Register Now!

Media

  • scanner scanner
  • scanner screengrab
  • modern materialist the modern
    materialist
  • video 61 frames
    per second
  • video the remote
    island

Photo

  • slice slice with
    giovanni
    cervantes
  • paper airplane crush paper
    airplane crush
  • autumn blog autumn
  • chase chase
  • rose &amp olive rose & olive
Scanner
Your daily cup of WTF?
ScreenGrab
The Hooksexup Film Blog
Slice
Each month a new artist; each image a new angle. This month: Giovanni Cervantes.
ScreenGrab
The Hooksexup Film Blog
Autumn
A fashionable L.A. photo editor exploring all manner of hyper-sexual girls down south.
The Modern Materialist
Almost everything you want.
Paper Airplane Crush
A San Francisco photographer on the eternal search for the girls of summer.
Rose & Olive
Houston neighbors pull back the curtains and expose each other's lives.
chase
The creator of Supercult.com poses his pretty posse.
The Remote Island
Hooksexup's TV blog.
61 Frames Per Second
Smarter gaming.

The Screengrab

Mike D'Angelo at Sundance: Part 4

Posted by Peter Smith

Mike D'Angelo reports from the Sundance Film Festival:

Just a few minutes into Ballast, Lance Hammer's methodically withholding feature debut, I already felt confident of two things. One, I wasn't going to like this movie. Two, everybody else would, for reasons having little to do with Hammer's artistry and a great deal to do with his sensibility. Sure enough, shortly after I bailed at the end of reel two, weary of the film's mannered silences and artless shakycam, I found Robert Koehler's Variety rave, which predictably declared Hammer "a humanist artist" and praised his film for "engag[ing] audiences' best human responses." (As opposed to, say, their arachnoid responses.)

Alas, since I don't subscribe to the self-congratulatory notion that a film's worth hinges on the degree to which it reflects your own worldview, thereby making you feel good about yourself for admiring it — a phenomenon I've dubbed "soup kitchen cinema" — I can't join in the hosannahs. My friend Noel Murray of the Onion AV Club, who stayed to the end (and was somewhat underwhelmed), assures me that Ballast does eventually shake off its sub-Dardennes torpor and achieve some genuine power. But let me briefly recount the moments that made me decide I'd seen more than enough. (This will involve some mild spoilers concerning events that happen in the first few minutes, which you're likely to encounter anyway if you're so much as skimming other reviews/synopses.)

After a brief, lyrical pre-title sequence, we discover Lawrence (inexpressive nonprofessional Micheal J. Smith, Sr.), a heavyset black man, sitting on the couch in the darkened living room of a dilapidated house, just staring into space. A neighbor appears, first knocking and then, when Lawrence fails to respond, opening the unlocked front door and stepping inside. The neighbor, a middle-aged white guy, is looking for someone who turns out to be Lawrence's twin brother, and finds him lying dead in the bedroom, an apparent suicide. Naturally, the neighbor has questions for Lawrence, but Lawrence says nothing. He just keeps staring into space. Eventually, as the neighbor calls 911, Lawrence silently stands and walks out the front door, without so much as a glance at the neighbor; through the open door, we can see him disappear around a corner.

At which point I had to restrain myself from saying aloud "Aaaand gunshot in five. . . four. . . three. . ." I wasn't 100% certain whether Lawrence was about to return with a gun and blow the neighbor away or just shoot himself offscreen. But Hammer's setup for an "unexpected" act of violence couldn't possibly have been more clumsily blatant. If you don't know that a nonresponsive, near-catatonic character who abruptly leaves the room is about to do something horrific, you can't have seen very many movies in your life.

One offscreen gunshot later, Lawrence is in the hospital, having survived his suicide attempt. We get a series of brief, uninflected shots showing his surgery, his recovery, his discharge. (This is all in the film's first five to ten minutes.) People speak to Lawrence, but he never says anything in return. Weeks have now passed — we hear from a doctor that Lawrence was unconscious for ten days — and the same neighbor shows up, wanting to know whether Lawrence is okay; he's also come to return Lawrence's dog, which he's been looking after since the "accident." Lawrence opens the door when the neighbor knocks and then just stands there, silent, for the entire scene. Are you okay, Lawrence? Silence. I brought your dog back, figured you'd want him now. Silence. I guess I'll just keep him a while longer, then. Silence. You sure you're okay? Silence. All right then.

I'm sorry, but this is bullshit. We're not talking here about the melancholy expressionism of a Tsai Ming-liang or the perverse whimsy of a Kim Ki-duk. This is by no means a deliberately stylized world in which a mute character violates no rule of verisimilitude. Hammer is aiming for raw naturalism, and we're apparently expected to believe not only that Lawrence's behavior is a credible expression of grief (which I might buy in the immediate aftermath of his brother's death, but not weeks later following a lengthy hospital stay), but that the neighbor, who in all respects appears to be an ordinary guy, would simply accept these unmistakable signs of mental imbalance, never once pressing or protesting.

Ask yourself how you would react if someone you knew just stood there like a statue, making no response of any kind to anything you said. This nonsense bears no relationship whatsoever to genuine human behavior — it's just a novice filmmaker's misguided notion of what might constitute badass minimalism. That so many people seem prepared to take it seriously only shows how far good intentions will take you.


+ DIGG + DEL.ICIO.US + REDDIT

Comments

noah k said:

Wow - the arrogance it takes to comment on - and self-satisfyingly dismiss - a film only fractionally seen.  A sad fact of film festival reporting, perhaps, but D'Angelo's tone is dismaying, as always.  Why does Hooksexup, with a great stable of smart writers, keep publishing one who consistently resists taking the full measure of that which he reviews?  Is this legitimate criticism?

Is it that hard to watch a complete film?

January 22, 2008 5:15 PM

incongruous said:

When you're watching four or five a day, yes, it can be. Furthermore, I've gone back and watched in full several films that I'd bailed on at festivals, and each time found my initial opinion confirmed. (Most recently, The Orphanage.) Most of the time I make no comment about movies I merely sampled, but the praise for Ballast has been so uniform—and, to my mind, so baffling—that I felt the need to explain what it was that made me decide it wasn't worth any more of my time. And nothing that occurs later in the film could possibly retroactively dignify the patently false and/or schematic moments I describe in this post.

January 23, 2008 12:28 AM

Adam Cadre said:

"Is this legitimate criticism? Is it that hard to watch a complete film?"

It's the filmmakers' responsibility to give the viewer a reason to keep watching.  If watching a film to the end starts to feel like a hardship, then yes, that is enough information to determine that, at least for you, the film is a failure.

Admittedly, I can think of one film whose seemingly terrible beginning was retroactively vindicated: <i>Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind</i>.  But that was a big gamble on Kaufman's part.

January 23, 2008 3:48 AM

Conniption said:

Of course, you haven't made a convincing case that the scenes in the beginning were patently false "and/or" schematic (having seen the film, I can say they aren't) and I am highly suspect of the comprehension of your knowledge of "human behavior," so your "criticism" really falls flat. On top of that, you are "reviewing" a film segment whose length was arbitrarily decided by your departure time, not the full feature film, which is a bit disreputable, wouldn't you say? This is arrogance unmet by justification.

(And right-thinking folks won't be snowed by an argument along the lines of "it's jsut so hard to see so many complete films at a festival with a press pass" from a glutton of cinema such as yourself.)

February 2, 2008 5:03 AM

Jon Bender said:

Anyone who uses the phrase "a phenomenon I've dubbed..." is a pretentious twat.

February 14, 2008 6:13 PM

in
Send rants/raves to

Archives

Bloggers

  • Paul Clark
  • John Constantine
  • Vadim Rizov
  • Phil Nugent
  • Leonard Pierce
  • Scott Von Doviak
  • Andrew Osborne
  • Hayden Childs
  • Sarah Sundberg
  • Nick Schager
  • Lauren Wissot

Contributors

  • Kent M. Beeson
  • Pazit Cahlon
  • Bilge Ebiri
  • D.K. Holm
  • Faisal A. Qureshi
  • Vern
  • Bryan Whitefield
  • Scott Renshaw
  • Gwynne Watkins

Tags

Places to Go

People To Read

Film Festivals

Directors

Partners