The camera does more than just 'record', ya know...
Added 8/4/2009
Transitionally and historically speaking, the entire canon of independent filmmaking has derived from a basic desire to be `anti-Hollywood;' a reaction to the sameness associated with mainstream films. But this movement known as Mumblecore became its own cookie-cutter, like putting up a mirror in front of something and calling the reflection the original. These films are so ingrained within Hollywood ideology, I wouldn't be surprised if big budget films started moving into this aesthetic for stylistic intent. Indie films in the past were reflexive of the politics of the era in order to challenge (for lack of a better term) 'mainstream' ideals in regards to cinema; this new mode of digital filmmaking has made an absolute economy out of it.
Hannah is a basic plot; a bored girl has boring relationships, finds love, the end.
Stylistically, we're dealing with an absolute bare bones project: The film keeps `on location,` the location typically being two or three sparsely decorated houses; the mise-en-scene is kept quite minimal. The cameras are also completely framed with a handheld `home video' look, exemplifying both the digital video era we are currently living in, as well as evoking a type of YouTube-esque exhibitionism.
It's the content of Hannah that is so perplexingly frustrating; there is nothing that the text could be saying. The director is aiming for 'naturalized' acting, 'naturalized' situations, and 'ultimate realism.' But for what purpose? 'To document a generation.' Well, then do a documentary; don't create an absolutely facetious representation that is inherently speaking to absolutely nothing. What's the point of creating if there's no creativity?
Cheapening form and content, in the sense, is another example of capitalistic deterioration of quality in favor of quantity also inspires the "I can do that" phenomenon; audience members view these cheap, `technically unfinished' films, get the idea to make their own, and in the process lessen the quality even further as time progresses. Look at how many filmmakers have emerged due to the "YouTube phenomenon," which transcends any sort of filmic value to the mode of a home video camera and digital assets. "By changing the world they exist in through labor," Dallas Smythe argues, "human beings at the same time alter their own nature, for the lives of people are influenced both by what they produce and how they produce."
Scary concept if this is what my generation is calling a 'film movement representative of our culture.'
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Hannah ruins the movie...
Added 9/14/2008
To start off, I love independent film. I love low-budget films. After all, Clerks (Collector's Series) was a low budget film. But, that movie was entertaining and funny. This movie seemed to have no redeeming value.
Hannah is a twenty-something intern at a production company. She starts off with one boyfriend, and quickly gets rid of him, because she likes someone else that she is working with. He starts to get a little stale as well, so she replaces him with the other guy that they are working with.
I would find it more interesting if there was a script intact. I could deal with ad-libbing if it were amusing or enjoyable, (not to say that this was ad-libbed, but it seems as though it was) but most of the time, you had to listen carefully, because there was a lot of mumbling, and to be honest, the characters weren't that compelling. They also seemed as if they could learn some social skills as well.
And, of course, there is Hannah. She seems to be floating through life, not a care in the world, except for who she is going to sleep with next. She wasn't intelligent like the men at work claimed. She was so self absorbed, so annoying, and it was really hard to listen to her voice, quite honestly. I have read many books and seen movies where the characters are not good people or I don't empathize with them, but at least in those situations, the characters were intriguing! The conversations were so awkward, with so many pregnant pauses, and everyone interrupting each other. It was like not being able to look away from a car crash.
My boyfriend walked out of the room halfway through, but I decided to stick it out, just in case it got better. I hardly ever write really negative reviews like this, unless something is really terrible.
4 out of 5 people found this helpful.
|
most excellent
Added 3/18/2008
Easily the best effort to date of Joe Swanberg, an indie filmaker fav. This film rocks in its subtleties as Hannah grows into different relationships. No ninjas or zombies, but what can be more engaging then two people searching for love playing trumpets in a bathtub.
2 out of 6 people found this helpful.
|
Highly entertaining for low budget
Added 10/17/2009
I happen to have a very soft spot for low budget horror. To me, there's something undeniably appealing about a cast I've never seen before (and hence have not developed any preconceived notions that may inhibit my ability to enjoy a particular character), as well as a low tech approach to creating horror. They also tend to be gimmick free, or at least less full of distracting gimmicks. All the above are true in this film. Additionally, the concept is a fun one. Its not necessarily a full novel concept, but its nonetheless entertaining with an at least good enough acting cast, a decent script, and decent camera work. Fully recommended at least as a rental.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Captivating little film
Added 10/15/2009
This film starts off not seeming to be very interesting given its almost home video direction, but surprisingly I kept watching, and before I knew it I couldn't stop. The movie reminds me a bit of the film "Blair Witch", given the hand held camera technique and its amateur quality. Here though the one holding the camera isn't one of the characters. But the movie has that kind of rawness, and immediacy which drags us into the story of these actors who are isolated in a cabin trying to come up with ideas for a movie. One of them comes up with the idea of a horror story of man with a bag over his head who victimizes a group of people. Later a mysterious "bagged" figure is spotted creeping around the cabin. Initially some of the people think that it's one of them playing a prank, but then they realize it's someone else. The film is creepy, and intriguing, and we get pulled deeper and deeper into the mystery and drama that these ordinary individuals find themselves in.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
putting your head in a bag is as entertaining as Baghead
Added 8/29/2009
DO NOT do what the review title suggests. putting your head in a bag can be dangerous and life threatening. the same can be said about a movie called Baghead.
have you ever sat in front of the t.v. and watched something you normally wouldn't cause you don't really feel like doing anything else? you have? well, welcome to Baghead.
four friends try and come up with their own movie idea while playing pranks on each other every now and then. the dialogue in this movie is decent and somewhat interesting but in the end without meaning. you're left with a feeling of "eh". i gotta give props to Steve Zissis who played Chad though. he had an aura that made his character stand out from the others. other than that, nothing special about this movie.
watch this only if you have absolutely nothing better to do AND if it's free.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
And the point is...
Added 8/11/2009
The picture is deceiving. Some of the film are video of video. I couldn't fast forward enough.
0 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
Mumblecore slacker horror-comedy
Added 7/11/2009
A hilarious and scary slacker comedy about four friends who go to a cabin to write a realistic low-budget horror screenplay, and find that reality can be very frightening. This was a Sundance favorite a couple of years ago, where I saw it the first time. It got mixed reviews when I brought it to my cinema program on Halloween - and, with some exceptions, my sense was cinephiles and younger folks seemed to love it, but those over 40 or those who value entertainment over unique and interesting approaches to filmmaking, tended to be underwhelmed. I found it to be very funny and entertaining, and subtly clever; it was probably my favorite American feature film at Sundance 2008.
Clearly, some won't get it. Others may get it and just not like it. Jay and Mark Duplass belong to a small but admirable group of filmmakers who make a virtue of do-it-yourself style filmmaking about ordinary 20 somethings to whom nothing much remarkable ever happens. They face ordinary problems, they hesitate, they don't know how to express their feelings, they are insecure, they mumble. They are just like most of us, and their lives are not all that much more interesting. Still, when done right their decisions and the consequences can be fascinating, when the seemingly simple and mundane moments start to add up to something, indefinable. For the most part I think this one gets it right.
The thing is, this kind of film seems not at all to lend itself to "genre" filmmaking: sci-fi, horror, Westerns, and the like. But Jay and Mark try to pull it off here, and manage to pull off something that is both funny and frightening.
The film begins with a parody (not all that far off) of the artsy student film festival, and makes clear that's not what they're working for here. At bottom this is a loser love story, a classic comedy genre, that toys with becoming a "young horny folks in a cabin in the woods" slasher flick, while staying true to the mumblecore do-it-yourself style of films like the Duplass's The Puffy Chair and Swanberg's Hannah Takes the Stairs. It's a lot of fun and very funny, for some, but if you have no sympathy for those kinds of films you aren't likely to appreciate this one.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
