Dropping Out
(2000)
Very seldom do I see a movie where I just can't make
up my mind and decide what I think about it. This happens
a little more often at film festivals, where you meet
filmmakers and see their work and ask them questions
and feel like you begin to know them. Most of them come
across as nice guys. So when you like them, but not
their film, it's a real toughie. This is one of the
delimmas facing me as I try to write my thoughts on
"Dropping Out."
As is my wont, I knew almost nothing about the film
going into it. Actually, I knew absolutely nothing.
This is how I like to see films. Now, the film takes
a twist in it's midsection that is really important.
I don't really want to ruin this for you, in case you
see the film. But it's hard to describe it without really
getting into detail about plot. I'll do my best but
if it gets hazy, it because I'm trying to respect the
film's plot. It will be exposed soon enough by some
marketing "genius" who is trying to sell the damn thing.
I think it's safe to say that the beginning of the
film is about the boredom of American existence that
is punctuated by television. The boob Tube permeates
the first 1/3 of the film. There are so many moments
where the cheesy and overly poppy platitudes of TV sitcom
images soak up the feeling of the film that it basically
becomes the film. The main character, played by Kent
Osborne, who wrote the script, finds himself wallowing
in misery yet surrounded by the permeation of phoniness
and bright colors, just like on TV. When he goes into
the world, the colors of the rainbow glare out to him
and assult his (and our) sensibilities. There are some
beautiful touches visually here to represent this.
And the film is funny. This is a black comedy that
is easy to laugh at. I found myself guffawing at numerous
moments and quips in the film. And so did a lot of the
audience. It's quirky and dark at times, and even a
little gross in one segment, but truly a witty film.
And perhaps, herein lies the rub. The film takes a
extremely dark turn in the middle. It goes from being
a black comedy to being an opaque comedy. It gets into
a subject matter that is so bereft of comic possibilities,
one feels guilty when a chuckle occurs. I know that
some of the best comedy in the world is when we find
ourselves laughing at things that we shouldn't. But
here, I felt it wasn't "right" to laugh at the subject.
I felt it was inaporpriate. God, I hope I'm not getting
old and stuffy.
I think two things made me feel this way, other than
the subject matter. One, the film is far too slick.
Although it was produced by one private investor, the
film looks as if six figures were spent. Although the
film uses some DV and camcorder shots, it films these
in a strange way. It shoots a monitor showing these
images on 35mm. So we get these washed out, grainy images
on prestine 35mm. It just looks like a Mirimax or a
New Line film. It's the kind of subject matter that
crys out for low budget and it's hard to sympathise
with the film when it looks like corporate pap. The
film also has a couple of GLOWING product placements,
in particular for PepsiCo, that seem horribly out of
place. It's as if product placements have been scripted
into the film. Secondly, it's far too long. At almost
2 hours the film goes on and on and on. And it's ending
is an ending within an ending within an ending. Staring
as a film that comments on the saturation of television
into our daily lives it becomes a film that saterizes
the film industry. It doesn't quite fit. The last half
of the film begins to come unglued. The whole balliwax
just doesn't seem so congruent anymore. It goes all
over the place.
Director Mark Osborne, Kent's brother, directs the
film astutely. There are several interesting images
and ideas going on here. The use of old film clips,
bits of 70's TV shows, highlights of nature documentaries
and a smattering of DV camcorder images melt wonderfully
together with the new footage throughout the film. But
it all looks so slick, so corporate. He also uses Bubblegum
pop songs in the film. I understand why, it's supposed
to be about irony. But it's a bit too simple. It's just
not harsh enough.
There are also a bunch of familar faces in the film.
Former TV sitcom stars pop up in new and interesting
characters. Katey Segall, the girl who plays Jan in
the 90's "Brady Bunch" movies, Adam Arkin, Fred Willard
and John Stamos all have small roles in the film. Stamos
is particularly interesting because he is almost unreckognizable.
Stamos really plays against type. The film should be
seen for this reason, if nothing else.
I'm not saying the film shouldn't be seen. And I'm
definately not saying it's a masterpiece. What I am
saying is that it may makes some people feeling extremely
uneasy. It made me feel that way.
More
of Lodger's reviews indexed alphabetically! Just click
your favorite letter to go there.
a
b c
d e
f g
h i
j k
l m
n o
p q
r s
t u
v w
x y
z
HOME
|
In
Association with:
|
Posters From!
|
|
Please Visit 
|
|
