"Liminal" Review: Nude Gets Nasty

2009-10-11T16:32:00.000-07:00

SHOCKFEST Film Festival is coming up fast (11/7 at Cinespace in Hollywood), so though I'd planned on more general advice articles, I've decided instead to spend some time reviewing films for the upcoming fest. This first review is really a sneak preview of sorts. As of right now, the official selections list for SHOCKFEST 2009 has not been made public. So at the risk of letting the cat out of the bag, congratulations to "Liminal," an experimental, artistic short about two women locked in a vicious power struggle... in the nude.

In "Liminal," two women fight for control in their relationship, or is it a fight for control of a single person's consciousness? This sort of mind play common for the film's director, Stephen Keep Mills, who makes quality his calling card. Mills combines talented actors, vivid locations, enigmatic dialogue, and old-fashioned film to create pieces that truly embody the artistic identity of independent film. "Liminal" is no exception.

But all the trappings aside, the real question one has to ask about a film like "Liminal" is, the nudity... Does it work? Does it enhance the authenticity of the lead characters' argument (the two women are, after all, fighting over a sweater) or, as any decent filmmaker would have to ask him/herself when employing such an eye-catching device, does the nudity come across as pretentious? This is a common sin in indie film and can quickly alienate people.

The basic symbolism of employing naked characters is pretty obvious; they are stripped, literally, down to the raw emotion. They are vulnerable. Because of this alone, using nudity in films can be tempting. In "Liminal," the nudity also adds a sexual tension that heightens the sense of danger when the two women's confrontation starts getting violent. Finally, the two women seem more like a real intimate couple because they are naked together. The authenticity of their relationship is further strengthened by Mills's dialogue which, far from being on the nose as (another indie film sin) is often vague, giving the impression that the characters are building on the meanings that already exist in their relationship, adding to ongoing conversations.

This is a fine line to walk, however. There were points during the film that the illusion broke down. The intimacy of the nudity was at times actually undermined by what sometimes became stilted dialogue. When this happened, it seemed as though the actors were conscious of creating art rather than being in the moment. A few cuts, perhaps, could pick up the pace toward the middle of their argument and mitigate this problem.

Technically, the film was beautiful. Shot in 35mm, entirely in black and white, it was lovely to watch and highly entertaining. Unlike many big-budget indie films lately that play chameleon with big studio pics, I left "Liminal" feeling I'd seen something truly independent.

I won't, however, pretend I spent the whole film so thororouly wrapped in the dialogue and plot that I forgot the two main characters were naked. We're all grown-ups, so we're told, and I think we'd all like to believe we could see beyond naked bodies to focus only on the deep meaning of the film. Alas (or perhaps, hurray), that is not the case. I spent more than a few minutes during this 14 minute short simply looking at the women, their shapes, sizes, movement, parts. It was novel, but afterword I wondered why it should be so. That, for me, was the greatest psychological aspect of "Liminal." The nudity was artistically handled, but it was still shocking. Small movements of the actors were amplified as nothing was left to the imagination. On one hand, am I still so juvenile, is our culture so prudish, that two women at home having a lovers' argument about wardrobe could boil down to, naked. On the other hand, realizing I wasn't completely desensitized was a good thing. "Liminal" shows us that we're not so analytical that we can't still be scandalized from time to time by something that does not set itself up merely for shock value. The difference here, I believe, was violation. "Liminal" does not seek to penetrate the audience; it merely invites them in for a look. In then end, perhaps nakedness, sex, and violence don't always have to be dirty.

The Information Blackhole

2009-10-09T16:47:00.001-07:00

Filmmakers often work for years to create their films. They love their projects with a mother's eyes, every one wonderful and unique. Then they send their precious children off into the big scary world of the festival circuit where brutal reality often sets in.

Real parents, unlike film parents, can at least be assured they will get honest feedback about how their child is progressing, report cards and teacher conferences. Film parents get little more than an acceptance or rejection. It's akin to sending one's child to school only to have the child returned a few hours later with a big red "No" stamped on Junior's forehead. How's a filmmaker supposed to take that? What does it mean?

It isn't cruelty that drives festival selection committees to accept some films and reject others. They are simply working to create the best schedule possible for their festival. Most filmmakers are savee enough to understand that even before they begin to mail out screeners. But that doesn't answer all their burning questions. Likewise, it is not the indifference of the selection committee that causes a sudden black hole to form in the pit of filmmakers' stomachs when their films are rejected. It is the lack of answers. In this void created by the lack of concrete answers and, ultimately, the lack of resources (time and $) needed to provide those answers for every submission, filmmakers are left either to languish or to make up their own answers.

Though rejection stings in itself-and the questions arising from rejection are more acute-this black hole is created whether a film is accepted or not. It's an information black hole, and it's created when a film's acceptance status goes unexplained. So, they rejected your film. Is it really because it sucks that hard or because, as filmmakers often tell themselves, it wasn't quite what the festival was looking for (too silly, too serious, too long, too short, too damn brilliant for those idiots to understand)? Or, on the flip side, sure, your film was accepted, but why? What caught their attention? You need to know what you did right so you can duplicate it in later projects. You also need to know what about the project, even though it was chosen, could still stand improving to tighten its appeal and marketability.

I've had the annoying privilege of sitting on the other side of this problem, too much information and no where to put it. I have watched mountains of indie films in my time as a festival director, and until now have never really had a streamlined way of providing feedback to filmmakers, their markets, and their fans. As co-director of The Montana Independent Film Festival and Mockfest Film Festival of Hollywood for the past four years and Shockfest Film Festival of Hollywood for the past three, I have watched every film submission that has darkened our doorway. I've seen scores of films that simply weren't ready for acceptance for one relatively small reason or another.

Here's what to expect from this blog:

1. Indie Film Reviews: Focusing on films accepted and rejected by our festivals, but I'm open to review suggestions.

2. Insights and Trends: As the films roll in, I'll keep you informed.

3. General Film Advice: Common dos and don'ts that can give your film an edge with selection committees (at least with ours!).

4. Questions Answered: Can't predict what this category will contain. That's up to you!

Beyond Feedback: one film fest director's reviews

"Liminal" Review: Nude Gets Nasty

The Information Blackhole