Watermark

Watermark attracted attention when it was selected for the Directors' Fortnight at the 2004 Cannes Film Festival. It's the first feature for writer and co-scriptwriter Georgina Willis who, with producer and co-scriptwriter Kerry Rock, then self-released the film in Australia.

Watermark follows Jim (Jai Koutrae) and his relationship with two different women in two different eras: the 1970s and now. Much of the film is silent and explores the relationships the three have with water and each other.

Georgina Willis' background is in visual arts, which goes towards explaining her prodigious talent at visual storytelling. Shots are framed from interesting angles (stairwells for example), giving the audience voyeuristic insight into the characters. And the dreamlike infusion of water, the beach and sea into the story adds sensuality and a mythic quality to the film. It also emphasises Watermark's 'Australianness' without jingoism.

Although not a conventional thriller, there's a twist towards the end of the film, which is built upon by Allyson Newman's suspenseful soundtrack. While occasionally intrusive, the music is also appropriate and reflects elemental influences – water and the unconscious mind.

It's a shame, then, that when the actors speak, they destroy the mood Willis has worked so hard to create. With the exception of some of the 1970s sequences, the cast manage to be simultaneously flat, hysterical and unconvincing in conversation – whereas, when silent, their performances are profound. It's not their fault – Willis needs to manage her actors better. Thankfully, the most irritating scenes appear early in the film, so that the last half can wash over you. **½/***** stars.

That is one very controversial film..WATERMARK is just so weird yet a great film. Everything and everyone is on the edge.it's a thriller made by a woman and that makes it very different. Georgina Willis is obviously a talented director to watch.

The intensity of the drama is such that you are sitting on the edge of your seat the whole time.you know someone will kill but it's the women who you know have the potential.brilliant and not surprising that it is the first Australian feature at Cannes in years.

The film is very confronting and I think this is going to have people really talking fo a long time...I saw it with someone and it really got us talking-it's a film with no simple right or wrong...that is such a change as the audience is left to really think about the events

I came out of this film just shaking. It was so moving. It is a bit like Morvern Callar and you can tell its made by a young director because it takes so many risks. The film is a bit slow at the beginning but then it gathers pace and it is so frightening at the end that anything could happen. The young actor Jai Koutrae plays a man who is very disturbed under the calm exterior. It is a difficult role but he gives an amazing performance and is able to transform between time periods seemlessly. He is really looking like the next big thing because of his degree of subtle transformation that he is able to make. The scrrenplay is unusual because it is a film that is light on dialogue but there is plenty of action. However I think the film will shock a lot of people who go and see it. It's a brave film and some will find its themes and depiction very uncomforting.

I think WATERMARK is so interesting. It reminds me of PICNIC AT HANGING ROCK-it's so weird and a genuinely frightening film. It's a film that causes so much discussion. I can see why it had a debut at Cannes-and it also had only 5 crew!!! It is so unlike your average Australian film-it's worth going along for the ride

The advertising looked good - the fact that it had gone and done great things at Cannes (it was a Directors Choice presentation) was very positive but I have never been so disappointed in a film in all my life!!

Despite the hype, it wasn't moody and to call it reminiscent of Jane Campion films is an insult to Ms Campion. It was pretentious tripe. The dialogue was appalling, the characters unbelievable and the delineation between past and present at times was very hard to determine (making the understanding of the film even more difficult).

The only reason I gave a rating of 1 is for the music, which really was its only redeeming factor.

A complete waste of and hour and 20 minutes!