Medicine for Melancholy

Twenty-four hours in the tentative relationship of two young San Franciscans also dealing with the conundrum of being a minority in a rapidly gentrifying city.

Barry Jenkins has described the film's two main characters as "playing out a debate back and forth about identity politics". Each of the two main characters embodies an ideology. Jenkins saw the character of Micah as a man who was always building barriers, whereas Jo thinks that race is a limiter. Accusing Jo of assimilation, Micah strives to reclaim his essential "blackness" as Jo contrastingly claims Micah has a "hang up" about his race and strives to overcome her own.

Roger Ebert gave the film 3.5 out of 4 stars, calling the actors "effortlessly engaging" and the direction "assured"; he also noted the film was "beautifully photographed". Ebert is right on all counts. The acting is superb, very natural, and really shows off Wyatt Cenac as more than a comedian. The direction is strong, and the cinematography is gorgeous, some of the best you will find anywhere, whether in a big budget film or indie.

The discussion of race is great. As a white man, maybe I can't see the issue from the point of view of Micah, Jo or Barry Jenkins. But I love that there's this divide of ideas. Micah is indignant, as he should be, about being a minority. But Jo prefers to look forward. Indeed, how does one define themselves? I don't think of myself as "white", and sometimes not even as a "man", but do these things define me whether or not I choose to accept them?

First, a comment to the two reviewers who found this film 'slow,' etc;

The pace of films - for MOST of the 20th century were at a much slower pace. It lets the director get to know the characters, etc.

In today's film market - in which a HUGE part of the pie is overseas sales/distribution - dialogue doesn't translate, but, ACTIONS do.

That's one of the reasons why most films of the past decade or so, have interchangeable plots, characters - the story is second to the action.

Saying that, let me talk about MEDICINE FOR MELANCHOLY.

I came in a few minutes after it had begun. I'd never seen, nor heard of it (my friend had left the TV on, and was actually watching something prior - FLAWLESS, with R. DeNiro.

I came in when Micah was in a cab bringing the lost wallet he'd found back to it's owner, Jo (I know that they'd had casual sex just before this, and didn't know each other).

I got caught up in the dialogue. It was slow. It as natural, as to how two people meet (awkwardly) at inopportune times.

I quickly picked up on the ambivalence Jo' was having, and Micah, just trying (at first) to get to know Jo a bit.

The film follows them throughout that day - and that night, as the two start to reveal more of themselves. A third important cast member, who's very important, is the sprawling city of San Francisco.

I love the cinematography done on this film. It's a loving portrayal of San Francisco.

The pair walk through streets, and neighbourhoods, that are far from the shiny images tourists see, or think of, when they hear the city's name.

As for the performances of both the two (verbal) actors, I enjoyed their charisma, and I hope to see more from them in the future.

MEDICINE FOR MELANCHOLY is not for people who are impatient, or 'don't get' plots. But, for those who enjoy spending an afternoon, and just letting a film wash over you, this one's definitely one to watch.

The premise of a man and woman rushing through all the phases of falling in love in one twenty-four hour period with the backdrop of a great city is a popular one. Nonetheless, it is a formula I never tire of, especially given the three main characters of "Medicine for Melancholy": Micah, Jo and the city of San Francisco. An awkward introduction in the light of day after a drunken one-night stand leads to an inauspicious "date" spent biking and cabbing around San Francisco. Unlike the relentless (but entertaining) dialogue of the Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy characters in "Before Sunrise," or the charming tension between the mis-matched and ill-fated Audrey Hepburn and Gregory Peck in "Roman Holiday," the couple in "MFM" spend long moments of non-verbal connecting that is tinged by an overt sadness. This melancholy is confirmed by the sad dog eyes of Micah, the initially cold reaction of Jo and the lovely washed out hues of James Laxton's cinematography as he records the events of the single day shared by the couple. This movie is not driven by a narrative per se but by a series of moments that show a real emotional ballast many cinematic long-term relationships could not convey. Yet, the inevitability of the day's end and thus of the relationship's (mirrored by the fate of the city itself as it succumbs to a gentrified, character-less version of its fabled self), create a longing I felt hours after the movie ended. The soundtrack certainly contributed.

Micah and Jo' wake up next to one another after an one-night-stand at a drunken party. Slipping away they awkwardly go their separate ways, but Micah sees her later to return her wallet. They spend the remainder of that day together, biking and walking around San Francisco and chatting generally as they go. This is about the size of the plot and those looking for more of a definite narrative should probably be warned that this is very much a niche indie film that will appeal chiefly to those that like the film almost before they have seen it. I'm not sure if I fall into that category as an older casual viewer but then I did make a certain amount of effort to get hold of the film so I suppose I did have a vested interest to like it. And mostly I did like it: mostly.

The low-key indie feel of the whole film will feel pretentious to some I'm sure but for me it had a certain lo-fi charm that came from the project as a whole. Although the path of the two characters didn't really strike me as realistic or convincing, the charm with which it was delivered helped me to put this out of my mind for the most part. This allowed me to hang out with them as they bumble around the city together in a way that will be recognisable to anyone who has done the same in any major city. In this regard I really liked the film and I enjoyed the "coolness" of it and I didn't care too much that "nothing was happening" in a traditional sense.

This makes for a very slight film and it needed to have a conclusion that fits that – which it sort of does, the problem is more what it includes in the final third. We suddenly have discussions over race that feel clunky compared to the majority of the scenes that had gone before; this made it a little grating and didn't fit with the rest of the film. Of course this does fit well when compared to the sudden introducing of a meeting of random people discussing gentrification in San Francisco, this doesn't fit at all and indeed this sudden introduction of social commentary just clunks onto the screen without any real context or relevance, giving the impression that the film wants to have this aspect but wasn't able or willing to make it part of the whole film, but rather just one scene.

The charm of it is key though and the casting was very important in making this work. Finding Wyatt Cenac in the lead was a surprise and perhaps a bit of a worry since I generally find him to be the least able of those on the Daily Show; I like him but his performances on that show are never as good as John Olivier, Larry Wilmore or some of the stronger ones. Here though he is awkwardly charming in a weird geeky way. He does walk a fine line because at times he could have been irritating but he keeps it on the right side of the line. He is helped a lot by his chemistry with Heggins. She is wonderfully awkward and cute; OK she never got her character's motivations through to me but I still really took to her and to both of them together.

Medicine for Melancholy is a very slight film though and it is not something to come to with high expectations. Rather the indie design and delivery is something that charms those that left it, thanks to the work by maker Jenkins and also the chemistry of the lead two. The attempts to have some form of commentary or meaning in it really clunk towards the end but ultimately, while not great, it is a lo-fi indie pleasure.

It was lucky that I had a computer nearby so that I could read email while watching this movie. There is a kind of quirky genius to it and I did feel an intimate connection to the characters at times. It felt real and familiar, a little bit awkward to be seeing them so close and personal. In a way the extreme realness of the film was its downfall. Hitchcock once said something to the effect that films are like real life with the boring parts taken out. Too many of the boring parts were left in this film.

The cinematography is weak, but the use of muted colors matches the plodding dullness of the film, which may have been the intention. The music was a strong point, I thought -- it was different and original, fresh and creative.