A found footage film about Jane, a Los Angeles-based artist who had a communal experience at Burning Man and decided to make her next project be something memorable that bring people together, in this case supposedly building a bomb and detonating it in a public place to kill a whole bunch of people.
This short film is getting a bit of buzz right now and in my opinion a large portion of that is down to the fact that it has been made by Max Landis, son of John and director of Chronicle who has a hot few projects lined up for release or completion in 2015. So those outlets and websites that may not have given this film a second look were it by a student in his final year are quick to come when a famous name is attached – nature of the game and no harm to Landis for being on the field.
Jane LA itself is an interesting film mainly because we are waiting not only to see what happens (if anything) but also to see what the point of the short is. In the end the film progresses just as we had been told throughout – that she makes a bomb and kills a whole bunch of people. It is a bit of a surprise that it happened, but not really since the "found footage" device almost certainly means that something of note has occurred to make it footage worth finding, as opposed to an artist rambling then having a simple sandwich in the park with a would be boyfriend. The delivery of the shaky camera-work is fine and it does feel natural from all the cast. However, beyond a punch line is there a point to the film?
Given how totally non-ethnic and non-Muslim the character of Jane is, one is tempted to assume that the film is playing with the viewer by leading us to assume that she is not a threat, only to then reveal that she was. We know that were the lead character a Pakistan-born Muslim living in LA proposing the same project then he would be in Cuba by invitation of the Government by the end of the film; so therefore is it the film making the suggestion that we should not assume and asking us to question why we made this assumption about Jane just because she doesn't fit the profile? I hope it is not because not only does the film not do this ambiguity well (by virtue of so clearly showing us a bomb being built and other aspects) but it is also not true. We have absurd examples in the news from recent years of people tweeting their frustration about airport delays ("airport is closed. You've got a week and a bit to get your s**t together, otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high!!") and people making stupid jokes while in the security queue – and the examples are white, which made no difference to their silly treatment as a result. So if this is the film's point then it really does not seem based in fact.
So with this point not working and not seeming to be made so much as just assumed, then one has to wonder what about the film works? I guess it is an interesting spin on the found footage concept, and the delivery of it is natural and engaging, with a decent punchline on the end which works thanks to the juxtaposition of the events and Jane's very non-threatening appearance and demeanor – but this only goes so far. I didn't hate it but it was only okay and beyond the involvement of Landis I am not sure why the film is being received with so many write-ups and posts online.
This short film is getting a bit of buzz right now and in my opinion a large portion of that is down to the fact that it has been made by Max Landis, son of John and director of Chronicle who has a hot few projects lined up for release or completion in 2015. So those outlets and websites that may not have given this film a second look were it by a student in his final year are quick to come when a famous name is attached – nature of the game and no harm to Landis for being on the field.
Jane LA itself is an interesting film mainly because we are waiting not only to see what happens (if anything) but also to see what the point of the short is. In the end the film progresses just as we had been told throughout – that she makes a bomb and kills a whole bunch of people. It is a bit of a surprise that it happened, but not really since the "found footage" device almost certainly means that something of note has occurred to make it footage worth finding, as opposed to an artist rambling then having a simple sandwich in the park with a would be boyfriend. The delivery of the shaky camera-work is fine and it does feel natural from all the cast. However, beyond a punch line is there a point to the film?
Given how totally non-ethnic and non-Muslim the character of Jane is, one is tempted to assume that the film is playing with the viewer by leading us to assume that she is not a threat, only to then reveal that she was. We know that were the lead character a Pakistan-born Muslim living in LA proposing the same project then he would be in Cuba by invitation of the Government by the end of the film; so therefore is it the film making the suggestion that we should not assume and asking us to question why we made this assumption about Jane just because she doesn't fit the profile? I hope it is not because not only does the film not do this ambiguity well (by virtue of so clearly showing us a bomb being built and other aspects) but it is also not true. We have absurd examples in the news from recent years of people tweeting their frustration about airport delays ("airport is closed. You've got a week and a bit to get your s**t together, otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high!!") and people making stupid jokes while in the security queue – and the examples are white, which made no difference to their silly treatment as a result. So if this is the film's point then it really does not seem based in fact.
So with this point not working and not seeming to be made so much as just assumed, then one has to wonder what about the film works? I guess it is an interesting spin on the found footage concept, and the delivery of it is natural and engaging, with a decent punchline on the end which works thanks to the juxtaposition of the events and Jane's very non-threatening appearance and demeanor – but this only goes so far. I didn't hate it but it was only okay and beyond the involvement of Landis I am not sure why the film is being received with so many write-ups and posts online.
