MON AMI Review - Raindance Film Festival 2012

I'm not going to say I loved it. But they made this movie for $14,000 (Less than £9000)! The film has a lot of charm, some moments of great cinematography, and the editing is fantastic. And I'm going to say it again: they made this movie for $14,000.

The beginning of the film is great --- a text-message exchange between two people, which instantly gets the audience's interest piqued. After that we see two guys, working in a job they loathe -- it's typical indie film fodder, but it's enjoyable. But then the film loses its energy -- plods along, getting lost in best-friend banter that was so fresh when Kevin Smith did it but now independent movies really need to find a new shtick.

As a director, Rob Grant has achieved something to be proud of. He put together a movie on a tiny budget, and shot in an effective and creative way ---- I just feel that, if the script had been great, this could have been a real winner.

But hey, who am I to judge? His movie got into Raindance; so it is a winner.

But I guess I'm talking on a bigger scale. What makes a cheap independent film shine?

For one, you have to totally NAIL the premise, but here, some things were lost in translation. It was the same with 'Locked in a Garage Band'. In 'Mon Ami', when the film spends too much time in friends-at-work-banter, there's a lull in forward motion which leads to a dip in the attention span. The rest of the film suffers because of it.

A general note about independent comedy films in general. Nearly all of them that I've seen this year have had men who work in jobs they loathe, who go about their days with a casual aloofness --- the two characters did it throughout this movie, as did the lead character in 'Locked in a Garage Band', as did a bunch of characters in 'Vinyl' and 'Cinema Six' (all of which I saw at Raindance this week). I feel that we perhaps need to move on and find new indie film heroes, who do something more than casually stroll through movies acting slightly cool and more than a bit above the drama in their lives. In 'Mon Ami', the joke is that they're casually and aloofly strolling through a kidnapping -- and I find it hard to buy into! 

Did I tell you Rob Grant made this movie for $14,000? This review is practically irrelevant -- what matters is what he achieved with virtually no money. And despite the film's flaws, there is a lot to celebrate -- and I'm excited to see what he'll do next. 

Care to share?

Tweet

Studios V Independents

Fans of the indies often see the studio flicks as dumb. Fans of studio pictures see the indies as snorefests.

Both perspectives miss the point.

You get great movies in both systems. It's just the odds are different.

Woody Allen is an independent. His films are mostly (but not always) funded outside of Hollywood. His content is very independent, he has full control and doesn't ask for opinions from the investors or producers.

The good: Sometimes he makes 'Annie Hall' and 'Vicky Cristina Barcelona'.

The bad: Sometimes he makes 'Scoop'.

And 'Scoop' was atrocious.

Here's the thing -- nobody can sustain genius every time. If you have a true artist on your hands, they'll push the boundaries of a) what's expected and, b) what they're capable of.

Which means they'll sometimes fail, no matter how good they are.

The studios are scared of failure. Especially as they like to spend money. Imagine if Woody Allen directed 'Friends With Benefits' and had final cut privilege. What would happen?  Maybe it'd be awful because he doesn't know the lifestyles of the characters, and because he'd rework the script to make the ending less predictable... by doing that he'd alienate all the viewers who just want to see Kunis and Timberlake flirt and kiss.

Or maybe he'd create a masterpiece because he's one of the all time great writer/director's of the New York rom-com. With the studio cash, schedule, and talent; he could achieve great things.

But the risk is too big. (And Woody is a bad example, because he wouldn't ever take that job)

So instead we get a studio made flick which is filtered through producers and studio heads and focus groups.

And sure, the film is likable and many people will like it. It does its job and makes money.

People might enjoy 'Friends With Benefits' but underneath the sweet dialogue and quirky characters is standard formula. The film doesn't transcend. It doesn't change your life. And it never will, because of how it's made.

When you make 'Annie Hall' it might end up being 'Manhattan' or it might end up being 'Scoop'. You just don't know. But when you make 'Friends With Benefits' you make 'Friends With Benefits'. The potential for greatness is blocked, impossible.

The exceptions: Spielberg, Abrams, Eastwood, Tarantino.

These guys rose to the top by being blessed with a touch of genius. Hard work, too, but mostly genius.

They may do work within the studios but they have the attitude of an independent, and the power. Spielberg is like an excited Kid, Eastwood has exquisite instincts, and Tarantino is an obsessive maniac.

They stand out as unique and independent spirits.

That's what you need. If you make independently funded films based on things you're passionate about, the door is open for greatness. But it's also open for disaster.

Working in the studio system safeguards against disaster as best as it can. But you only get to make art if you rise to the top by being marked with creative genius and an ability to pull in giant audiences.

Care to share?

Tweet