Before all you indie-lovers out there jump all over me, having read the title of my post, please allow me to post this disclaimer:
When a film tries to do something "different," I am generally more lenient with it when it comes to story, acting, dialogue, filming, etc. AS OPPOSED TO a film that is created by a cookie-cutter, formula, etc. For example, I enjoyed The Final Cut starring Robin Williams because of the interesting premise, despite some pretty serious flaws in the movie.
Bearing that in mind, November still failed in my book.
I am of the opinion that the third act, whatever you want to call it, was what really happened. The preceding two acts were Cox' character coming to terms with what happened. Okay. There were some interesting things going on in the film itself: the constant reversal of images (negatives v. real pictures), the sounds, the colors, etc. I'll admit that some of that was clever.
Unfortunately, the movie was plot less and, ultimately, pointless. All we get is an extremely contrived sequence of what amounts to nothing more than character development without motivation, following a random, inexplicable act of violence. Okay, so she accepts her death at the end. Well, okay. Alrighty, then. That's all I can say about it. It has no meaning to me beyond that mere statement. After 75 minutes (that felt more like two hours), that's all we're left with. Her character tried to deny her own reality, grieved through it, then ultimately accepted it. Contrast her first encounter with her mother with that which occurs in the third act, which I'll admit, it pretty cool when looking at the whole picture.
It's clever because it SHOWS the audience character development symbolically and through "action." That's what puts its a cut above the typical pop culture novel that reads "He was angry. He couldn't believe what was happening. Then he got sad. Then he accepted it and moved on."
It fails because, in the end, the film has wasted a lot of time and energy on a punch line that could have been told in five minutes.
There is no plot. There is no "explanation" of her motivations, either. Why does she move from denial to despair? Why does she move to acceptance? I'm not saying a film has to beat the viewers over the head with reasons and its messages, but to create a story, the author has to provide an answer to these questions. The better authors do it by suggestion, implicitly. There is, obviously room to leave some doors open in a story. The lesser authors resort to exposition such as quoted above. And then there are those who attempt to muddy the waters to make them appear deep, who are, for lack of a better word, guiltier of a greater crime than the lesser authors. I believe this film fell into the third category.
You can fight convention all you want. Some argue that convention is a bad thing. But convention is convention for a reason. And sometimes, it has come upon some universal truths. Show, don't tell, for instance. Less is more, for example.
A story needs a plot. Characters need motivations. Character development without motivation is a contradiction in terms. I applaud the effort, the innovation, etc. I look forward to possibly seeing some more films by the director/writer in the future. But this one fell short.
The movie would have worked better as one hour Twilight Zone special. But it still would have needed a plot.
When a film tries to do something "different," I am generally more lenient with it when it comes to story, acting, dialogue, filming, etc. AS OPPOSED TO a film that is created by a cookie-cutter, formula, etc. For example, I enjoyed The Final Cut starring Robin Williams because of the interesting premise, despite some pretty serious flaws in the movie.
Bearing that in mind, November still failed in my book.
I am of the opinion that the third act, whatever you want to call it, was what really happened. The preceding two acts were Cox' character coming to terms with what happened. Okay. There were some interesting things going on in the film itself: the constant reversal of images (negatives v. real pictures), the sounds, the colors, etc. I'll admit that some of that was clever.
Unfortunately, the movie was plot less and, ultimately, pointless. All we get is an extremely contrived sequence of what amounts to nothing more than character development without motivation, following a random, inexplicable act of violence. Okay, so she accepts her death at the end. Well, okay. Alrighty, then. That's all I can say about it. It has no meaning to me beyond that mere statement. After 75 minutes (that felt more like two hours), that's all we're left with. Her character tried to deny her own reality, grieved through it, then ultimately accepted it. Contrast her first encounter with her mother with that which occurs in the third act, which I'll admit, it pretty cool when looking at the whole picture.
It's clever because it SHOWS the audience character development symbolically and through "action." That's what puts its a cut above the typical pop culture novel that reads "He was angry. He couldn't believe what was happening. Then he got sad. Then he accepted it and moved on."
It fails because, in the end, the film has wasted a lot of time and energy on a punch line that could have been told in five minutes.
There is no plot. There is no "explanation" of her motivations, either. Why does she move from denial to despair? Why does she move to acceptance? I'm not saying a film has to beat the viewers over the head with reasons and its messages, but to create a story, the author has to provide an answer to these questions. The better authors do it by suggestion, implicitly. There is, obviously room to leave some doors open in a story. The lesser authors resort to exposition such as quoted above. And then there are those who attempt to muddy the waters to make them appear deep, who are, for lack of a better word, guiltier of a greater crime than the lesser authors. I believe this film fell into the third category.
You can fight convention all you want. Some argue that convention is a bad thing. But convention is convention for a reason. And sometimes, it has come upon some universal truths. Show, don't tell, for instance. Less is more, for example.
A story needs a plot. Characters need motivations. Character development without motivation is a contradiction in terms. I applaud the effort, the innovation, etc. I look forward to possibly seeing some more films by the director/writer in the future. But this one fell short.
The movie would have worked better as one hour Twilight Zone special. But it still would have needed a plot.
