I get what this film was trying to do, and I could see how it was going about it, and that is what spoiled the film; it seemed too contrived. Or was it? On paper, it must have been a great idea but more for new up and coming actors to cut their teeth on and show their mettle, and there were some very good performances, or was everyone wooden and emotionless? Generation Um... is about life in the generation/social class where nothing really happens, although a lot does, just not necessarily good stuff, and where life hope, expectancy and future are limited by indecision, lack of direction, and feelings of being beaten down constantly by society. The story - the documentary, if you will - follows three friends/colleagues and as is the case amongst people who know each other, they don't explain their connection or their back story for the purposes of the viewer. You have to guess, piece it together as the story goes on. It's a bleak film, and hard to watch as it is so intimate, so warts and all, so brave. There's no soft lighting, no airbrushing, nothing for the actors to hide behind. A brave choice for the ladies, and for Reeves - where most actors his age are going for more glamour and youthfulness he steps out in grim NYC back streets with a hand-held camera on him, watching him eat a cupcake and just sit. And think. Or not. Look at a squirrel. Smile at a dog. Look at a puddle. Walk along.
It's not a nice film. It's not therefore enjoyable. I felt tense all the way through it, partly because I admire Reeves and didn't want to see him engage in "24 hours of sex drugs and indecision" and also because it just had that feeling of impending catastrophe about it. You were waiting for the painful scene, the breakdown, the violence. But it was actually quite quiet and tender interspersed with the almost relieving "art shots" from John's (Reeves') hand-held stolen camera and yet again Reeves plays the benign, safe, wall of calm. The canvas on which the two girls lives were painted. Almost. Novakovic and Clemens were not known to me as actors, but are clearly very talented.
I would like to give this film more stars, as the story stayed with me for days after watching it. I wanted to think it through, see more layers, even watch it again (which was a shocker, as after watching it I felt as if I never wanted to sit through that again and it was a SLOW film)... as a film, it was pretty dreadful. As art it was superb. You FELT the 24 hours, you FELT the lacklustre grimness and dirtiness, you FELT the hopelessness and the complete lack of direction, you felt the frustration with John's monosyllabic non-responsiveness and saw all the opportunities that he let slip by, the questions you would have asked the girls... it was SO lacking, that was clearly deliberate and that shows Direction and Writing of such scope and imagination... or it was really that awful. You see? I'm torn.
The best parts of the film are some superbly artful editing (Squirrel/Cocaine especially) and the end credits (no I'm not being cutely rude), but do watch to the end... there's a bit of filming at the end which sort of ties the story up. It looks unscripted, all the characters are more relaxed, happy drunk, Reeves is suddenly his charming self, the girls less intense, there is chemistry between the actors, they are smiling and joking and you finally find something out about John. It becomes a little more rounded...
I don't know... Um... I'm undecided; good or bad film; brilliant or apathetic acting; art-house or schmarthouse? Artistically minimalist or trying too hard? You decide. Please... YOU decide and tell me what to think ;-)
It's not a nice film. It's not therefore enjoyable. I felt tense all the way through it, partly because I admire Reeves and didn't want to see him engage in "24 hours of sex drugs and indecision" and also because it just had that feeling of impending catastrophe about it. You were waiting for the painful scene, the breakdown, the violence. But it was actually quite quiet and tender interspersed with the almost relieving "art shots" from John's (Reeves') hand-held stolen camera and yet again Reeves plays the benign, safe, wall of calm. The canvas on which the two girls lives were painted. Almost. Novakovic and Clemens were not known to me as actors, but are clearly very talented.
I would like to give this film more stars, as the story stayed with me for days after watching it. I wanted to think it through, see more layers, even watch it again (which was a shocker, as after watching it I felt as if I never wanted to sit through that again and it was a SLOW film)... as a film, it was pretty dreadful. As art it was superb. You FELT the 24 hours, you FELT the lacklustre grimness and dirtiness, you FELT the hopelessness and the complete lack of direction, you felt the frustration with John's monosyllabic non-responsiveness and saw all the opportunities that he let slip by, the questions you would have asked the girls... it was SO lacking, that was clearly deliberate and that shows Direction and Writing of such scope and imagination... or it was really that awful. You see? I'm torn.
The best parts of the film are some superbly artful editing (Squirrel/Cocaine especially) and the end credits (no I'm not being cutely rude), but do watch to the end... there's a bit of filming at the end which sort of ties the story up. It looks unscripted, all the characters are more relaxed, happy drunk, Reeves is suddenly his charming self, the girls less intense, there is chemistry between the actors, they are smiling and joking and you finally find something out about John. It becomes a little more rounded...
I don't know... Um... I'm undecided; good or bad film; brilliant or apathetic acting; art-house or schmarthouse? Artistically minimalist or trying too hard? You decide. Please... YOU decide and tell me what to think ;-)