighting: blown out car backgrounds, motorcycle backgrounds, dark threesome in car, family watching tv -- needs ‘fill light’ or ‘reflectors’ (basic cinematography) for fill. No reason for bad lighting which then becomes a 'topic' in itself and distracts from the rest of the content. Generally: a good study, tense drama, well scripted, reasonably well acted, reasonably directed and edited, but the bad lighting is annoying throughout. Tight, scripted, sparse in dialog drama, set in austere sets, long takes, formal compositions, ‘black and white’ (or sepia) look, dealing with the lives of two (main) characters – interlinked – and each on a kind of ‘voyage’ (to nowhere). Set in contemporary city environs, each character undergoes long pauses, waiting, periods of boredom (even the work is boring, not compelling) and the film attempts to convey the modern equivalent of urban alienation. Interesting film. Competent direction, good acting, good cinematography and editing. Should be short-listed for a prize. A scripted drama with symbolic – philosophical intentions, apparently made for an academic (department) audience. The worst film of the juried section: Terrible direction, ponderous script, non-sequiturs, actors awful, characters not clearly introduced, terrible editing, cliché effects–transitions, cinematography and lighting generally poor, art direction is awful. Problems start with the poor acting (female boss) in the opening factory scene. Flute player out of sync. 1st father voice over terribly acted. Interior of train is badly lit (for a ‘moving’ train) and the performances of the ‘men of the night’ are ridiculously bad, everyone ‘poses’ and watches as one of the men ‘expounds’ (not acts) on a ponderous subject pulled from literary works. Overly theatrical – student-like production – featuring bad actors, dance department dancers, terrible sets, cliché step printing of dancers and torch dancers, and the plot announcements that this is a journey into the ‘fourth dimension’, the non-sequiturs, the contradictions in the script, the inability to deliver a dramatic presence, or the ending that suggests that this was a ‘dream’ and journey into a ‘new dimension’ is absurd. This film should never have been a ‘finalist'. How it got major funding (national grant organizations) is beyond me; likely the reference letters and networked theorist cabal would provide clue. Good teachers don't make good films. Additional comments on 9 pages of notes. Tight drama shot in a ‘cinema verite’ style with multiple (parallel) narratives, relating to the stories of three principal females whose lives intersect. Tight drama, very good cinematography and editing, great script, good acting, good directing, message is ‘political’ as well as social: time for a change. Beginning music audition sets the tone – tight acting and editing. Nervous breakdown sets the stage for the tragic events as they unfold. Captures the ‘macho’ Cuban society, the women’s lives, their intersections. This film should be a PRIZE WINNER. A ‘docu-dramatic’ film shot like a home movie with extreme close-ups, out of focus, shaky-cam, passing the camera back and forth, improvisational lines (after the scene is set), a lot of ‘bad cinematography’ (its style), night-vision look, and direct address to the camera. Not a prize winner in my opinion. Opening sequence (reverse childbirth) is interesting but appears to be stock footage. Jerky scenes throughout (after the beginning – taxi – sequence), all hand held, very little editing within the ‘scene’, long out of focus sequences (girl with the cat), improvisational dialog and a sense of ‘where is it going’. The girl wants to find her ex-boyfriend, older guy wants to hustle her, some revelations of muslim society, but then the cinematography (out of focus, jerky, unframed, random) becomes annoying and wrecks the film. Ends with carwash, song, gas station, bridge, ‘click to normal exposure’ (from night shot) and the line: “I am born, I will die, I was dreaming, I was asleep, I was dreaming”. What does that mean? After the film meanders its way to conclusion, the philosophical – social arguments become rather meaningless: ‘so what?’ A socio-political drama set against the backdrop of 9-11 and a question about terrorism and friendship. Script and acting is good, direction is good, camera is slightly home-movie, and narrative proceeds with flashbacks to ‘pre 9-11’. In comparison to ‘7 Days’ it is not as good in all aspects. Main weaknesses of the film: There is a sense of familiarity in the mystery (the suspicion that the Yunis character is a terrorist) in that the details of his disappearances, his activities are reminiscent of news stories of the actual 9-11 hi-jackers. Thus, the ‘mystery’ is not as mysterious, and seems slightly contrived. The message of alienation and suspicion in the post-9-11 era is well taken. Additional notes: interesting grain and out of focus effects. Maybe a special prize winner? Certainly not a main prize winner. A docu-dramatic type of film, shot with mini-cam, with lots of extreme close-ups, of three children and their lives without parents in Paris. Intimate camera work, cinema verite, point of view of children protagonists. Dynamic, raw, moving. Voice-over narration constructs the meaning of the images and the story. The film is fascinating, dream-like, and suddenly ‘ends’ (without warning) with black section and music, then no credits. Maybe a special jury prize?
|