Change Your Image
slimjim3382
Reviews
Pat Gets a Cat (2005)
Pat Gets a Break
I am viewing this because I enjoyed the structure element of Bertocci's previous short "love" and hoped that he had matured as a filmmaker away from all that moralizing and motivational speeches. Aside from a few improvements, it looks it I am going to have to wait for that maturity to present itself.
This short presents the idea that we create our own realities/worlds, one where there is a new set of logic and rules. Pat's world reflects his loneliness so he reflects his desired companion ("library girl") onto this "princess," his only companion. The cat apparently in Pat's world functions as his obsession/conscience forcing him to talk to "library girl." Even his friends appear here as caricatures, one as Randall from Clerks, angry cat guy, and obnoxious allergy girl (I am assuming they were one dimensional on purpose to emphasize the loneliness factor). It is the director's job to help us enter into this world as seamlessly as possible. As a writer, Adam must create Pat's world and then set the direction of the camera so that the world is created for the audience. I believe Adam failed in this constant cinematic problem. A few opening shots of Pat eating Cheetos and sleeping on the couch with narration overlay does not establish a world for a general audience. It will only connect with twenty something men that have social/depression issues. Adam, I wonder how much of this script is you trying to convince yourself of this "happy ending" reality, that if you try hard enough "things will all work out in the end." I have read you believe in the conservative notion of personal responsibility and have applied this to our main character through "princess", however it is more likely that Pat know matter how hard he tried would not be able to attract any woman because he is not happy with his life in any aspect as you establish in the opening monologue. This is not a matter of personal responsibility. So once again Adam cannot abstain from the preaching at least it wasn't overt this time like in "dingle" and "love." I guess part of my repeating issue of Adam's preaching is not so much that he is doing it, but that his topics about love and relationships are so misguided and naive. "Sixteen candles" notions of love will only bring about more pain and agony. Relationships are not a one-stop fix for our lives, I mean come on Kevin Smith doesn't even believe that. Speaking of relationships, the scenes where Pat interacts with "Kat"-rina (Oh I just got it) are a low point in this film. The actress is not able to sell the "interested but shy" routine. I believe the film would have been better with a stronger performance from "Princess" actress and that may be part an editing problem too.
Aside from all that, there are some improvements. The leading actor was believable and fit well with the role. Camera movements were attempted and succeeded in bringing a better cinematic language to the film. The music was sufficiently emo and fit the character/Adam's world. The one scene that is jarring and works tremendously well is the first time the cat transforms. It is effective as an image and brings the audience into the film. If the movie works at all it is because of that one scene. Some progress has been made.
Love: The Movie (2004)
Chocolate Covered Coconut
I have revisited this short recently to redeem my opinion of the writer of "dingle." The structure of this is what the viewer should take from it as the actual content is just naive motivation speaking on art and love. Adam creates this self-awareness between the characters and viewer deconstructing the elements of film-making "folding" us into the project. This is most effective during the "story" section. Playing off this structure provides the film with its humor (a far cry from the American Pie-esqe frat boy humor in "dingle"). Unfortunately Adam did not allow the two main characters to play around with the viewer's self-awareness and make this a truly deep project. The two "love" birds stayed in character the entire film never giving the actors a chance to play a character within a character. Expose them, give them freedom to explore that space between the realities of their characters and the actor/actress we know they are. We never get the feeling the actors are involved in the creative process.
Another problem with this is that fails to follow the story formula that is being commented on. If you are going to engage the idea of the love movie and add another level to it, you need to hit the story arc that audiences are familiar with: boy meets girl, they fall in love unexpectedly, miscommunication breaks them apart, and a public setting profession brings them back together. This failure disconnects us as viewers and weakens your structure.
Love is a cinematic notion. What and how we love is for our culture based in ideas that have been informed by movies. We long to feel in relationships like we did while watching romance movies. Film DOES have the power to shake our emotions but you miss the point that films define for us what love is.
Additionally, the direction is boring and standard. Little to no camera movement or interesting camera angles. It fails as cinema in that sense. There is nothing cinematic about it as far as the camera is concerned. The editing is decent and works to bring this film to life. Finally, the writer needs to avoid the preaching about art and love. The last section where Adam's surrogate talks about what "love is" exposes a certain naiveté that is laughable. Every moment in a relationship is not the greatest feeling of your life. It's a mixed bag, a notion your film avoids. Adam, forget about the preaching, it is not important or needed. We as the viewers don't need this 7th Heaven moral lesson or pep talk. Keep developing innovative structure ideas and fill it with material that annotates the structure or vice versa, then you will have something that moves. Despite this shorts failings, I applaud its originality in the way-independent often disappointing NP2K film world.
The Dingle (2005)
Unimagintive fan boy pandering
It saddens me to find a group of people with so many resources at their fingertips* produce something so bland, unoriginal and unfunny as this. The camera feels like it is chained to the ground on every shot and the framing never dares to explore territory outside of a romantic comedy. Never once was I impressed with an angle or shot in this movie. You have to ask yourself a question, why did I bother making this if it wasn't going to be any different then the next Kate Hudson film? What's the point, what are you adding to people's cinematic language? Don't we have enough "standard" run of the mill films, please do not add insult to boredom.
Adam's writing is also as unfortunate. Why do young male writers always try to create a woman character that talks and acts like a man, this perfect love interest who is basically a woman playing a man masquerading as a woman? Adam, she doesn't exist and you need to stop writing about her. I was a fan of "Love" which was a project that was self-aware and interesting, and then I watch this aborted mixed breed of American Pie and Kevin Smith, I wonder what happened. The characters are one-dimensional and offensive (the homeless character is inexcusable). The resolution for Dana's problem is even more offensive to the viewer. I am hoping good things for Adam's "World" movie, but viewing this does not excite me.
Leave the TV sitcom moralizing and lesson learning for the WB network.
*yes compared to many of us, pulling off a production this size is unfathomable