The English are rightly renowned for their use of understatement, not because we invented it or because we do it better than anyone else, but because we do it so much. (Well, maybe we do do it a little better – if only because we get more practice at it.)
The reasons for our prolific understating are not hard to discover: our strict prohibitions on earnestness, gushing, emoting and boasting require almost constant use of understatement. Rather than risk exhibiting any hint of forbidden solemnity, unseemly emotion or excessive zeal, we go to the opposite extreme and feign dry, deadpan indifference. The understatement rule means that a debilitating and painful chronic illness must be described as 'a bit of a nuisance'; a truly horrific experience is 'well, not exactly what I would have chosen'; a sight of breathtaking beauty is 'quite pretty'; an outstanding performance of achievement is 'not bad'; an act of abominable cruelty is 'not very friendly', and an unforgivably stupid misjudgment is 'not very clever'; the Antarctic is 'rather cold' and the Sahara 'a bit too hot for my taste'; and any exceptionally delightful object, person or event, which in other cultures would warrant streams of superlatives, is pretty much covered by 'nice', or, if we wish to express more ardent approval, 'very nice'.
Needless to say, the English understatement is another trait that many foreign visitors find utterly bewildering and infuriating (or, as we English would out it, 'a but confusing'). 'I don't get it,' said one exasperated informant. 'Is it supposed to be funny? If it's supposed to be funny, why don't they laugh – or at least smile? Or something. How the hell are you supposed to know when "not bad" means "absolutely brilliant" and when it just means "OK"? Is there some secret sign or something that they use? Why can't they just say what they mean?"
This is the problem with English humour. Much of it, including and perhaps especially the understatement, isn't actually very funny – or at least not obviously funny, not laugh-out-loud funny, and definitely not cross-culturally funny. Even the English, who understand it, are not exactly riotously amused by the understatement. At best, a well-timed, well-turned understatement only raises a slight smirk. But then, this is surely the whole point of the understatement: it is amusing, but only in an understated way. It is humour, but it is a restrained, refined, subtle form of humour.
Even those foreigners who appreciate the English understatement, and find it amusing, still experience considerable difficulties when it comes to using it themselves. My father tells me about some desperately anglophile Italian friends of his, who were determined to be as English as possible – they spoke perfect English, wore English clothes, even developed a taste for English food. But they complained that they couldn't quite 'do' the English understatement, and pressed him for instructions. On one occasion, one of them was describing, heatedly and at some length, a ghastly meal he had had at a local restaurant – the food was inedible, the place was disgustingly filthy, the service rude beyond belief, etc., etc. 'Oh,' said my father, at the end of the tirade, 'So, you wouldn't recommend it, then?' 'YOU SEE?' cried his Italian friend. 'That's it! How do you do that? How do you know to do that? How do you know when to do it?' 'I don't know,' said my father apologetically. 'I can't explain. We just do it. It just comes naturally.'
This is the other problem with the English understatement: it is a rule, but a rule in the fourth OED* sense of 'the normal or usual state of things' – we are not conscious of obeying it; it is somehow wired into our brains. We are not taught the use of the understatement, we learn it by osmosis. The understatement 'comes naturally' because it is deeply ingrained in our culture, part of the English psyche.
... We are parodying ourselves. Every understatement is a little private joke about Englishness.
I just came back from a screening of "Retributions", a short film made by a bunch of graduating students from IACT.
Where do I begin? Well, let me start with this question: how does one review a student production? Let me go back even further: how does one sit down to view a student film? Due to their inherent amateurishness, one just can't help but analyse the film instead of allowing oneself to succumb to the storytelling. Unless the student film is miraculously exceptional (which happens oh so rarely).
The difficulty is this: how low do I have to lower my usual standards in reviewing films? How much do I say, "okay, that's forgivable" before I draw the line? One has to be fair. The fact of the matter is, these students do not have the budget and resources to shoot a professional-looking film. As such, the sound design can be forgiven. The acting can be forgiven. The lighting can be forgiven. The shot composition can be forgiven. The set design can be forgiven. Insofar as the cinematography is limited in quantity and quality by the low budget and thus affecting the footage that they ended up with, the editing can be forgiven. The cheesy music can be forgiven. The lame car chase can be forgiven. The extremely unexciting gunfight sequence can be ... Okay, do you see my point now?
What then, is the point, if it's such a given that a student short will necessarily fail in all these counts? Well, strip all of that away, and what are you left with?
Glimmers of talent. A seed, some potential.
Ultimately, that is what I look out for. If I can't help but analyse the student film I'm seeing, then instead of automatically focusing on every single thing I can criticise on, I shall endeavour to find something that impresses me, however tiny or seemingly insignificant. And it mustn't be too elusive - if I have to squeeze my mind hard to find something to like about it, the point of the exercise is lost. I am not these kids' parents/teachers. Real talent should impress effortlessly. So I look for something that signals to me that:
there is a certain personal and/or unique style that these guys are developing,
or there is a certain difference from the norm (whether that norm is Hollywood mainstream, or HK cinema, or Malaysian indie, etc) that indicates these guys have a mind of their own,
or a penchant for witty dialogue,
or an ability to recreate or emulate the style or techniques of a very specific filmmaker that these guys clearly admire (after all, Spielberg himself said that "it is okay to be derivative at first"),
or some other je ne sais quoi.
I'm really sorry, but the students behind "Retributions" gave me NOTHING.
Let's say the students accept that I will review their film without lowering my standards, and won't become defensive and pull out that "but it's just a student film production" line, or "we're still at a very early stage in our careers". The following is what I would have said.
The sound didn't seem like it was edited much - except for that film student favourite, the addition of cheesy gunfire sounds during the gunfight. The ambient noise was too loud - clearly because the dialogue was recorded too low. And the ambient noise keeps dropping in and out - could have been greatly improved if they had cut some ambient noise from another take to patch it in. Amazingly, a number of people were credited as sound editors in the credits. I wonder what else they've been doing. And by the way, judging from the shifting room tone, I would guess that the students were never taught how to record sound on the set ... nor did they bother to search for such info on the Internet.
Why focus so much on sound? Because sound, as the cliche goes, is the most neglected among all the relatively more important aspects of filmmaking - especially by film students. Often a student short can feel like a professional short PURELY by working on the sound editing.
The acting is atrocious. Which is par for the course for Malaysian TV and film in general, but what makes it exceptionally bad is that the actors (all untrained perhaps?) tend to put up that theatrical M'sian English accent (which contrasts with those who don't ... it's just very distracting), and have a tendency to indicate what they mean with certain unnecessary gestures and unnecessary facial expressions on top of actually saying it. You see, the actors should've just said their lines. Naturally.
Which brings me to the dialogue. Stilted. Which partly fuels the problem of why the actors do not come across as natural. Not to mention hopelessly expositionary. There was some attempt to emulate the cool dialogue of noir films and mafia movies - but it didn't work because they didn't have the calibre of actors to deliver it. So cool becomes pathetically laughable. Except that I couldn't really hear half of it anyway as they weren't well recorded.
And the script. Which rambles. What we call 'episodic'. Which could've been saved if the scenes were remotely interesting. They were not. There was a twist in the end. It was badly delivered. And didn't quite make sense - twists work only if it makes sense instantly, and gives the audience that 'oh!' epiphany moment. It didn't help that the twist sort of required us to like the main character somewhat - and I didn't care for any of the characters.
Pacing was mercifully fast enough - which is a change from the ponderous, pensive style of other Malaysian indie shorts - so at least it wasn't too boring. But otherwise, the editor(s) had no sense of rhythm and beats. The inserts sometimes last too quickly (like 3 frames? seriously?), sometimes too long (look, do you really have to stay for an extra second after you see the guy's foot dripping blood go past the edge of the screen?). Scenes which shouldn't use single-takes used it, while other scenes were interrupted by unnecessary inserts. Which means they distract, not inform.
Which leads to the next thing - cinematography. The shots were horribly composed. I mean, okay, so you didn't have the camera equipment to do stuff like dolly moves or cranes. You can do without them. But you should then know when to pan and when not to pan - and if you have to zoom, do it smoothly. (But for pete's sake, try to avoid them if at all possible.) Panning back and forth (slowly) during dialogue scenes don't really work. Unless you're using handheld camera and can do it fast and needed that to create suspense. Otherwise, stick to two setups (or more) and intercut. Did the DP and/or director even thought about the mood and purpose of each shot before placing their camera and blocking the actors and all that? Essentially, the filmmakers showed zero instinct for composing their shots.
The other part of cinematography is lighting. Or, in this case - did they even try? Scenes were frequently too dark. And when your average Malaysian audience notices that a scene is too dark and actually said it during the screening, that's really, really bad.
Perhaps the only virtue left, then, is that the students are ambitious. They set out to make a gangster and cops movie, involving a car chase, a gunfight, a suggested sex scene, a twist that might or might not be inspired by, say, The Usual Suspects. It is perhaps a bit harsh to say that none of those work - of course they don't work, what do you expect? ... well, no credit to Malaysian audiences, ANY scene involving a kiss or suggested sex will elicit a response from them, so, whoopee, well done in this regard.
But let me go further and bring up that point I was talking about earlier: sure, they can't deliver the level of thrills and suspense that professional films are able to do, but still, are there any IDEAS, any attempt to DO SOMETHING SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT, or even to PARODY, or if not then to ADDRESS/HIGHLIGHT some local themes?
Because, if they're not doing ANY of that, what is the film for? To practice? Sorry guys, you shot yourselves on the foot by revealing that you guys have been doing multiple projects prior to this, and that this shitty short took you months. So what were you practicing? What skills were you seeking to improve? So then that leaves one remaining aim for making the short. Toentertain. If the film had been able to do that, despite the clichés and the lousy technical skills, the film would have been a notch above Youtube videos in value.
It didn't.
So the film was a purely masturbatory exercise.
Observe the fact that they spent their limited resources to concoct a premiere screening at a cinema, inviting 'press' (mostly bloggers) to attend, and dress up in suits and sexy dresses (and making the effort to stress on the formal dress code on the invite).
It's ego-boosting, perhaps. But a complete waste of time - mine, certainly.
It's fine though, if this bunch did not set out to be film directors and producers and other such crew. If they did set out to be such, then, I'm sorry.
FAIL.
Cinematic Concerns | Powered by Blogger | Entries (RSS) | Comments (RSS) | Designed by MB Web Design | XML Coded By Cahayabiru.com
