This is such a bizarre movie. I'm not sure if I'm entertained because it's supposed to be funny, or if it's so awkward in a gawky, unfunny way as to come out the other side as oddly enjoyable. There is an astounding nonchalance to every passing scene, to the dialogue, and to the cast's performances, to say nothing of distinct artificiality. From the start, 'Fitful' rather has the feel of a group of people hanging out and having drinks, with one feeding two individuals (the cast) directions to film a scene in front of the camera, on a lark, in service to a vague story conjured on a whim; the only significant difference is what seems like professional lighting, editing, and so on. I began watching with no foreknowledge or expectations - but whatever I might have imagined this could be, it wasn't this.
More than half the runtime has passed by and it seems like hardly anything at all has happened. There is a story here, but the movie is so completely unbothered in its approach to a sense of narrative that each scene mostly feels wildly disconnected, all strung together with only the most marginal air of attachment. With that, I'm not sure if I can meaningfully assess the performances. Even without having previously seen Renee O'Connor in anything before or since the glorious days of 'Xena: Warrior Princess,' I earnestly believe she's an actress of considerable skill. I know nothing about co-star Larry Joe Campbell but I will assume he would demonstrate fine abilities under the right circumstances. Here, the tableau patched together is so indifferent to a recognizable practice of cinematic storytelling that the scenes, as they present, feel more disjointed than if there were intertitles woven amidst them, as in silent movies - and as such, the acting in each scene feels like a brand new creature, necessary to analyze on its own. True, this does to an extent comport with the flow of the narrative, superficially broken and purposefully repetitive in the course of events. Still, the fact remains that O'Connor scarcely seems invested in what transpires, and by comparison Campbell appears to be boldly overacting. Are either of these impressions accurate? I'm really not sure.
And even for all that, most peculiar of all is how very predictable the plot is. I repeat that it only appears, superficially, to be broken, and the repetitiveness is intentional: We pick up in no time at all on what is happening; every attempted zigzag in the plot development, even in the final few minutes, is like gently jostling the steering wheel while driving on a flat, straight road to help one stay alert - the path and time of arrival remains clear and unobstructed, with no real oscillation. That's not to say that there aren't good ideas in the screenplay, or that there's no value to be had. The concept is mildly clever, if familiar. Yet those good ideas, and whatever fun we can derive from the viewing experience, is counterbalanced with a lack of earnest thrills, excitement, engagement, or otherwise impact of any kind. The length comes and goes, we have watched 'Fitful,' and the tale imparted is, in fact, coherent and whole. So?
I actually do kind of like this. Despite the lack of substantial investment, I appreciate what writer-director Richard Brauer has concocted. I appreciate the work of the crew to help realize the picture. I appreciate the contributions of O'Connor, Campbell, and their sparing few co-stars. But I'm just also rather flummoxed; I've seen art films and low-budget dramas with still less eventfulness that managed nonetheless to be more actively engrossing. All the puzzle pieces are here, and they form the image they should, yet somehow something still feels to be off, missing, incomplete. It's a title at once curious, and uninteresting; satisfying, and not. The whole of the plot can be summarized in a single sentence. Overall I think it's a suitable, worthwhile diversion, but I also wouldn't begrudge anyone who watches it and finds the experience less than fruitful.
I'm not sure to whom I would recommend 'Fitful,' save perhaps to utmost fans of O'Connor or others involved, or to those whose interest in and receptiveness to movies exceeds the desire for a fulfilling encounter. It's not bad - it's just too laid back to be something to write home about, either.
More than half the runtime has passed by and it seems like hardly anything at all has happened. There is a story here, but the movie is so completely unbothered in its approach to a sense of narrative that each scene mostly feels wildly disconnected, all strung together with only the most marginal air of attachment. With that, I'm not sure if I can meaningfully assess the performances. Even without having previously seen Renee O'Connor in anything before or since the glorious days of 'Xena: Warrior Princess,' I earnestly believe she's an actress of considerable skill. I know nothing about co-star Larry Joe Campbell but I will assume he would demonstrate fine abilities under the right circumstances. Here, the tableau patched together is so indifferent to a recognizable practice of cinematic storytelling that the scenes, as they present, feel more disjointed than if there were intertitles woven amidst them, as in silent movies - and as such, the acting in each scene feels like a brand new creature, necessary to analyze on its own. True, this does to an extent comport with the flow of the narrative, superficially broken and purposefully repetitive in the course of events. Still, the fact remains that O'Connor scarcely seems invested in what transpires, and by comparison Campbell appears to be boldly overacting. Are either of these impressions accurate? I'm really not sure.
And even for all that, most peculiar of all is how very predictable the plot is. I repeat that it only appears, superficially, to be broken, and the repetitiveness is intentional: We pick up in no time at all on what is happening; every attempted zigzag in the plot development, even in the final few minutes, is like gently jostling the steering wheel while driving on a flat, straight road to help one stay alert - the path and time of arrival remains clear and unobstructed, with no real oscillation. That's not to say that there aren't good ideas in the screenplay, or that there's no value to be had. The concept is mildly clever, if familiar. Yet those good ideas, and whatever fun we can derive from the viewing experience, is counterbalanced with a lack of earnest thrills, excitement, engagement, or otherwise impact of any kind. The length comes and goes, we have watched 'Fitful,' and the tale imparted is, in fact, coherent and whole. So?
I actually do kind of like this. Despite the lack of substantial investment, I appreciate what writer-director Richard Brauer has concocted. I appreciate the work of the crew to help realize the picture. I appreciate the contributions of O'Connor, Campbell, and their sparing few co-stars. But I'm just also rather flummoxed; I've seen art films and low-budget dramas with still less eventfulness that managed nonetheless to be more actively engrossing. All the puzzle pieces are here, and they form the image they should, yet somehow something still feels to be off, missing, incomplete. It's a title at once curious, and uninteresting; satisfying, and not. The whole of the plot can be summarized in a single sentence. Overall I think it's a suitable, worthwhile diversion, but I also wouldn't begrudge anyone who watches it and finds the experience less than fruitful.
I'm not sure to whom I would recommend 'Fitful,' save perhaps to utmost fans of O'Connor or others involved, or to those whose interest in and receptiveness to movies exceeds the desire for a fulfilling encounter. It's not bad - it's just too laid back to be something to write home about, either.
