let it be

there's a moment in let it be when carl (bertie gilbert) explains that he likes the later beatles music for its complexity, which is the opposite of martha (dodie clark) who likes the earlier music for its simplicity (for the record i don't really like any beatles music, but i get it, it's like the difference between the ramones and velvet undergound, although in that case i kind of like both ... but maybe that's the point...). that conflict between wanting complexity from our art against enjoying its simplicity is exactly how i felt watching the film, and i think it's kind of what the whole film is about. i've not really been able to think about anything else since i watched it so i thought i'd attempt to explain.

on the surface this is a film about a young couple who've broken up and before they can sort out their issues death (savannah brown) turns up and decides to hang with them for a day. it's hard to watch this without thinking of neil gaiman's death from the sandman series, particularly from 'the high cost of living', which also features death living for a day. savannah brown is more emo than gaiman's eternally happy death, but her eagerness to experiment with all the things she's heard make life worth living is definitely a similar concept. however, the film isn't really about death, but more about all three characters and the things that stand in the way of them moving on with their lives. death is having an existential crisis stemming from her job, carl needs to figure out why martha dumped him, and martha ... i can't really reveal martha's problem without spoiling things but it's up there with the big problems. ultimately all three characters learn to accept their situations; they learn to 'let it be' like the title suggests. but is that all there is? is it really just a story that's as frustratingly simple as the song from which it takes its title?

i know it's not exactly the same but my own version of 'let it be' is 'fuck it'. fuck it and fuck you and fuck them and fuck everything. that's the mantra i repeat to myself when things are going wrong; it's what gets me through the bad days. 'fuck it' has helped me walk away from relationships, it's helped me quit jobs, it's helped me give up on creative projects when they've started to make me fucking miserable due to the fact that they mostly highlight my own absence of talent and ability. it's the same principle as 'let it be'; it's saying i don't give a fuck what happens because shit will happen anyway and sometimes it's not worth worrying about it. except sometimes i wonder, have i made a mistake? would things have worked out if i had worried about it; if i'd stuck around for a bit more or persevered with that thing i was doing? just saying 'fuck it' sometimes feels like an easy way to quit something that's complicated, just like 'let it be' sometimes feels like a way of not dealing with complex things that are happening.

what i'm saying is, do we miss something in letting it be? is it an easy way out of feeling things and dealing with emotions? that's what i keep coming back to with this film. carl expresses a desire to really talk things through with martha; to deal with the issues in their relationship but ultimately this doesn't happen. are we meant to be okay with that? because it made me think that maybe we shouldn't be.

there's a glibness to the attitudes of the characters throughout this film that's frustrating at first. for example, in the scene where death arrives the characters are completely unphased by her appearance despite the fact that she's about to kill their dog. it takes you out of the reality of the story because it's a quirky film character reaction rather than a real life human reaction, except i think there's more reality to it than there first appears. there's a bigger example of this, when in the final moments of the film all three characters are standing around laughing about something really super serious. so it's all fine then. all that stuff that came up is now okay because of a beatles song. except the film doesn't necessarily say that.

for me there was another layer to this and possibly a criticism of the way we deal with complex emotional issues in contemporary society. there's an idea now that talking about issues is good for us so we all talk about issues all the time and don't suppress anything. i can't argue the principle of that, but the part we don't always get right is what we do with those issues once they're out in the open. talking about a problem doesn't necessarily solve it, and the end result can be a society in which everyone is so absorbed in and concerned with their own issues that they don't really listen to anyone else. complex emotional situations are reduced to simple puzzles, like finding the right key to open a door in a video game. at the end of the film there's a great example of this where martha gives carl the closure he needs in one sentence and that appears to make everything okay. but does it make everything okay? really?

and here we are, back to the conflict between the simple and the complex; the difference between early beatles and later beatles. let it be doesn't necessarily provide any answers in this respect but it does allow the viewer to choose between the two. you can take the film as a jolly little fable about letting the bad shit go, or you can look a little further and question whether there is more to it than that. at least that's what i did anyway, so i guess i prefer later beatles after all.

also the performances are all great and mega props to director of photography, ciaran o'brien, because the whole thing looks beautiful. you can see the film right here -

sophie's fortune

last month i reviewed a short film called moments, directed by chris cronin and produced by phil meachem. sophie's fortune is another short from the same team, and though it's hugely different in terms of ambition and story it's similar in that it's another attempt at emulating hollywood on a fraction of the budget.

sophie's fortune is about a young father desperate to prove himself to his daughter, the sophie of the title. he finds the opportunity to do so at a childrens' party where the dads are challenged to a treasure hunt. sophie's dad must do whatever it takes to win the treasure hunt and bring the prize back to his daughter.

from the moment the film opens it's clear that the filmmakers have really done an amazing job with the production value of the piece. the music, the look of the film, the camera movement all suggest a project with much higher aspirations than your usual festival-fodder short. this is a film made by film fans who want to replicate the experience of a big budget hollywood blockbuster as closely as possible, and they really succeed. it looks and feels better than most straight to dvd/vod genre films i've seen and would even compete with a few big screen blockbusters. i don't know what the budget was but i'm sure it wasn't hundreds of thousands and this film could easily pass for having cost that much.

but it's not just how good the film looks, on top of that the actors really sell the story and the whole thing is genuinely exciting. i should explain that from the moment the treasure hunt starts the film enters a fantasy world where the dads are essentially action heroes in a full-on indiana jones style adventure, complete with a double-crossing villain, an army of henchmen and numerous traps and pitfalls along the way. there are some great gags in there as well and it's nice that despite how serious the filmmakers must have taken the process to achieve this level of quality they aren't above making the odd joke here and there too.

there are a couple of problems, perhaps the biggest being the length. the central idea is perfectly suited to a short film and would have worked fine in a ten minute running time, but at nearly half an hour sophie's fortune does begin to outstay its welcome in places. i was also a bit put out by the fact that the mums weren't included in the treasure hunt and feel it reinforces a dangerous stereotype of dads as big, violent kids that i personally could do without. lastly, the tone is a bit off and for what felt like it should be for kids was way too violent in places. then again, my dad showed me the original robocop when i was 7 and i loved it, so what do i know.

overall, the issues i had with the film didn't get in the way of my enjoyment and i did get a real kick out of watching it. it's free to watch online at www.sophiesfortune.com and i'll also post it below. if you like old school adventure movies and have wondered what a british indiana jones would look like i seriously recommend checking this one out.

moments

moments is a short film by chris cronin. it's kind of a musical, although there aren't any songs, just dancing. it's basically about this guy who seems to be perpetually part of someone else's romantic moment and the story is him trying to find his own 'moment'. it's a simple idea that's well presented - you get it right away and that's important in a film that's only five minutes long.

what's really striking about this film is the production values. the dance numbers are great and look really professional, but also it looks like everyone on screen is involved in the production. in a lot of shorts, the filmmakers don't really have the budget to close off streets or use dozens of extras, so scenes either end up looking sparse or it's obvious the filmmakers are stealing shots of members of the public to use as unsuspecting extras. in this it looks like they must have closed off half of London and hired a hundred extras, which i'm sure isn't the case but they really pull off that sense of creating a whole world in front of the camera.

the other thing i really liked is how beautiful they make london look. i go to london a lot, it's not that beautiful. mostly it's busy and dirty and grey. so to see london looking like the set from a golden age hollywood musical is amazing.

the one criticism i have is that i was expecting some kind of twist on the idea, whereas it actually kind of plays out exactly as you expect. that may just be me though as i'm so used to seeing shorts that set up a premise then twist it at the end.

otherwise i think this is a fantastic little film and definitely worth five minutes of your time. i guarantee it will put a smile on your face.

joshua

short films are usually very 'on the nose' when it comes to the visuals. if you only have 10-15 minutes to tell a story you want to tell it in as economic a way as possible. beginner filmmakers tend to tell the story through dialogue only and have the characters explain what we should be seeing, while more accomplished directors realise that film is a visual medium and tell the story with images. but it takes a certain level of talent and innovation to make a film that tells a story with what the audience doesn't see and doesn't hear.

for most of the film we don't see joshua's face; the camera lurks over his shoulder and the film cuts away every time we are about to catch a glimpse of what he looks like. similarly, joshua's narration bears seemingly no resemblence to what we're seeing, and doesn't really have any drive on the story. early conversations between joshua and his friend don't quite make sense at first, because we're not seeing the full picture. and then the film turns and we realise what the story is about and we realise what all those random moments were showing us and what joshua has been talking about the whole time. i don't want to reveal it here because the less you know about joshua going in the better, but it is pretty shocking.

what's great about this film is that the ending is not a random twist added onto a deliberately misleading narrative. on second viewing the intention and the direction of the story seem clear as day. and that's why the film works so well, because it hides it's dark secrets in plain sight. and in doing so and keeping the unimaginable horror of those unseen moments hidden away, the truth is even more jarring and disturbing that it otherwise would have been.

tim porter has done a fantastic job with joshua. it feels like it has been meticulously planned and worked out in order to deliver the story with maximum efficiency. the narrative style is a little difficult to get into at first but it needs to be. the film looks great too, and the central performances are fantastic. but don't take my word for it, you can watch the film right here...


Joshua from Tim Porter on Vimeo.

my name is stacy algavara

my name is stacy algavara is a short film written and directed by daisy turvey.  the film tells the story of a young woman who is kidnapped and tortured by a serial killer and the subsequent efforts to catch the killer following her murder. parts of the film are narrated by the murdered woman, the stacy algavara of the title, who managed to write a note before she died that she hopes will help identify her killer.

the film is shot in black-and-white and looks really quite stylish in its best moments. the footage of the murdered stacy in the opening sequence is particularly well shot and very effective.  video effects are put to good use, with extreme close-ups and over-exposed shots really adding to the atmosphere. one of the strongest parts of the film is stacy's narration which carries us through the story.  her final words really articulate the idea of knowing you're going to die and wanting to do something, anything about it.  the actress playing stacy, samantha mysel, really gets the emotion across in her reading.  the idea at the centre of the film is a good one and it's refreshing to see a victim take such a subtle revenge.

personally i could've done without some of the police station scenes. the actors looked the part but whether it was their performance or the dialogue in those scenes they didn't quite work for me. i think there could be a much tighter, more stylised film here if the only dialogue you heard was stacy's narration and this played over a montage of the police station scenes to give us the story, but that's just me.

i do think this is a really interesting short film with a fantastic idea at its heart backed up with a well written and well performed monologue. if any of this sounds interesting please do check out the film below and let me know what you thought in the comments.