Heading in to see Mr. Organ I'd read and heard nothing but good things, early rave reviews and countless plaudits for the shocking events that awaited me.
Literally, even as I walked into the cinema the attendees of the previous screening were still in their seats discussing and dissecting what they'd watched, seemingly in disbelief at what had just unfolded. They assured me I was in for a wild ride, and I took my seat with the anticipation coursing through me.
Post viewing, the thing I'm in disbelief about is that I hadn't seen any negative, or even middling, reviews of the film - and that I might be the only person in the country who thought it was a dud.
It's mentioned in the film that New Zealand is an incredibly small place when discussing the reluctance of some of the film's subjects to go on camera. And that's entirely true. The old adage of everyone in little old NZ being connected by two-degrees-of-separation is usually not far off; in fact, I was surprised to see one of the central talking heads in the film is the husband of an ex-colleague of mine.
So, my working theory is that basically everyone in New Zealand is connected to David Farrier somewhere down the line, and nobody wants to give him a bad review. He also seems like a really nice guy, more or less constantly. He has the soft demeanour and wry smile associated with other successful documentarians in getting their subjects to open up - and I too really want to like him. But I left this screening feeling like he'd strung me along with some old rope and false hope. I think Farrier may have thought he had another Tickled on his hands, but unfortunately it's more of a Fizzled.
What starts out as a journalistic probe into a rogue car clamper extorting people to have their cars released almost immediately sets the expectation that worse is to come and that this guy is seriously bad news. Or, there wouldn't be a film about it, right?!Ironically though, for most of the runtime I felt like I was trapped in a car park by Farrier, pinned in by this particular vehicle that supposedly had a truckload of revelations and big reveals yet to unload.
It just feels like Farrier is postulating here and teasing something that never comes. There's lots of discussion about feeling like you're losing your mind and investing lots of time with someone who is doing lots of talking without really telling you anything... and for a second there I thought that perhaps something very meta was happening - but there was no such layering or payoff there either.
Similarly, there's a point in the film where Farrier is questioning his choice to make this film and pursue the subject for so long. He's fighting back tears wondering whether he's on the precipice of something big, or is just being strung along by a guy who's 'a bit of a dick'. I empathised with David here - but was internally screaming at the screen that it was the latter; the subject certainly is one of life's dickheads, but I don't think there was an entire movie's worth of content here.
There are countless assertions throughout that Mr. Organ is 'dangerous' that are never really detailed more than some further cryptic anecdotes from former flatmates. One central trumped-up thread is around how on earth Mr. Organ had come to possess a key to Farrier's flat. I guess Farrier didn't want to admit that this big mystery was probably his own fault for leaving a spare key lying around; after all, he'd already covered how Organ had been snooping around outside his home. Or you know, just change the locks and give more screen time to all the REALLY bad stuff that Mr. Organ's done! *Cue tumbleweed*.
There must be heaps of documentary films that abandon their story mid-way when it fizzles out, and for the final act of the film I felt like I was watching rushes of a documentary that never materialised. I'm aware that this is a pretty scathing thing to say - it shouldn't have been made - especially when the maker does really seem like such a nice guy. I just can't shake the feeling that it should have been left on the cutting room floor; or scaled back to a YouTube format webisode.
The only criticism I can levy against Farrier directly as the writer/director of this whole non-story was his decision to include his fruitless attempts to interrogate the family members of Mr. Organ, who all explicitly declined to be included in the film. It's made abundantly clear that none of them wanted to be recorded, interviewed or involved at all; but Farrier's insistence not only to record these exchanges, but to include all of their refusals in the film reeked of further desperation.
None of them had done anything wrong - and Farrier's hounding made me especially uncomfortable as he discusses on-film how one family member in particular seemed genuinely hurt and upset as to what had happened with their relative. But, in lieu of anything juicer I suppose, these morsels all made it into the final edit.
Overall, I don't know if Farrier just believed his own hype or was egged on by production bodies that this story had more twists and turns than a particularly twisty turny thing, or if it was some sort of sad bureaucratic tenet of modern movie financing in a small country like New Zealand that now he had started his film and got the funding he simply had to make a story of it.
While it's arguably better value for money than $760 for 30 minutes of parking, Farrier will do well here taking $20.50 a pop from moviegoers expecting the twists, turns and mind games alluded to on the film's poster that simply never materialise. Disappointed in both the film, and the impending withdrawal of my New Zealand Citizenship.
Literally, even as I walked into the cinema the attendees of the previous screening were still in their seats discussing and dissecting what they'd watched, seemingly in disbelief at what had just unfolded. They assured me I was in for a wild ride, and I took my seat with the anticipation coursing through me.
Post viewing, the thing I'm in disbelief about is that I hadn't seen any negative, or even middling, reviews of the film - and that I might be the only person in the country who thought it was a dud.
It's mentioned in the film that New Zealand is an incredibly small place when discussing the reluctance of some of the film's subjects to go on camera. And that's entirely true. The old adage of everyone in little old NZ being connected by two-degrees-of-separation is usually not far off; in fact, I was surprised to see one of the central talking heads in the film is the husband of an ex-colleague of mine.
So, my working theory is that basically everyone in New Zealand is connected to David Farrier somewhere down the line, and nobody wants to give him a bad review. He also seems like a really nice guy, more or less constantly. He has the soft demeanour and wry smile associated with other successful documentarians in getting their subjects to open up - and I too really want to like him. But I left this screening feeling like he'd strung me along with some old rope and false hope. I think Farrier may have thought he had another Tickled on his hands, but unfortunately it's more of a Fizzled.
What starts out as a journalistic probe into a rogue car clamper extorting people to have their cars released almost immediately sets the expectation that worse is to come and that this guy is seriously bad news. Or, there wouldn't be a film about it, right?!Ironically though, for most of the runtime I felt like I was trapped in a car park by Farrier, pinned in by this particular vehicle that supposedly had a truckload of revelations and big reveals yet to unload.
It just feels like Farrier is postulating here and teasing something that never comes. There's lots of discussion about feeling like you're losing your mind and investing lots of time with someone who is doing lots of talking without really telling you anything... and for a second there I thought that perhaps something very meta was happening - but there was no such layering or payoff there either.
Similarly, there's a point in the film where Farrier is questioning his choice to make this film and pursue the subject for so long. He's fighting back tears wondering whether he's on the precipice of something big, or is just being strung along by a guy who's 'a bit of a dick'. I empathised with David here - but was internally screaming at the screen that it was the latter; the subject certainly is one of life's dickheads, but I don't think there was an entire movie's worth of content here.
There are countless assertions throughout that Mr. Organ is 'dangerous' that are never really detailed more than some further cryptic anecdotes from former flatmates. One central trumped-up thread is around how on earth Mr. Organ had come to possess a key to Farrier's flat. I guess Farrier didn't want to admit that this big mystery was probably his own fault for leaving a spare key lying around; after all, he'd already covered how Organ had been snooping around outside his home. Or you know, just change the locks and give more screen time to all the REALLY bad stuff that Mr. Organ's done! *Cue tumbleweed*.
There must be heaps of documentary films that abandon their story mid-way when it fizzles out, and for the final act of the film I felt like I was watching rushes of a documentary that never materialised. I'm aware that this is a pretty scathing thing to say - it shouldn't have been made - especially when the maker does really seem like such a nice guy. I just can't shake the feeling that it should have been left on the cutting room floor; or scaled back to a YouTube format webisode.
The only criticism I can levy against Farrier directly as the writer/director of this whole non-story was his decision to include his fruitless attempts to interrogate the family members of Mr. Organ, who all explicitly declined to be included in the film. It's made abundantly clear that none of them wanted to be recorded, interviewed or involved at all; but Farrier's insistence not only to record these exchanges, but to include all of their refusals in the film reeked of further desperation.
None of them had done anything wrong - and Farrier's hounding made me especially uncomfortable as he discusses on-film how one family member in particular seemed genuinely hurt and upset as to what had happened with their relative. But, in lieu of anything juicer I suppose, these morsels all made it into the final edit.
Overall, I don't know if Farrier just believed his own hype or was egged on by production bodies that this story had more twists and turns than a particularly twisty turny thing, or if it was some sort of sad bureaucratic tenet of modern movie financing in a small country like New Zealand that now he had started his film and got the funding he simply had to make a story of it.
While it's arguably better value for money than $760 for 30 minutes of parking, Farrier will do well here taking $20.50 a pop from moviegoers expecting the twists, turns and mind games alluded to on the film's poster that simply never materialise. Disappointed in both the film, and the impending withdrawal of my New Zealand Citizenship.