Redland

After watching this film three times, and mixing in some cinematographic favorites from the past as visual challenges. I must stick to my initial assessment of: This may be the best shot film I have ever seen. The Redwoods have an essence that is notoriously hard to capture film, director Asiel Norton captures it over and over again. Five minutes into this film I said to myself: "If this has any kind of a coherent story, it will be a great film". Much to my delight it was a very coherent and very primal story line complete with possibly my favorite cinematic "holy fool". The isolation of the family was almost a character in the story. A remote village can have some odd practices and rituals, this Depression era homestead is that remoteness at its most extreme. The cast was perfect, right down to the dog. Everything about this movie is to be praised and admired. It is hard not to ramble on saying x y and z were flawless, but they were. This directorial debut of Asiel Norton leaves me confident we have seen the our first glimpse of one of the all time greats.

Redland, written and directed by Asiel Norton, takes place in rural America during the Great Depression, where a family of five—father, wife, two sons, and a daughter—are struggling to survive. Isolated from civilization, they are running out of food. The men of the family, along with another helper, venture out for wild game. Meanwhile, they discover that the daughter of the family, Mary-Ann (Lucy Adden) is having a secret affair.

This is very much an art film. The film has a disjointed narrative structure sprinkled with various imagery, color, close-up details, and intricate use of camera filters. They bring forth the mystical beauty of the forests as well as the dangers. The camera emphasizes an environment that is both dreamlike and alive, yet also reptilian and cold. Unusual filters are used, sometimes to an amazing effect, sometimes at the expense of the film's pacing, story, and clarity.

The extreme close-ups of small creatures and low angles are effectively framed, bringing great detail, parallels, and personality. The humans in the film, however, are somewhat given second priority. They are often fuzzy to make out and sometimes hard to distinguish from each other. Much like old photos, majority of the film uses sepia filters, sometimes overbearingly, muting out the color and detail. This is a double-edged sword as it brings out the stylistic tastes of the director, but also hides a good deal of visual narrative. Digital grain can also be seen in many of the dark scenes (a constant issue with digital film).

There isn't much story. It would probably best fit in a short film. Scenes occur, but they're often shrouded, fuzzy, or in extreme close-up. I found it frustrating. I often couldn't tell who was who or what was happening with all the feathering and filter effects. Voices often felt muffled and hard to distinguish. The film does accomplish in creating a constant sense of unease. For the less patient, it will seem monotonous, claustrophobic, and cold.

The characters are not deep. They are just part of the overall image, if you will, or the environment they inhabit. The dialogue is often generic, but the film does leave subtle clues here and there that can be read more deeply. I suppose the characters are more like symbols, whether they symbolize society, morality, and maybe the id.

I'm sure critics will love this film. It is that kind of film. It's layered, but frustrating. It creates reaction. It's a challenging film. This film will work for those who love open interpretations and less structure. Honestly, I do tend to see "overly artsy" films as a disguise for laziness, letting the audience do the work of projecting their own mental landscapes, if you will. I will agree, though, that this film is far from "lazy" and does great stuff with its budget and the director Asiel Norton is great with visual language. The beginning of the film says very much while showing very little.

Disturbing things do happen in the film, which likely will turn people off (which was probably the film's point). Even despite that, I couldn't get into the characters, and found myself distancing myself from them even more. I couldn't tell if I was supposed to sympathize with them or make fun of them. It is not what one would call an "entertaining" film. It's a real bleak film. The visuals are creative, but the pacing is maddening. One will either certainly like or dislike this film.

For more of my movie review updates, you can find them on http://twitter.com/d_art

I will say first - this is not a movie for everyone. And I'm all for that, since movies for everyone seem to be short on story - big on noise and special effects, and heaven knows there's a glut on that market nowadays. There's no snappy dialogue, in fact dialogue itself is minimal.

What you *will* get is a fairly dark tale about family, poverty, isolation and passion set in the depression era, told through some of the most stunningly gorgeous cinematography. The director, cast and crew do an incredible job of allowing the story to develop in its own time, and primarily visually. The cast itself does an excellent job of being transparent and letting the characters be the visible presence.

An excellent antidote to the preponderance of movies full of flash/bang and not much else.