Posted by Darth Dobbin at 12.19.232.3 on November 03, 2000 at 11:51:23:
This is a repost of a thread that got buried last board, and that I'd be very interested to discuss. Please understand that these comments and "criticism" here within is coming from someone WHO DID ENJOY THE FILM, kay?
>
Okay, so what worked and what did not then? So far all you've said is "it looks like a first film" and "some of the pacing was off". Give me some specifics.
*************
That's fair. Let me start off on a good note, and tell you what worked, for me.
I think your perspective on showing violence as a specifically non-glorious thing was very effective. Even in the scene where we are introduced to Ryan, and he establishes himself as a mysterious, seemingly heroic figure by beating up the bully, the actual violence itself is unflinchingly gruesome and pretty horrific. We, as the audience, feel the same thing that the protagonist does- we're drawn to Ryan for being the Mysterious Stranger, and respect his "stand-up" attitude, and willingness to enter into danger, but are a little revulsed at the actual, nitty gritty of the brutality of the fight.
And I really thought that your use of splatter-gore was very well-informed; it was at once stylized: high impact red color, almost "painterly" in how it got filmed and contributed to the composition of the scene, and yet viscerally "honest" about how *true* gore makes you feel. That's a rare and seldom seen thing in ANY movie, anywhere, and I think it was a very deliberate choice. It's obvious you are very well aquainted with horror films, and the fact that you used techniques of that genre to tell a completely different type was really effective.
But you asked for specifics of what I felt was a little awkward, so here goes:
There seemed to be, in the establishing of Ryan's home-life and his specific legal status, a little bit of an expository rush to "get the facts out".. The very quick explaination of how he was entitled to the house, and his inheritance seemed, to me, forced, and a little awkwardly written. Like it was a major plot point that needed to be there, so he would be able to be alone, and become more withdrawn, without any stabilzing force to ground him. And because that point needed to be made for the plot, I felt like the writing, in that instance, was more to the point of explaining, getting it said to the auidence, moreso than it was an organic "happening" of the characters relating to each other.
Same too with Ryan's reaction to..um.. Carmen Lee.(Can't remember character's name- I *do* recall it was an unusual name. Damn.) I felt like I was aware that you, as the writer, wanted the audience to know that he had issues and problems, and that his reaction, and that scene, were too "quick" to feel genuine. In essence, there were places where I was aware that the writer was telling me what was going on, instead of the characters naturally interacting and having that communication to me, as the audience, be an offshoot.
Also, the Aunt character, as it comes out in the final cut, seems to be SO EVIL, 24-7, that it too becomes more of a plot point than a believable, natural thing within the film.. Now, I understand that there were problems with the actress, and that much of her scenes were cut due to those problems, but all that notwithstanding, in the end, I think it hurts the film. She's a one-note force of evil, and as such, she seems too two-dimensional for the audience to "get behind" hating her. I ALMOST understand her asking you, "I hit him because I LOVE him, right?" because as it stands, she is SO monstrous, without even a moment of compassion, that it is hard to understand her as anything other than a plot device. (I will take you for your word that she was a flake, and difficult. I can sympathize with that. But she may have, inadvertantly, made a valid point- if not in that specific instance, then about her character in general.) I mean, even Hitler loved his dogs. Giving a character some notes to hit that shade them and give them some dimension beyond their "over-arching" one (in her case, being mean and hurtful), I think, does not diminish the central facet of their character- it enhances it.
Further, I think that for whatever reason- be it performance, or limited time to work on it, or flesh it out, that the car-scene with the bully kid and his dad came off as wooden. I was reminded of the "Your intensity is for SHIT!" speech delivered by Emilio Estevez in BREAKFAST CLUB; it seemed that that was the note you were, as a director and writer, trying to hit, but I felt like I was aware of the "trying," if that makes sense.
Also, and I know you disagree, I felt the choice to dual-cast Jason Lee as both the boyfriend AND the creepy, incidental druggy-perv was a bad one. If one *is* mindful of actors faces, and has a good "face recall," I think it sets up a confusing question in the minds of SOME of the audience- "Is that the same guy who's screwing his aunt?" If only a FRACTION of the audience notices this, and asks that question, then that is still a fraction that has been needlessly kicked out of the narrative, and begun to have a little mental dialogue in their own head, asking continutity questions of themselves. It *has the chance* of potentially kicking SOME viewers out of the moment. So why do it? Another actor could have done the same thing, and the issue would never arise, even with that small fraction.
Back to the good stuff- I think you got some great performaces out of your leads. Both Rob DiPatri and Eion Baily had some great moments, and were very good. DiPatri, I think, *made* the film, and hit the marks he needed to to establish himself, by body language and delivery, of being an essentially likable guy, but prone to falling into the role of being a "victim." We believed that the bullies would "sniff out" weakness in him, and start with him. Yet, to his credit, he "found" the character, and we believed that his "fighting back" was genuine response.. That his take on the situation was that while he *was* afraid, he was also offended enough, and aware enough of his own rights that he *would* stand up and take the beating. That was very well written, and very well realized by DiPatri. There's more stuff that I thought worked, and was good, but I'm tired, and do not wish to type any further.
In summation, I think you have every right to be proud of the film. I think there are times, like there are times in CLERKS (which I adore) that the audience is far too aware of the budget by way of the actors relative level of expertise. (I'm talking here about the incidental characters, not the leads.) I don't think that could be helped. There's a reason why the pros are pros. That's part of what an indie-budget film has to deal with, and that's part of what made me say that at times, it had the feel of a first film.
But, as you say, Kubrick had a first film, too. Everybody had a first film that showed promise, but faltered in spots. I sincerely hope it is not your last film, and that, when you are established, it is looked to as having "The Pereira feel" in its rough form. I look forward to your next directorial effort, and have every confidence that your "sophomore year" will show the lessons learned in your "freshman" one, and build on them. Like I said, it was a very good first movie.
Sheesh.
************
>...
: Exactly- kind of like you're comments up above re: BIG HELIUM DOG- you liked the film, but also pointed out it's flaws...
: OH WAIT, YOU DIDN'T. Apparently, BIG HELIUM DOG is a perfect piece of filmmaking. My bad.
***************
Vinny Vidi Vicci. The reason why I'm trying to discuss some of the points about A BETTER PLACE is because I feel it is more ambitious, and attempts to be ( & is ) a lot deeper than the other films. It's more prone to being discussed and analyzed. Nature of the beast.
BIG HELIUM DOG was funny with no redeeming social value, exactly as it set out to be. Specifically no redeeming values. It made fun of cancer children, just for cheap laughs. Mission accomplished. Huzzah for Lynch. There's not much more to discuss about it- I mean, it was artfully written- there's a delicate balance with that kind of humor.. too meanspirited and it becomes un-funny. Lynch seems to understand how to go to that line, but not cross it. It was a funny movie. I commented on how I thought it succeeded as such, and in really creative ways. I appreciated the seeming random nature of it, yet it had a cohesion and pulled itself back together, using the comedy device of the "callback" for laughs, and to make the film itself an actual whole unit.
This is just the way I'm bent, but I think that it was the best film of the night, based on what kind of goals it set for itself, if that makes sense. It set out to make you laugh, it made you laugh, end of story. ABP set, I think some lofier goals, no? But it's a false comparison, an apple vs. pommegranate, to say which was "best of show." I enjoyed BHD best; howzabout that? But really, it was not a competition.
=
I *did* point out a continuity error in BHD,if that makes you feel better: Guy gets cremated, later shows up as a "watching" corpse.
Anyway, it seems odd to me that you have not commented one whit on any of the genuine praise and commentary about what I felt were the films strongest stylistic points, or how I thought you have a sucessful career ahead of you, and obvious talent.
You're "calling me out" for talking about some aspects which I felt had some flaws, and not acknowlediing the praise I've been giving you does two things- It paints me inaccurately as being a detractor for detractings sake, and it also makes you seem a mite hyper-sensitive.
Like I said- NO ENEMY HERE. Overall, I think it was a quality film. I freakin told you, I am going to BUY THE DVD!!! Is that not endorsement enough for you?
Re-read my posts with a calmer mind. You'll see ( I hope ) that I'm not bashing the film. What do you make of some of my points above about some percieved flaws I was speaking about?