As any Independent Filmmaker will tell you, the challenging days of getting a film screened at film festivals are over. For quite some time now “the challenge” of an artist getting his/her movie screened at any film festival has become almost impossible. While the access to the tools required to make a film have never been easier, it has resulted in what film festival programers feel is a “glut” of too many movies to be evaluated. And, while the idea of a film festival as a tool to screen and promote the art of film — the reality is the the film festival circuit is a business. If the film festival is unable to highlight more “accessible” or “audience friendly” mainstream work, the chances for that festival to attract not only key players in the Film Industry — but the supporters / advertisers will not be willing to fund the festival.
Kentucker Audley has become one of the key figures in truly “independent filmmaking” — his movies do not normally follow any of the conventional ideas regarding filmmaking. Yet, he is an exceptionally talented film artist who creates distinctive and essential experimental films. In order to support himself he often works as actor for others within the Independent Film World. most notably in Amy Seimetz’s Florida drenched thriller, Sun Don’t Shine, the collaborative horror movie, V/H/S and in David Lowery’s Ain’t Them Bodies Saints.
Several years back he created a self-curated free site for independent filmmakers to get their work on-line.
In 2013 he spoke with Sarah Salovaara of Filmmaker Magazine about what led him to create this simple but effective site: “…It started because I began to see that film festivals weren’t programming some of the most interesting films, and that left many films without a place to screen.” It is a great site filled with varied and often challenging work. But Audley’s goal here is not to generate money or deals — but just simply to offer a place where artist’s can get their film’s out to an audience. Often, these films will only be shown for a day or two and this can also serve as another way for a filmmaker to independently sell their movies via Vimeo.
But when a filmmaker and a cast and crew fully invest in a clear cinematic vision, it is heartbreaking when innovative and unique films slip between the cracks. At the moment, I am particularly frustrated that Brandon Colvin’s masterfully beautiful Sabbatical has had such a struggle to “fit in” with the forced ideologies of the US festival circuit.
An additional hurdle for Sabbatical is that while it is very much an American film — it applies a great deal of cinematic technique that is more often found in European Film. Despite gaining some very high praise from some key people and securing spots in several solid festivals — Brandon Colvin’s amazing film has yet to find a truly satisfying way to a wider audience. This audience exists despite the Big Studio System and the ever-growing “closed” doors at many of the bigger festivals. Yet, Colvin is dedicated to the fight. Via his website and Vimeo, his film is being seen and admired.
It is essential the Independent Filmmaker secure the praise of film critics. A review from The New Yorker, The New York Times, The Village Voice or The Hollywood Reporter can end up serving as an incredibly tool to entice audiences to pursue the movies. Sadly, it can also inflect harm.
While the debate over the current state of Film Criticism is valid, the over-simplified Consensus Criticism would appear to be the model with which filmmakers are stuck. For better or worse, RottenTomatoes isn’t going anywhere. Nor is the largely unfair rating system of IMDB going to expire. And, the power of the Film Critic seems to be amping up with the assistance of of these (and other) databases.
I am a true cinephile. I love to write about movies, but I’m painfully aware of my limitations as a writer. I do my best when it comes to communication and utilizing my voice and “people skills” to negotiate my opinions to approach legit impact.
Geoff Marslett made both an entertaining and potent movie. And, not only was he able to secure a screening debut at 2013’s SXSW Festival. He was awarded the highly valued Louis Black Lone Star Award for Loves Her Gun. His film was officially released in 2013.
It scored very well with critics and carries a 71% with critics on RT. However, a very clear sign that it failed to find it’s audience is reflected in an audience rating of 45%. Art is subjective, but it baffles me that this unique, creative, smart, bold and potent film carries such an inconsistent rating of critics to audience. When you look closer, you will discover that only 66 individuals have taken the time to log on and assign a rating. The human being is a complex creature and prone to put more effort into “bitching” than “praising” — and the provocative title most likely led a number of rabid NRA members to take to RT faster than I care to imagine. The low rating is suspect.
I try very hard to fight against the idea that a critic will dedicate my opinions to me, but there are critics and publications that seem more aligned with my tastes. The fact that I sometimes allow someone like AO Scott or Richard Brody to sway me away from going to the cinema is a reality. Especially when money is tight or I’m “on the fence” about a particular film. This used to be the most common power of the Film Critic. But in the last 5 years, more and more people simply jump on the computer to RT to see only the overall rating. …which is quite often not in line with what some of the critics actually write.
I made a fatal flaw regarding Loves Her Gun. Just by accident I saw a review for it online via some link to The Hollywood Reporter. The critic did not “pan” the movie but he basically dismissed it because he felt that the narrative structure failed to capture the emotional tension of the story. Well, I know enough about jaded film critics to know that many no longer really want to think too much when they have a deadline to make.
But what made me decide to wait until I could rent a download or DVD later was the fact that he essentially compared Geoff Marslett’s style to Richard Linklater’s iconic 1991 film, Slacker. Like many film lovers my age (I was 24 when I first say Slacker) and decided to steer clear of this movie. It was only a day ago that I read a few more things about Loves Her Gun via Twitter links — one directly from the director and co-writer that provided a link to a very unfair review which they approached with humor .
I am unable to locate the name of The Hollywood Reporter critic who gave this film such a flippant dismissal, but she/he was entirely “off-target” in opinion regarding the narrative of the film and the lame comparison to Slacker. In fact, the comparison is not able to hold up under a subjective light. To compare Loves Her Gun in any way beyond the fact that both take place in Austin is non-sensical. The two films are even further apart than a 25 year span. Linklater’s meandering narrative approach was to make his audience not only laugh, but to actually make a statement about our generation (those 20 to 30 in 1990) and a generations’ lack of connection, purpose and opportunities that most of us expected.
Geoff Marslett and his co-writer/producer, Lauren Modery, are aiming much higher and within an altogether different level of societal / cultural concern found in Slacker. Loves Her Gun is serious and the “loose” use of narration / construction is deceptive. This choice of “improvisational” style is one of the primary ways the film is so successful.
I do not want to provide any spoilers for anyone who has yet to see Loves Her Gun. The movie follows a young woman living in one the post-industrial parts of Brooklyn who after being brutally assaulted decides to take up an offer from members of an band to join them “on the road” as they tour their way back to their homes in Austin. It isn’t long that the trauma and PTSD level impact of this attack begins to creep into her psyche. What at first seems like an inappropriate decision to uproot her life in Brooklyn to travel across the country with a 3 person rock band she has only recently met through a mutual acquaintance, begins to almost feel like a much needed “temporary break” from her urban surroundings. She finds comfort both in the trip but with her new friends. Upon arrival in Austin, she decides to extent her visit indefinitely by staying with two members of The Karate Kids and ultimately to a housesitting opportunity. Marslett’s approach to his leading character’s experiences in Austin is experimental. The audience is lulled into an interesting sort of fly-on-the wall experience of not only Allie’s “adventure” into the art scene and the general “vibe” in the often magical world of Austin — but glimpses into the lives of her new friends. We hang out in bars, drift down the Guadalupe River, see the possibility of love and her pursuit of employment assisting an independent landscaper.
The entire cast delivers realistic performances, but it Trieste Kelly Dunn who shines in the leading role. Her performance seems to be in perfect beat with Geoff Marslett and Lauren Moderys’ script and Marslett’s easy-going pace. Allie’s attack is presented in the way we usually experience assault — Allie’s heightened and disoriented reaction during and after the attack is all too painfully realistic. Aside from her attacker’s creepy masks, they brutally beat her and hang dangle their “power” with blunt threat of rape.
This threat is delivered in the horrifying mode of human cruelty as if to imply that she is escaping the ultimate violent invasion not because “they” are “wrong” but because “they” are simply not in the “mood” to deliver what “she deserves” — To those of you lucky enough to have never been attacked or raped, it may seem illogical — but our tragic Rape Culture is twisted to put the victim in the role of “guilty victim” The odd mix of fear, rage, repulsion, guilt, confusion and embarrassment is not only a natural response, it is also most often greeted with the same mixture of confusion by police, courts and often even our friends. When Allie’s roommate calls the police to report the incident, Allie is firmly placed in the position of having to defend herself in the most damaging of ways. The police officer clearly doesn’t care.
Trieste Kelly Dunn’s performance is painfully real. As she emerges from a shower and truly explores the gruesome impact of the attack on her body, the audience is fully aware of her pain, shock and misplaced embarrassment. The police officer’s judgmental and passively aggressive approach with Allie coupled with her reaction to he bodily damage she has suffered is presented / played so well that I find it tragic that someone could see this film and fail to be emotionally enraged at what has has become a culture so saturated in Rape Culture that almost all of it complies to its rules.
As I began to look for screen shots from this crucial moment in Geoff Marslett’s film and Trieste Kelly Dunn’s exceptional performance I was truly repulsed by the number of websites that have taken images from this devastating scene of female crisis to serve as “soft porn” photographs presented as “jerk-off” material. This is a tragic side-effect of Rape Culture in which women have no choice but to navigate.
In this case a film deeply committed to exploring a crucial topic and an actor brave enough to play it end up being exploited. Enough of my need to explore my own rage at what women and children face daily. I did find a few sites that are devoted to fighting against the relentless attack on women and children. I’m not saying that men are not impacted by our culture, but it is far more of a “side-effect” than what women and children face.
The film presents itself as a very loosely paced character study that is often entertaining and always feels “documentary-like” — but this is Marslett’s device to ease the audience. In what reveals itself to be a surprisingly cleaver way, the film begins to take a gradual tighter focus until Loves Her Gun morphs into a deeply potent examination of Gun Culture and the short-sighted way it approaches an individual’s problem. It would seem obvious that the idea of wanting to give Allie a gun to address her ever-growing paranoia and fear as inappropriate and shallow, it is also our cultural’s “knee jerk” reaction that happens all too often — especially in parts of the US where gun ownership is so easily attained.
Aside from Loves Her Gun being a great movie, it also displays a surprising level of power in its intentional refusal to pander to any side of the on-going debate regarding guns. Instead, it offers a clear and realistic depiction of a challenging situation we face. I don’t think it is an overstatement that we see tragic examples regarding the misuse of guns. And, I don’t think it is because I grew up within the context of Texas Gun Culture. My father owned a gun shop. As much as I believe that gun ownership should be more tightly restricted, I am forced to begrudgingly agree with the logic of “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people” However, it is high time for Gun Culture to re-examine who those “people” are whom use guns as the tool of human cruelty vs. a responsible tool against possible threat.
But, that is not the point of Geoff Marslett’s film. I think the point of Loves Her Gun is to create thought and discussion around real problems facing our society. It does this by slowly pulling the audience into a situations where no one holds your hand. And despite success at festivals and with most critics on an individual basis, Loves Her Gun is another vital film that has not fully connected to the audience it deserves. It is available on AmazonPrime and iTunes for both rent and purchase. I highly recommend it. As for me, I bought my download.
I intend to continue to carefully use my odd connections to the world of Film Art to promote both SABBATICAL and Loves Her Gun and Audley’s NoBudge website.
If an employed film critic who is around my age should find her/his way to this blog post: I urge you to not dismiss the incredible level of talent and skill that manages to require your eyes. I’m noticing that many of my friends and contacts who are over 40 tend to roll eyes and poison pens not because it is valid, but because they are often too lazy or over-whelmed by the mediocrity of The Hollywood Machine to really think about what is being presented. This newer generation of artists (largely between 2o to mid 30’s) is far more engaged and aware than our generation was at that age. Certainly, this statement is not to be taken as a blanket comment for all artists over 40, but it does appear to me to carry validity. Try to remember when you sat in the cinema and just allowed the film art to come over you like a wave. …You will be surprised if you put forward a bit more energy and not resort to lazy criticism when your views are already being mis-evaluated in the Age of Consensus Film Criticism.