It appears from the comments left already that the movie Franklyn has beguiled its audience. I too was at the BFI screening, but I was far from enamoured by what I saw.
The cinematography was weak for a feature. TV OK, but not cinema. It was obvious, leaching from Gilliam and del Toro, but without the grand aesthetic. I was hugely impressed by the production design and the CGI/graphics, but it was spoilt by some pedestrian direction. I desperately wanted this film to fly, to show off, but it never really got off the ground for me.
Yes it is highly derivative, taking chunks from so many other texts; films, comics, books and TV shows, that in my honest opinion been done better elsewhere.
The use of colour and grading did nothing to help the poor use of lens and framing or to aid the differentiation of the narrative strands for the characters. Instead I was left having to acknowledge flashbacks, scene changes and internalised daydreams by chance rather than be led through. (note, not spoon fed)
The narrative(s) itself is an absolute mess and I would have been glad of the opportunity to ask the director was the edit we were presented close to the original script. It appeared that the fantasy had been brought forward and scenes rearranged to monopolise on the genre elements above the conceit of the intertwined plots. It fails to deliver in the same way as 21 grams does with multiple character narratives. I personally feel that it would have worked better presented in a Rashomon fashion. Alternatively this could have made a good TV series.
This resulted in a film that is as schizophrenic as much as confusing, relying on an awful Blade Runneresque narration to gloss over issues within the film.
The audience's attention is abruptly chopped between plot strands, prior to any real comprehension of the characters can be established, and thus distancing the viewer from emotional engagement, a key device in drama.
We don't care about anyone in the film
To confuse matters further, a second character is given narration, but not the third and fourth. This is one example of the deep inconsistencies with which the characters are handled.
Which protagonist's view point do we associate ourselves with at any time?
The symbology, icons and themes were poorly handled and desperately needed greater foregrounding. Cinema is a visual and sound based medium, but one does not need endless scenes of two characters talking, to comprehend the story.
Show don't tell
The music was insipid. No more to say
The film had moments that demonstrated potential, but without emotional engagement the 90+ minute running time felt much longer. I will admit that the final scene is good; paced, acted, emotional and dramatic. Bravo, but it left me feeling that if this was possible, then why did it not manifest earlier. Why direct one good sequence at the end?
If you have little money then make sure that you amp up the emotional intensity.
I must say that it did do a great thing for me and that was to give me a kick up the arse and realise that I should be directing my first feature sooner rather than later. Thanks Gerald
The cinematography was weak for a feature. TV OK, but not cinema. It was obvious, leaching from Gilliam and del Toro, but without the grand aesthetic. I was hugely impressed by the production design and the CGI/graphics, but it was spoilt by some pedestrian direction. I desperately wanted this film to fly, to show off, but it never really got off the ground for me.
Yes it is highly derivative, taking chunks from so many other texts; films, comics, books and TV shows, that in my honest opinion been done better elsewhere.
The use of colour and grading did nothing to help the poor use of lens and framing or to aid the differentiation of the narrative strands for the characters. Instead I was left having to acknowledge flashbacks, scene changes and internalised daydreams by chance rather than be led through. (note, not spoon fed)
The narrative(s) itself is an absolute mess and I would have been glad of the opportunity to ask the director was the edit we were presented close to the original script. It appeared that the fantasy had been brought forward and scenes rearranged to monopolise on the genre elements above the conceit of the intertwined plots. It fails to deliver in the same way as 21 grams does with multiple character narratives. I personally feel that it would have worked better presented in a Rashomon fashion. Alternatively this could have made a good TV series.
This resulted in a film that is as schizophrenic as much as confusing, relying on an awful Blade Runneresque narration to gloss over issues within the film.
The audience's attention is abruptly chopped between plot strands, prior to any real comprehension of the characters can be established, and thus distancing the viewer from emotional engagement, a key device in drama.
We don't care about anyone in the film
To confuse matters further, a second character is given narration, but not the third and fourth. This is one example of the deep inconsistencies with which the characters are handled.
Which protagonist's view point do we associate ourselves with at any time?
The symbology, icons and themes were poorly handled and desperately needed greater foregrounding. Cinema is a visual and sound based medium, but one does not need endless scenes of two characters talking, to comprehend the story.
Show don't tell
The music was insipid. No more to say
The film had moments that demonstrated potential, but without emotional engagement the 90+ minute running time felt much longer. I will admit that the final scene is good; paced, acted, emotional and dramatic. Bravo, but it left me feeling that if this was possible, then why did it not manifest earlier. Why direct one good sequence at the end?
If you have little money then make sure that you amp up the emotional intensity.
I must say that it did do a great thing for me and that was to give me a kick up the arse and realise that I should be directing my first feature sooner rather than later. Thanks Gerald
Tell Your Friends