Redland (2009) User Reviews

One of the most gorgeous films I've ever seen

[nunofyrbidness · 9/10 · 16 March 2011]

I will say first - this is not a movie for everyone. And I'm all for that, since movies for everyone seem to be short on story - big on noise and special effects, and heaven knows there's a glut on that market nowadays. There's no snappy dialogue, in fact dialogue itself is minimal.

What you *will* get is a fairly dark tale about family, poverty, isolation and passion set in the depression era, told through some of the most stunningly gorgeous cinematography. The director, cast and crew do an incredible job of allowing the story to develop in its own time, and primarily visually. The cast itself does an excellent job of being transparent and letting the characters be the visible presence.

An excellent antidote to the preponderance of movies full of flash/bang and not much else.

I can not recall seeing a better shot film (and I've tried)

[ratcityfilmsociety · 10/10 · 29 March 2010]

After watching this film three times, and mixing in some cinematographic favorites from the past as visual challenges. I must stick to my initial assessment of: This may be the best shot film I have ever seen. The Redwoods have an essence that is notoriously hard to capture film, director Asiel Norton captures it over and over again. Five minutes into this film I said to myself: "If this has any kind of a coherent story, it will be a great film". Much to my delight it was a very coherent and very primal story line complete with possibly my favorite cinematic "holy fool". The isolation of the family was almost a character in the story. A remote village can have some odd practices and rituals, this Depression era homestead is that remoteness at its most extreme. The cast was perfect, right down to the dog. Everything about this movie is to be praised and admired. It is hard not to ramble on saying x y and z were flawless, but they were. This directorial debut of Asiel Norton leaves me confident we have seen the our first glimpse of one of the all time greats.

Movie Review: 'Redland'

[d_art · 5/10 · 1 April 2011]

Redland, written and directed by Asiel Norton, takes place in rural America during the Great Depression, where a family of five—father, wife, two sons, and a daughter—are struggling to survive. Isolated from civilization, they are running out of food. The men of the family, along with another helper, venture out for wild game. Meanwhile, they discover that the daughter of the family, Mary-Ann (Lucy Adden) is having a secret affair.

This is very much an art film. The film has a disjointed narrative structure sprinkled with various imagery, color, close-up details, and intricate use of camera filters. They bring forth the mystical beauty of the forests as well as the dangers. The camera emphasizes an environment that is both dreamlike and alive, yet also reptilian and cold. Unusual filters are used, sometimes to an amazing effect, sometimes at the expense of the film's pacing, story, and clarity.

The extreme close-ups of small creatures and low angles are effectively framed, bringing great detail, parallels, and personality. The humans in the film, however, are somewhat given second priority. They are often fuzzy to make out and sometimes hard to distinguish from each other. Much like old photos, majority of the film uses sepia filters, sometimes overbearingly, muting out the color and detail. This is a double-edged sword as it brings out the stylistic tastes of the director, but also hides a good deal of visual narrative. Digital grain can also be seen in many of the dark scenes (a constant issue with digital film).

There isn't much story. It would probably best fit in a short film. Scenes occur, but they're often shrouded, fuzzy, or in extreme close-up. I found it frustrating. I often couldn't tell who was who or what was happening with all the feathering and filter effects. Voices often felt muffled and hard to distinguish. The film does accomplish in creating a constant sense of unease. For the less patient, it will seem monotonous, claustrophobic, and cold.

The characters are not deep. They are just part of the overall image, if you will, or the environment they inhabit. The dialogue is often generic, but the film does leave subtle clues here and there that can be read more deeply. I suppose the characters are more like symbols, whether they symbolize society, morality, and maybe the id.

I'm sure critics will love this film. It is that kind of film. It's layered, but frustrating. It creates reaction. It's a challenging film. This film will work for those who love open interpretations and less structure. Honestly, I do tend to see "overly artsy" films as a disguise for laziness, letting the audience do the work of projecting their own mental landscapes, if you will. I will agree, though, that this film is far from "lazy" and does great stuff with its budget and the director Asiel Norton is great with visual language. The beginning of the film says very much while showing very little.

Disturbing things do happen in the film, which likely will turn people off (which was probably the film's point). Even despite that, I couldn't get into the characters, and found myself distancing myself from them even more. I couldn't tell if I was supposed to sympathize with them or make fun of them. It is not what one would call an "entertaining" film. It's a real bleak film. The visuals are creative, but the pacing is maddening. One will either certainly like or dislike this film.

For more of my movie review updates, you can find them on http://twitter.com/d_art

The Great Depressive

[NoDakTatum · 10/10 · 18 November 2023]

For the first half hour of this film, I seethed with anger. I was bored, drowsy, and pissed. I couldn't stand it. Eventually, I realized I couldn't stand what the film was doing to me, and continued to watch this cinematic dream. Taking place during the Depression, a backwoods family is starving to death. Mary-Ann (Lucy Adden) has been carrying on an illicit affair with local boy Charlie (Toben Seymour), meeting him in the woods. Lucy's father (Mark Aaron) catches wind of the situation, seeing Lucy going through some womanly issues during the film's first few minutes, and begins questioning Lucy's brothers, older Job (Sean Thomas) and younger Paul (Kathan Fors) about any men coming around. Out of desperation, Father, Job, and Charlie decide to head out on a long hunt to get food for the family, leaving behind Mary-Ann, Paul, and their mother (Bernadette Murray) to fend for themselves. Tensions rise between both sets of characters as Father eventually suspects Charlie of sleeping with his daughter (and everyone is carrying a hunting rifle), and the family back home resorts to eating a pet chicken, wild berries, and then some possibly poisonous mushrooms.

While a plot summary can be straightforward, this film is anything but. The director, Asiel Norton (who co-wrote this with the film's producer, Magdalena Zyzak), set out to shoot a cinematic dream, and succeed. Thanks in large part to cinematographer Zoran Popovic, this film quickly gets inside your head and shakes things about. I would compare it favorably to the 1970's output of Stanley Kubrick, Ingmar Bergman, or Terrence Malick. Every image looks like a hand-tinted old photograph come to life. The characters are covered in grime and dirt, suffering from starvation and rural boredom. The film is frustrating. I didn't like the characters, couldn't quite make sense of things, and felt as isolated and out-of-sorts as the film's family. The sound design and music, both from T. K. Broderick, seemed determined to increase my unease, which they did. Just as in real life, dialogue is understood in snippets. I realized Norton was taking a mere snapshot of life in these creepy woods, which become a character as well, and the viewer may begin questioning the entire hero/villain, good/evil paradigm as they witness these people do what they must to survive. Just like "The Passion of the Christ" or "Saving Private Ryan," this is not a popcorn munching flick, constantly interrupted by trips to the bathroom or cell phone calls. This film doesn't simply ask you "what would you do in this situation?," Norton's direction puts you in the situation shown, where simple answers to stock characters' dilemmas are difficult to come by. There is one sequence near the end of the film, you will know it when you see it, that is so heartbreaking and so repulsive at the same time, I had problems watching it, yet Norton keeps your eyes on the screen, witnessing the horror. The cast is so good, I cannot believe they were acting. I kept wondering if every shot of the film was planned, or did Norton and his crew happen upon some impressive footage they were able to utilize during editing? Either way, your eyes will dart all over the screen, trying to take every shaded detail in. "Redland" is difficult. You won't want to go running down to the nearest coffee joint afterward to gab about it, it will stay with you, asking you the very same questions it asks of its characters. In this computer generated day and age, it's a throwback to intelligent film making, and it's brilliant.