Big Monday

I really enjoyed this little movie very much. Some of the comments on Big Monday are pretty nasty and this movie doesn't deserve such hateful comments. Big Monday is fascinating to watch for it's shot in one take with no cuts at all. It takes a lot of guts and know how to pull off such a feat and I feel that Mr. Rehfield did this admirably. The comments I have heard over and over again is how poor the acting is and I'm like, poor acting? The acting in Big Monday isn't supposed to be in the classical or method style, these are ordinary people going about their lives (going to work, ordering a hot dog, waiting for the train, getting ready to go to work, making small talk, walking the dog, singing to themselves, etc) in plain day to day life rarely is there any profound drama and major conflicts (in fact most folks usually avoid drama and conflict). I think that is why the acting is very simple and low key, just like life. That is why I think Mr Rehfield succeeded in his film, he captured a kind of reality that is rarely ever seen in any kind of cinema, mainstream or independent. Big Monday deserves more attention and a re-evaluation so it can be viewed for the unique and original work that it is.

As the writer/director of the film in question, I know any comments of my own will be regarded with much skepticism, but when what I set out to do is so misunderstood, I feel it necessary to explain my intentions. The film itself is about those small moments that we go through every day, my belief being that those small moments can be just as compelling and/or entertaining as the big moments that make up most Hollywood films. The film's being shot in one continuous take is in itself a novelty, of course, but the intent was to create a framework for events that the viewer can get caught up in, and knowing that there was not going to be a cut, most viewers locked into the particular rhythm of the film to see what was coming next. As DV became a viable way of making a "film," I was able to do this without cheating, which was what initially attracted me to the technology.

It's difficult to go into a project that one knows will most definitely not be for everyone, but if these experiments with content and form can't be done on the independent level, then where? As for one reviewer's contention that I've "set back true independent film-making," I only wish the film had gotten the exposure to make such an impact. But if the rest of the critique is to be believed, perhaps I can assume that that's just another thing I've gotten wrong.

I really enjoyed this short film because it is a refreshing departure from the Hollywood formula movies. It is simple, engrossing and humorous, especially following the ending credits. Throughout much of the film, dialogue was kept to a minimum, however so much thought and emotion was communicated through expression and body language.

This is the kind of film I can't get enough of. Hollywood Bad!!! IFC Good!!!!

Although this movie has some undesirable elements, such as the wandering eyes of passersbys and the mediocre acting of the central characters, this movie also harnesses a rare uniqueness, not found in most hollywood films. At first viewing, I was overtaken by the shear logistics involved in shooting a film of this length, in one cut, with multiple characters intertwining throughout the narrative. Some scenes and acting may seem unnatural and even quirky, however, this film is original in the way that it was shot, and, in my book, redeems itself with its daring approach, and commendable management of multiple characters in real-time in new york city of all places.

Technically clever as the whole movie is one continuous take. Good camera work and well choreographed. Some scenes are reminiscent of 1960s cinema verite films. All is ruined by the horrible acting from the supporting cast. Watch the dialogue scenes on mute.