Austin and his music are also on Twitter & Facebook.
Austin's Review:
A critique of Paper Boys (in 1001 words or less)
First off, it’s good. It’s the first of Orcas in the Park film I've seen with a real sense of plot and suspense, not that those are necessary, as evidenced in Sellin' Belts, but a moving story line definitely adds another dimension to the film. I went into the film expecting to see Pat and Paul throwing papers to Arcade Fire (a lengthy one-act which I personally would have been satisfied with) but what I got was much more. It's still very simple, which is key, and the storyline, while playful, lacks gimmick. It has just the right amount of young compassion that puts it into a lighthearted demeanor without coming off as overly-sophomoric. The third act doesn't play out like a punch line like it might in the hands of some kid grown bored of masturbation.
What sometimes bothers me about “hip” art, be it music, literature, performance art, whatever, is that it often takes itself far too seriously. I don't want someone to try and force an unknowable truth upon me, shaking me and yelling "look! Can't you see how IMPORTANT this is?!" I want simple, creative, elegance. It is much easier for me to find beauty in that natural innocence than in something overly-complex and weighty. The best writers of intellectual literature are those who retain the element of simplicity in their structure, their flow, their metaphors, their sentences, which makes their ideas, however heavy, simple to appreciate. I find that especially in your last two films. There is a warm comfort in them. It is as if looking through a forgotten family photo album. I have to note that some of my attraction to them is subjective, being closely associated to the actors and even the setting; it incites nostalgia that plays into that sense of comfort. But were they actors from and acting in Michigan, I believe I'd still experience the same feeling I get when the opening credits to The Wonder Years roll. It’s the sentiment of happiness for no other reason than it feels good to smile. The camera work adds to all of this. It doesn't feel like the camera was held in a too-ambitious tween's hands. It has just the right amount of craft and youthful ingenuity required to make the viewing experience fun but not saturated in sticky sugar.
If there is a fault to be found with Paper Boys, it would be the intention of being cute, which can be off-putting. But in that risk is found success. When Pat peeks his head out from around Paul's, well that is solid gold. Really the only irksome aspect that I noticed was the transition from Arcade Fire to Booker T. While both masterful pieces, and both very fitting to their respective acts, the two don't fit very well side-by-side.
Overall, out of the four Orcas in the Park films I've seen, I put this right below Sellin' Belts. What puts Belts a notch above Boys is its completely upfront nature. It’s called Sellin' Belts, and what do we get? A dude sellin' belts (and smokin' cigs). The intrigue of the film lies in the quirky capitalistic psyche of our antagonist. Door-to-door, on the side of a busy road, daringly fill up the tank, stop for some pizza, back to work. It's the wayward realization of the American Dream all set to some crazy loon rambling about whatever Dylan's rambling about. No bullshit, just belts.
I showed it (Sellin' Belts) to my roommate and his reaction was "I don't get it." There's not much to say to that response. I see what he's saying, which is essentially "What was the point of that? Nothing happened." And fine, some will miss what is to be appreciated about a piece lacking the typical tension found in almost all media. It is very Chekhovian, and he received much criticism for having a lack of narrative moral perspective or any sense of climax in many cases. Instead of giving his readers that, he gave them something much more precious: the unadulterated presence of there-ness. It is a style of presentation that allows the reader to be far closer to the story, the characters, everything. There is third person perspective, to be sure, but it is forever open, whimsical even when gaunt. The audience has legitimately fluid freedom to accept the art in whatever way they want without the pressures of right/wrong, good/bad pressed upon them by an overbearing narrator. It is the defining literary quality of the (good) haiku. But some people are uncomfortable with that amount of freedom. It allows the mind to wander too far into the possibility of challenging what they know, what they have always known since that very knowledge was germinated (probably from what they were once told). And where these more common critics will find frustration with the nebulous nature of Sellin' Belts, they will find solace in the structure of Paper Boys.
Paper Boys does something that Sellin’ Belts cannot. It takes the viewer into the realm of struggle. While there is implied struggle in Krevnash’s character in Sellin’ Belts (namely the tiresome grinding of the lower-level capitalistic gears), the struggle in Paper Boys is given to us forwardly in an alley with two men face to face. The scene is easily associated with the Western stand-off, and thus provokes similar suspense. This structural occurrence generally promotes the use of a three act format, and in Paper Boys, the three acts fulfill their roles classically. There is set-up (a familiarization with the setting and the circumstance of characters), tension (the point where the antagonist(s) cannot return to the consonance they knew before the dissonance now acting upon them) and resolution (which we are given in spades in our third act).
Ultimately, this flash film embodies the essence of storytelling with remarkable efficiency. There is no need for dialogue, for over-exaggerated expression, for some over-the-top deus ex machina. It is complete in its smooth rolling story of two Paper Boys.
No comments:
Post a Comment