There are a few aspects about this picture that readily stand out to mention before one even sits to watch. While the inclusion in the cast of some recognizable actors, primarily Daisy Ridley (importantly, in her film debut), is the first such matter, I don't think it's the most noteworthy one. That, I would say, is the underlying approach to its construction in the first place, in which filmmaker Peter Hearn handed off most facets thereof to his students as an exercise in producing an independent feature. However the end result turns out I greatly admire that notion, and with that in mind, one way or another I'll be very curious to see what those non-professionals involved might do as they pursue careers in the industry. Having observed all this, it's also worth noting that of course the root premise is a familiar one that has been explored elsewhere previously, but I won't inherently hold that against anyone; why shouldn't other creators have an opportunity to play with an idea we've seen before? Still, as none of this speaks directly to the quality of the final product, the question remains: considered in and of itself, how is 'Scrawl?'
The inexperience of those involved is discernible; this does, surely, look and feel like a student film. Yet despite being rough around the edges, I think most such contributions are actually just fine. The cinematography, sound, and editing are fundamentally fine; effects, and the hair and makeup, are swell in my book. The score isn't necessary super special, but I appreciate the tinge of quiet atmosphere that it lends to the proceedings. I'll even say that I believe the young cast are generally pretty good. Some performances are decidedly stronger than others (Ridley; Catherine Ruddick), and some are decidedly weaker, but for the most part all those in front of the camera turn in surprisingly capable acting as far as I'm concerned. No one is more surprised than I am.
However, the real point of concern here is Hearn himself; frankly, I just don't know what he was doing. He may not have specifically had a hand in the editing, yet his oversight of the whole affair unquestionably means that he guided the cuts. Solid as the editing may be from a basic standpoint of its craft, the sequencing is plainly dubious, and so flummoxing in its poor treatment of the story as to almost be nonsensical. Then again, maybe there's no fault to be found in the editing by any measure, for in Hearn's capacity as director we then see bewildering heavy-handedness, a total dearth of tact or nuance, a flailing aimlessness, and a lack of cohesiveness, that are all stunningly confounding. Sadly, the writing is without a doubt worst still. There is a plot, but it waits until the film is half over to actually show up. In the last portion of the runtime he tries to loop back and meaningfully weave in scenes that greeted us earlier, but at all times the connective threads are astonishingly thin, and Hearns also does a poor job of illuminating much of anything at all. Characters are barely introduced, and some not at all; I don't know who many of them were, or what their relationships to one another were supposed to be; I kind of get the impression that some of these kids are intended to be portraying figures that are older? Plot development is scattered and meager, further hampered by scene writing and dialogue that far too often come across as excessive, unproductive, non-explanatory, and possibly altogether detached from the tapestry the screenplay is trying to weave. Even when a scene or piece of dialogue has a clear place in the storytelling, the inclusion is still usually flimsy, baffling, and unconvincing. I'm able to describe only fragments of the overall narrative, for as far as I can tell - if the tale could be described broadly as a game of "connect the dots," then there are only a few lines appearing on the page, they're not all consecutive, and it remains unclear what image the entirety is intended to form.
If it were just a question of the cast, and the crew - those who had prior experience, and those who did not - then I would not have any major criticisms to make. Though the level on which they were operating is very evident, so is their hard work and sincerity, and I can overlook deficiencies in such instances. But Hearns' writing and direction are just outrageous, almost completely incoherent with effectively nothing for the viewer to grab onto. I get the impression that he had a definite vision for this movie, but unfortunately it absolutely did not translate into the words he wrote, or the scenes he orchestrated. The precise reference is eluding me at the moment but I'm reminded of a scene from science fiction in which experimental teleportation technology is used with a living being, yet instead of that same whole creature materializing at the receiving end, we just see a formless, amorphous blob. This is the sad truth of 'Scrawl,' not because of any of the acting, nor the efforts of students who were behind the scenes creating a full-length film, but just because of writing and direction of which I simply can't make sense. I genuinely feel bad being so harsh in my assessment, and genuinely hope that if Hearns continues to make more features in the future, he demonstrates growth in his skills. I want that for him. The fact remains that as we see it, this 2015 title is a perplexing mess, and it does the one person responsible no favors to pretend otherwise. I wish all involved the best of luck in their future endeavors; may they move onward and upwards from this.
