Dec 07, 2014
A lot of people seem to hate Joe Swanberg, and I do not seem to understand why. Like I get that his style is certainly not gonna be everybody's cup of tea but, for my money, he's just trying to make the films he wants to make and evolve and get better with each film. I think this is something he's even said himself in an interview, or part of it, that I saw with him. His films, essentially, are just drops in the ocean, and I don't mean that as an insult. I mean that in the sense that films are so wide and vast that to focus your vehement dislike on this one independent filmmaker seems like a waste of time, to me at least. I don't think that anyone, as far as I'm aware of, has made the claim that Joe Swanberg is the best filmmaker going right now. Don't get me wrong, I think the guy is good, which is something that I'll get to later, but he's not Martin Scorsese...hell I don't think he even thinks that. It's probably a good idea I, for the most part, stay off of websites or comments sections because that negativity, in some way, is gonna warp your view of his, or anybody else's, films. But I digress, silly rant out of the way, I really liked this movie. This was a pleasant surprise. I always say this, it's not like I go into films expecting not to like them, but I really wasn't feeling this before I started watching it. It was more of a 'why not' decision. It's certainly short enough to where it doesn't overstay its welcome, so I decided to give it a shot. Much like a lot of Swanberg's films, the film is low-key and naturalistic. They achieve this by, pretty much, improvising much of the dialogue you see on the film. I'm sure there were certain plot points they needed to hit, but how they got there was heavily improvised. And I'm a big fan of that, it just feels, far more realistic than the norm. There's no heavily scripted, dramatic scenes. No overacting, all of it feels natural. And I can imagine that that would be very freeing and creatively stimulating for an actor, it's just a method that more filmmakers should use to be honest. Maybe not have everything be improvised, just give the actors a certain leeway to deliver the lines in a way that, they feel, is best for the character they're portraying. But the improvisation makes it easier to relate to these characters as actual people instead of just fake characters in a fake movie. The film's look fits along with the tone of the film. Nothing fancy, shooting on 16mm will do that. But, again, with type of story they're telling, 16 mm film is just perfect. The character development is very low-key, but intelligent. There IS an arc for the characters in the film. Jenny's is to find a way to keep from self-destructing and Kelly's is to find her passion for writing again through Jenny's and Carson's help. The film isn't gut-bustingly funny, but it has its funny moments, like when Carson, Kelly, and Jenny are discussing how they'll broach the subject of sex in the trashy, romance novel Kelly is writing. It all works because, again, it's all improvised. It feels like a real group of women discussing what the book's content it is. You know why it feels like that? Because it's exactly what it is! It's not exactly rocket science. Strong acting all around, Melanie Lynskey and Anna Kendrick are always great together. Joe Swanberg is good as well, because he's essentially playing himself, not a scripted character. He's even said he's not a good actor, so at least he keeps himself out of the picture and lets his leading ladies carry much of the load. I think the film's low-key approach with definitely frustrate some people and I understand, but I think the film certainly makes that up with strong acting and intelligent storytelling. Essentially Joe Swanberg is preaching to the converted here. There's no reason to suspect that anyone who dislikes his movies will, all of a sudden, 'see the light'. Fans, however, will definitely have a lot to enjoy here. Can't exactly recommend it, since it is bound to be polarizing, but I quite enjoyed it.
Verified