Overall, the film was incredibly well done. Quite amazing.
But whenever that's the case, it's frustrating when key parts of it fall short.
First, the positives:
The cinematography by Darren Streibig is Oscar-caliber work. He could, if he chooses to, become one of the premiere DPs in cinema. He has an inventive eye that is so critical to the 'showing, not telling' of what's happening in the story. The director should be credited along w/Streibig in that regard, as apparently they've worked together for years and no doubt share a similar vision.
The editing is incredibly top-notch as well, although a little over-the-top after the lead takes 'the' picture that is supposedly sends her into never-ending guilt and shame for doing what she was hired to do when she chose to take the job in the first place. The editor shouldn't be faulted for that however, as they were no doubt following the director's instructions.
Now, the not-so-positive comments.
This is one of those films that could've been SO much better if only the writer-director had intro'd the main character -- and her nemesis -- with more care. This backstory could've been handled in 30 seconds to a minute, so time constraints are no excuse.
We know nothing about her, and despite a darkroom montage and scribbling on a napkin, don't know why she's supposedly such a great photographer. And we're given no explanation as to why she's chosen by this artist named 'Vio'. She asks "Why would he want me...?" Cop-out answer: "Why wouldn't he?"
Plus, we're not given any reason or backstory why 'Vio' is such a famous artist. Nothing. If the writer had just fixed those two things in the first couple pages -- which could've made us care about the two main characters -- the film could've been so much better.
The actress playing her is SO devoid of any emotion, so bored and aloof, so disinterested in her 'call to action', that it makes it very difficult to care what happens to her. Seriously, if she doesn't care, why should we?
Anyway, she accepts the assignment, arrives at his house (wearing boots we can hear a block away) and once she's inside, for no logical reason, it's dark and creepy. What? No electricity? No light switches? A surprisingly tiresome horror cliché in a film that seems to be and often succeeds in trying to be different.
As she's setting up, we see him coming down the staircase, accompanied by the low, but intrusive hum of 'ominous' music. Too intrusive. We don't need to be cued by the score telling us Something Bad's Gonna Happen. Yes, it's effective at times, but would've been SO much better without that constant funereal beat. In fact, the score ironically exaggerates the LACK of reaction/emotion from the lead actress.
Again, her face is the epitome of indifference. She's detached and unconcerned, with a robotic, monotone delivery that just screams - "meh". When a gun is pointed at her, she's completely unfazed, yet when he slashes his throat, she suddenly freaks out. And during that key sequence, she's completely unable to shed any tears.
The actor who plays the 'artist' is better, and despite his character's abhorrence of light bulbs, at least he has his own reasons to be so morose. The supporting cast does what they can with what they've been given.
My last negative is perhaps my own problem. But I don't understand why this was thought to be so profound. Yes, we're surrounded by violence and violent images. Every kid over the age of four plays violent video games. School shootings have become a regular occurrence. Definitely a problem.
But in this story, the photographer was offered a job, she accepted it. Never second guessed her decision or wanted to pull out. And despite the horrific circumstances, she chose to keep her word and finish the job she was hired to do. She freaks out - who wouldn't? - but later blows up at her agent for telling her she now has the fame she's always wanted, and blames the Vio's partner for everything, instead of accepting responsibility for her choices.
And while it seems like I'm the only person with anything negative to say about the film, director Wilson has stated that he entered 'Violence' in 30 film festivals and was accepted in only one. So perhaps there were others who had similar disappointments? Who knows...
Anyway, despite my silly opinions, the writer-director Wilson is to be commended for working his ass off on this - putting this all together on such a low budget and getting such (overall) amazing results. He knocked it more than halfway out of the park. I'm confident next time it'll go over way over that fence and blow everyone away with the end result.
But whenever that's the case, it's frustrating when key parts of it fall short.
First, the positives:
The cinematography by Darren Streibig is Oscar-caliber work. He could, if he chooses to, become one of the premiere DPs in cinema. He has an inventive eye that is so critical to the 'showing, not telling' of what's happening in the story. The director should be credited along w/Streibig in that regard, as apparently they've worked together for years and no doubt share a similar vision.
The editing is incredibly top-notch as well, although a little over-the-top after the lead takes 'the' picture that is supposedly sends her into never-ending guilt and shame for doing what she was hired to do when she chose to take the job in the first place. The editor shouldn't be faulted for that however, as they were no doubt following the director's instructions.
Now, the not-so-positive comments.
This is one of those films that could've been SO much better if only the writer-director had intro'd the main character -- and her nemesis -- with more care. This backstory could've been handled in 30 seconds to a minute, so time constraints are no excuse.
We know nothing about her, and despite a darkroom montage and scribbling on a napkin, don't know why she's supposedly such a great photographer. And we're given no explanation as to why she's chosen by this artist named 'Vio'. She asks "Why would he want me...?" Cop-out answer: "Why wouldn't he?"
Plus, we're not given any reason or backstory why 'Vio' is such a famous artist. Nothing. If the writer had just fixed those two things in the first couple pages -- which could've made us care about the two main characters -- the film could've been so much better.
The actress playing her is SO devoid of any emotion, so bored and aloof, so disinterested in her 'call to action', that it makes it very difficult to care what happens to her. Seriously, if she doesn't care, why should we?
Anyway, she accepts the assignment, arrives at his house (wearing boots we can hear a block away) and once she's inside, for no logical reason, it's dark and creepy. What? No electricity? No light switches? A surprisingly tiresome horror cliché in a film that seems to be and often succeeds in trying to be different.
As she's setting up, we see him coming down the staircase, accompanied by the low, but intrusive hum of 'ominous' music. Too intrusive. We don't need to be cued by the score telling us Something Bad's Gonna Happen. Yes, it's effective at times, but would've been SO much better without that constant funereal beat. In fact, the score ironically exaggerates the LACK of reaction/emotion from the lead actress.
Again, her face is the epitome of indifference. She's detached and unconcerned, with a robotic, monotone delivery that just screams - "meh". When a gun is pointed at her, she's completely unfazed, yet when he slashes his throat, she suddenly freaks out. And during that key sequence, she's completely unable to shed any tears.
The actor who plays the 'artist' is better, and despite his character's abhorrence of light bulbs, at least he has his own reasons to be so morose. The supporting cast does what they can with what they've been given.
My last negative is perhaps my own problem. But I don't understand why this was thought to be so profound. Yes, we're surrounded by violence and violent images. Every kid over the age of four plays violent video games. School shootings have become a regular occurrence. Definitely a problem.
But in this story, the photographer was offered a job, she accepted it. Never second guessed her decision or wanted to pull out. And despite the horrific circumstances, she chose to keep her word and finish the job she was hired to do. She freaks out - who wouldn't? - but later blows up at her agent for telling her she now has the fame she's always wanted, and blames the Vio's partner for everything, instead of accepting responsibility for her choices.
And while it seems like I'm the only person with anything negative to say about the film, director Wilson has stated that he entered 'Violence' in 30 film festivals and was accepted in only one. So perhaps there were others who had similar disappointments? Who knows...
Anyway, despite my silly opinions, the writer-director Wilson is to be commended for working his ass off on this - putting this all together on such a low budget and getting such (overall) amazing results. He knocked it more than halfway out of the park. I'm confident next time it'll go over way over that fence and blow everyone away with the end result.
