The slow route into hysteria is well documented. The well-cast actors are presumably playing pretty-much themselves, and are convincingly naturalistic, and neither too likeable or too dislikeable. The acting and script are both excellent. The film creates its own excuse to be cheap. They cannot carry tripods, steadicams, dollies, large lighting rigs, or the like, so everything we see is lit either by raw daylight, or by a single light fixed to the camera, which illuminates just what is within a few feet of the lens. Three people hike into the woods for a few days to shoot a documentary, with borrowed equipment, and are in the habit of videoing everything for the hell of it. The film makers managed to set up a rationale for why the film is so cheaply made. Also, it gets the audience into the habit of viewing the film's format: alternating between black and white (very grainy and poorly focussed) film, and the washed out colours of shaky pixilated video. It tells the audience everything it needs to know about the characters and situation, and nothing more. In fact, it is very deft, and very efficient at what it does. The first section of the film appears at first to be amateurish and slow. I would be glad of its success if only for that reason. is seeing something else that a cinema can be: a place where people can share an intimate experience created by a few people on a tight budget.
More importantly, it does not have what feature films have these days: star actors, special effects, exotic locations, explosions. For a start, it is not feature length, also, it is not shot on film.
0 kommentar(er)
