The context of the characters feelings and lives spills out beyond the confines of the film to create a tapestry of repressed and misguided feelings and layered double+ entendres of words words words.
If that interests you I wouldn't recommend reading further as this is a movie that could surprisingly lose some of its first impact with spoilers, but I would implore you to read Ball's "manifesto" for the film's script that he posted on his website as it is a great primer for the film's specific wavelength.
Ball's structuring of a number of the film's interactions as bait-and-switches of preconception, especially early on, is a very perceptive re-tooling of the way dramatic films operate as to reach towards the greater nuance of real individuals. That's why I think this is a film you can potentially "spoil", because the way the reveals work in the film make you question your own conclusions you may jump to about individuals. You won't "get" a real person fully just from the way they look and the first few things they say when you meet them, the intricacies and contradictions can only be attained by breaking thru the masquerades and put-ons people adopt in specific social contexts. These characters don't even "get" each other despite their seemingly intimate familiarity, so we're left tracing them jumping from game to game and put-on to put-on in desperate attempts at meaningful, cathartic connection.
This is something that shows up a great deal in Cassavettes' work, which you dont have to look hard to see influencing this film (it can be easy to see this as Faces but with the encroaching grain replaced with jagged pixel artifacting, "I Dream of Jeannie" replaced with a house song based around a weather forecast sample, and a distinct lack of phrases like "that's how you get your jollies"), but Id argue a) its an important enough aim to not be limited to one American artist and b) Ball asserts his own structuring and aesthetic sensitivity in a way that's uniquely his own (Cassavetes was never as conscious with his setups-payoffs as this film is, which brings the effect of making the recontextualization of words n gestures have greater influence in this compared to Cassavetes' comparatively straightforward language, which is obviously still affecting in its own way). Ball remains incredibly perceptive throughout on how to make sequences striking, like in the conscious framing of objects like phones, martini glasses, or lamps in a shot to make the mundane evocative in their specificity (reminds me of another recent independent Ball (Kyle not David) film, Skinamarink, and also interesting to consider the film's use of the weather forecast song which is itself concerned with the repetition and deconstruction of a menial everyday detail), or the precise use of jump cuts to shake up the perception of a scene and draw sensitivity to minute aspects of a performance.
It goes without saying that to pull this off requires great faith in the actors involved, and Ball's faith was decidedly well placed as the performers here are so consistently open and responsive you can receive a great deal of gratification just studying the performers eyes and body language in any given scene. Admittedly, and maybe its just the cheap camcorder look of the film, the performances did feel a little stilted or "amateur" to me in the first scene, but in hindsight this is clearly conceptually intentional, as the characters themselves are "performing" as we find out later.
"It's a party!!"
PS: Due to my internet-addled brain, the low-budget, male-female dynamics of this movie can't help but remind me of The Room (even down to the surprise birthday party latter portions), and it got me feelin sad when I realized The Room has and continues to be shown in packed theaters, while this has received basically no distribution and has like 30 views on here 24 years after its release. I get it, Wiseau funny man and "oh hi mark" and you aren't gonna fill a midnight screening for the earnest emotional relationship portrait movie. But this is a movie with a lot more to unpack than a lotta similar movies from the same era and beyond and I think it could really find a receptive audience if given the chance. I found this, as I think the few else who have, thru Ray Carney's gushing, and I love Ray Carney but the guy ain't for everyone and I think the movie could reach a lot further than, you know, people willing to read Ray Carney.
If that interests you I wouldn't recommend reading further as this is a movie that could surprisingly lose some of its first impact with spoilers, but I would implore you to read Ball's "manifesto" for the film's script that he posted on his website as it is a great primer for the film's specific wavelength.
Ball's structuring of a number of the film's interactions as bait-and-switches of preconception, especially early on, is a very perceptive re-tooling of the way dramatic films operate as to reach towards the greater nuance of real individuals. That's why I think this is a film you can potentially "spoil", because the way the reveals work in the film make you question your own conclusions you may jump to about individuals. You won't "get" a real person fully just from the way they look and the first few things they say when you meet them, the intricacies and contradictions can only be attained by breaking thru the masquerades and put-ons people adopt in specific social contexts. These characters don't even "get" each other despite their seemingly intimate familiarity, so we're left tracing them jumping from game to game and put-on to put-on in desperate attempts at meaningful, cathartic connection.
This is something that shows up a great deal in Cassavettes' work, which you dont have to look hard to see influencing this film (it can be easy to see this as Faces but with the encroaching grain replaced with jagged pixel artifacting, "I Dream of Jeannie" replaced with a house song based around a weather forecast sample, and a distinct lack of phrases like "that's how you get your jollies"), but Id argue a) its an important enough aim to not be limited to one American artist and b) Ball asserts his own structuring and aesthetic sensitivity in a way that's uniquely his own (Cassavetes was never as conscious with his setups-payoffs as this film is, which brings the effect of making the recontextualization of words n gestures have greater influence in this compared to Cassavetes' comparatively straightforward language, which is obviously still affecting in its own way). Ball remains incredibly perceptive throughout on how to make sequences striking, like in the conscious framing of objects like phones, martini glasses, or lamps in a shot to make the mundane evocative in their specificity (reminds me of another recent independent Ball (Kyle not David) film, Skinamarink, and also interesting to consider the film's use of the weather forecast song which is itself concerned with the repetition and deconstruction of a menial everyday detail), or the precise use of jump cuts to shake up the perception of a scene and draw sensitivity to minute aspects of a performance.
It goes without saying that to pull this off requires great faith in the actors involved, and Ball's faith was decidedly well placed as the performers here are so consistently open and responsive you can receive a great deal of gratification just studying the performers eyes and body language in any given scene. Admittedly, and maybe its just the cheap camcorder look of the film, the performances did feel a little stilted or "amateur" to me in the first scene, but in hindsight this is clearly conceptually intentional, as the characters themselves are "performing" as we find out later.
"It's a party!!"
PS: Due to my internet-addled brain, the low-budget, male-female dynamics of this movie can't help but remind me of The Room (even down to the surprise birthday party latter portions), and it got me feelin sad when I realized The Room has and continues to be shown in packed theaters, while this has received basically no distribution and has like 30 views on here 24 years after its release. I get it, Wiseau funny man and "oh hi mark" and you aren't gonna fill a midnight screening for the earnest emotional relationship portrait movie. But this is a movie with a lot more to unpack than a lotta similar movies from the same era and beyond and I think it could really find a receptive audience if given the chance. I found this, as I think the few else who have, thru Ray Carney's gushing, and I love Ray Carney but the guy ain't for everyone and I think the movie could reach a lot further than, you know, people willing to read Ray Carney.
