The Nerve Insider
A daily pick of what's new and hot at Nerve.
Scanner
Your daily cup of WTF?
Nerve@SXSW 2006.
Blogging the Roman Orgy of Indie-music Festivals.
Coming Soon!
Coming Soon!
Coming Soon!
The Daily Siege
An intimate and provocative look at Siege's life, work and loves.
Kate & Camilla
two best friends pursue business and pleasure in NYC.
Naughty James
The lustful, frantic diary of a young London photographer.
The Nerve Blog-a-log: kid_play
The Nerve Blog-a-log: Super_C
The Nerve Blog-a-log: ILoveYourMom
A bundle of sass who's trying to stop the same mistakes.
The Nerve Blog-a-log: The_Sentimental
Our newest Blog-a-logger.
The Nerve Blog-a-log: Marking_Up
Gay man in the Big Apple, full of apt metaphors and dry wit.
The Nerve Blog-a-log: SJ1000
Naughty and philosophical dispatches from the life of a writer-comedian who loves bathtubs and hates wearing underpants.
The Nerve Video Blog
Deep, deep inside the world of online video.
The Nerve Blog-a-log: charlotte_web
A Demi in search of her Ashton.
The Prowl, with Ryan Pfluger
Nerve @ Cannes Film Festival
May 16 - May 25
ScreenGrab
The Nerve 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.
The Nerve Blog-a-log: that_darn_cat
A sassy Canadian who will school you at Tetris.
Rose & Olive
Houston neighbors pull back the curtains and expose each other's lives.
The Nerve Blog-a-log: funkybrownchick
The name says it all.
merkley???
A former Mormon goes wild, and shoots nudes, in San Francisco.
chase
The creator of Supercult.com poses his pretty posse.
The Remote Island
Nerve's TV blog.
Brandonland
A California boy capturing beach parties, sunsets and plenty of skin.
61 Frames Per Second
Smarter gaming.
The Nerve Blog-a-log: Charlotte_Web
A Demi in search of her Ashton.
The Nerve Blog-a-log: Zeitgeisty
A Manhattan pip in search of his pipette.
Date Machine
Putting your baggage to good use.

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.


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 Nerve, 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 toscreengrab@nerve.com

Archives

  • July 2008 (133)
  • June 2008 (146)
  • May 2008 (241)
  • Bloggers

    • Paul Clark
    • John Constantine
    • Phil Nugent
    • Leonard Pierce
    • Scott Von Doviak
    • Andrew Osborne

    Contributors

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

    Editor

    • Peter Smith

    Tags

    Places to Go

    People To Read

    Film Festivals

    Directors

    Partners