great acting but self-indulgent poorly edited film
Last night at the Philly Qfest, the director of this film blamed her lesbian audience for why her film was low-budget (she says it's because "lesbians don't go to the movies...").Low-budget doesn't explain why the narrative rhythm of her feature film was reminiscent of a deaf, dumb, and blind elementary school's band who's music teacher is conducting over the web. No pace. No rhythm. The first 30 minutes was the worst. Needs to be re-edited!!! Eventually, the film did improve significantly, and at times, was very funny. The acting was good and I appreciated the casting.
However, overall,the story itself reeked of self-indulgence and attempted to cater too much to the real life back story of its filmmakers at the expense of developing an authentic narrative that could breathe on its own. So much of this film simply needed to be re-edited. The psychic guru guy... I understand his character and finally got around to liking him but he needs a completely revised introduction into the script. It simply doesn't work.
One thing I didn't understand was the wardrobe of the lesbian protagonist's character. The story seemed to be set in 2010 but her wardrobe was very 1990's. The actor didn't look comfortable in those clothes. Again, was this artistic detail (e.g. wardrobe) catering to the integrity of the autobiographical story over the authenticity of its recreation?
Oh, and about that long kiss....it was long. Too long. Sadly, it looked too staged and indulgent to the filmmakers rather than seeming authentic to the actual characters. It's nice when art has the potential to imitate life but it has to happen naturally. It can't just happen for it's own sake.
Lastly, a low-budget breeds creativity. I liked what was done with inserting the "real life" stories of heterosexual lovers. It was a nice touch which has been successfully executed in other films but in this film, it didn't fit in seamlessly. I've never seen such careless editing and loose story structure with all the flashbacks, and side stories, and voice-overs. More time was needed to tighten up this film. The acting itself would make it worth seeing again if it was re-edited.
score 5/10
slip199 9 July 2010
Reprint: https://www.imdb.com/review/rw2276448/34832
Pages:
[1]