mlr

Unfortunately our entry in the 48Hours film competition ("Coupled") did not make the Wellington regional final. We thought we might have had a chance this year, but to cut a long story short: no. Still, last night I was able to see the calibre of films that did make it. There were twelve films shown and, like last year, I've decided I will say a few things about each of them. Before I start, I should note that the compère for the night stated that the films were shown in alphabetical order (with a couple of exceptions for "technical reasons") and that the audience shouldn't read anything into the order they were shown. However, by coincidence or not, it turned out the first film shown, "The Baby Farmer", won first prize, and the next film shown, "16 Bullets", came second. Plenty to keep the conspiracy theorists going, no doubt. Anyway, onto the films themselves.

Oh, actually, just hold that thought for a second. I should probably give the available genres and story elements before continuing. The available genres, and some examples the organisers provided, were:

• The Action Movie (eg kung fu, blaxploitation, biker, lone man).
• Based on a True Story (eg biopic, fictionalised, true crime, documentary).
• The Monster Movie (eg eco-terror, killer wildlife, supersize, mad scientist).
• The Pretentious Film (eg wanky symbolism, foreign, surreal, experimental, avant garde).
• The Coming of Age Movie (eg any John Hughes film, friendship, serious, unusual).
• The Fairytale (eg faithful, reinvention, Grimm, post-modern, redux).
• The Horror Movie (eg slasher, psychological, splatter comedy, cannibal, zombie, torture).
• The War or Western Film (eg historical, contemporary, contemplative, gung ho, classic, existential, MTV, reinvention).
• The Superhero Movie (e.g. traditional, action packed, spoof, silly).
• The Crime Movie (e.g. heist, gangster, detective).
• The Romance Film (e.g. rom-com, dark, bittersweet).
• The Musical (e.g. rock opera, period, bollywood, puppets, weird).
• The Science Fiction Film (e.g. nature run amok, in space, in the future, spaceTime, hard science, evil computer).
• The Road Movie (e.g. two character, the hitchhiker, the destination, existential).
• Two extra special Peter Jackson ones: Parody and Puppet.

Each team got one, and only one, of the genres to run with. Each and every team, however, had to incorporate the same three story elements: a character named Robin Slade, who is an eternal optimist; a line of dialogue - "That's what I'm talking about"; and a prop—a mirror.

OK. Finally, onto the movies:

• As I noted above, first up was "The Baby Farmer" (Monster) from team Clean Slate. Well, monster was what they said the genre was. Personally I think it was most definitely a horror and not really a monster movie. Why? Well, for a start there was no monster. There was a ghost. I guess it could probably be argued that a ghost is a type of monster, but I think that would be pushing it a bit. A monster movie to me—and to most others I would imagine—is one that involves a real, physical monster: a Godzilla, a Mothman, a kraken, etc, etc. That being said, it was a very good looking film. And unlike virtually every other movie in the competition it wasn't a comedy. It was actually quite scary in places and the whole thing looked very professional. The story was adequate, although the ending did leave me scratching my head a bit: there was a baby and a baby farmer, and the baby didn't end up getting farmed (whatever "farmed" means). So it was kind of like "huh?". The baby farmer alluded to in the title seemed to be the ghost of Minnie Dean, the only woman to have received the death penalty in New Zealand.
  My rating: A-. Marked down for inconsistent ending and Robin Slade wasn't really an eternal optimist (he was in fact quite mean and self-serving). Marked up for production values, good acting and general spookiness.
  Did it deserve to be there? Yes.
  Did it deserve to win? I think so, yes.
• Second (in more ways than one) was "16 Bullets" (Coming of Age) from Hydra Productions. Although technically not up to the standard of the previous film—both in terms of cinematography and acting—it was probably superior in terms of coherent story. That's probably why it came second. A very refreshing take on coming of age.
  My rating: A-. Marked down for technical reasons. Marked up for story.
  Did it deserve to be there? Yes.
  Did it deserve to win? It had a great story, so I would have thought it would have come close.
• Next up was team Long Live Megatron with "Optimistic Prime" (Based on a True Story). Obviously hanging out for a Transformers movie, they nonetheless managed to work a serviceable movie without having any Transformers in it at all. They went for the "true story within a story" aspect of the based on a true story genre, which seemed to be a common motif. (We used it.) It was a very simple true story; in fact it seemed more a gag-reel than a story. Of course, that accusation could be levelled at most, if not all, 48Hours movies. There was certainly no character development. They had the "Musical" genre covered as well, with constant interruptions from a barbershop quartet. Having said all of that, it was funny, although whether it would pass my second viewing test is another matter. (My second viewing test says that if I find a 48Hours comedy funny the second time through, it was a good comedy.)
  My Rating: B. Marked down for lack of story. Marked up for fun.
  Did it deserve to be there? Yeah, why not?
  Was it good enough to win? No.
• Then came "Robin Slade: The Actor's Actor" (Puppet) from team Open Book. I think a Puppet movie would be quite hard to do (although Hadyn has a great idea about a real-life Thunderbirds-type thing ,a la the Thunderbirds FAB stage show). So big ups to Open Book for this movie. However. However, they went the mockumentary route. Aaaaaaaggggghhhh! Make it stop. If you ask me, and I did, mockumentary is a blight on the 48Hours. I think it's an easy, and lazy, way out. There are only so many mockumentaries I can take, and they have to be exceptional or groundbreaking (like "This is Spinal Tap" or "The Office") before I'll take note of them. So, on the whole a well executed, but completely unremarkable, short.
  My rating: B-. Marked way down for mockumentary-ness. Marked up (slightly) for production values, a couple of smirkable gags and the acting (the main actor—not the puppet—won best actor for the Wellington region).
  Did it deserve to be there? No. It pisses me off that shorts that try to come up with stories are beaten out by mockumentaries.
  Did it deserve to win? See my answer just above.
• Next up was "Emotional Rescue" (Based on a True Story) by team Northside Steelers. One of many that lampooned the recent trapped miners in Australia. This one was a completely bonkers take on it. Two guys in a garage, one underneath an SUV, fixing it up, the other in a monologue to the camera, during the course of which he tries to take his own life through the old carbon monoxide suicide trick of running the exhaust through a pipe into the car's interior. His mate fixing the car has no idea of this—it seems to him that the guy inside the car is helping him out by gunning the engine a bit. So far so kind-of good. It then dips into the surreal when a cosmetic saleswoman stumbles into the garage at the same time an earthquake strikes, subsiding the garage 150 feet underground. The film gets totally random at this point, including the intrusion of a pipe into (yes, that's "into") one of the characters, and a taxi driver (yes, that's "taxi driver") squeezing himself through the pipe from overground in hopes of rescuing them. Then, pretty much, the film ends. Wha?? Now, this was nominated for best screenplay for the Wellington region. My response to that: you have to be f%^$&$ joking. Fortunately, it didn't win—that honour went to "16 Bullets", which deserved it—but even to be one of the three nominated grated more than a bit.
  My rating: C-. Marked up for a promising start and some OK cinematography. Marked down for complete lack of story (best screenplay!?!???).
  Did the it to be there? Hell no. Some items were traded or other favours done to get this one in, of that I'm sure.
  Did it deserve to win? Ha ha ha ha ha ha. Good one.
• Surely "Monster" (Monster) by Traces of Nut couldn't be any worse than the last film? From the team that last year gave us "Ananab", which should probably have won the Wellington region, you would expect big things. However, while it was definitely a step up from the preceding film, this year's effort from Traces of Nut is somewhat less than their effort from last year. A nice twist on the monster genre, the monster-hunter becomes the monster as he indiscriminantly lays waste to the monster community. A nice concept, but the execution seemed a bit disjointed to me, and perhaps didn't do enough with the scope such a story offered. Also they went mockumentary at times. Aaaaaaaagggghhhhh! Will they never learn? All surface and no depth for what purportedly is a deep idea: what is the definition of a monster?
  My rating: B-. Marked up for interesting concept and having actual monsters. Marked down for not living up to the promise, only paying lip-service to the three story elements and doing f&^%*$#! mockumentary bits.
  Did it deserve to be there? Meh, borderline.
  Did it deserve to win? Nope.
• The next film shown was "Gunther & Me" (Monster) from Prime Rib. Another alumni from last year, where they did a pretentious art film that should have made it through to the final, but didn't. They probably rode the coat-tails of that effort this year and got into the finals this year with what I would call a sympathy vote from the judges. Certainly this monster effort from them was on the mediocre side; a nice idea, but execution and story-flow were not as good as their effort of last year. Although I must admit that their pretentious film last year didn't really have story-flow—perfect for pretentious, and maybe it was that that hid the flaws. The basic story revolves around a boy who lives with an imaginary monster. Or is it?
  My rating: B-. Marked up for interesting concept and enthusiasm. Marked down for execution and unpolished screenplay (even given the 48 hour constraint).
  Did it deserve to be there? I would have to say no.
  Did it deserve to win? Nah.
• On to "Seven in Seven" (Parody) from SE7. A parody of the film Se7en, if you couldn't guess already. One of the stronger films on the night. Thinking about it, that was probably due to the fact that it was a parody and, like mockumentary, quite easy to do. Originality is not required, and it's an opportunity to run a gag-reel without having a story. Having said that, good parody can be hard to pull off, and this is a good parody. Hadyn got it right when he said that if Hollywood were to itself do a parody of Se7en, they may as well get some ideas from this short.
  My rating: B+. Marked down for having an easy-ish genre to do. Marked up for doing it well.
  Did they deserve to be in the final? Emphatic yes.
  Did they deserve to win? No.
• Next was "That Fateful Day in April" (Based on a True Story) from team Ufo Film. A one-joke film. I quite enjoyed it; the pay-off at the end is a good one. Technically one of the best shot films I saw, and I thought one of the best shown at the final. I would have been tempted on the one viewing to make it my favourite. However, upon thinking about it, it fails my "second viewing" criterion. Also, I remember the mirror and the line of dialogue, but I'm not quite sure how eternally optimistic Robin Slade was. Also not so sure about it being based on a true story. It didn't even attempt to make it internally true (as "Optimistic Prime" did). In fact, it all looked decidedly pretentious until the final few seconds, when all was made clear.
  My rating: B. Marked up for nice cinematography and nice leading of the audience down a path before surprising them right at the end, and for keeping it simple. Very nice locations as well. Marked down for being a one-joke, insubstantial story. And for only paying lip-service to the required story elements.
  Did it deserve to be there? In terms of being a polished film, I think so.
  Did it deserve to win? It was an enjoyable little short, but in short, no.
• Third to last was "This Thing Called Hate" (Monster) from Unproductive But Optimistic. This one gets points for actually having a real monster, albeit a slightly twisted one: a Frankenstein-like doctor creates a spare-parts monster whom he tries to imbue with evil, only for it to start acting nice. Very good take on the monster genre, and an interesting screenplay.
  My rating: B+. One of the better ones—it had a good story with a beginning, middle and a good resolution.
  Did it deserve to be there? Yeah. Did it deserve to win? Probably not strong enough for the win.
• The penultimate film shown was "Slade in Full" (Action) by White Tiger. White Tiger is Taika Cohen (aka Taika Waititi), Oscar-nominee, 48Hour winner from two years ago and pretty funny guy. "Slade in Full" is what you've all come to expect from Waititi in this 48Hour format. He plays (well, overplays) all the characters himself and employs very basic camera tricks (pretty well, I must say) to give a parody of action films. Funny on first showing, although not as funny as his 48Hours winner from two years ago seemed on first viewing, this would fail my "second viewing" test.
  My rating: C+. Marked up for Waititi's performances, but marked down for pretty much everything else.
  Did it deserve to be there? Debatable. It's a crowd pleaser, I'll give it that.
  Did it deserve to win? No.
• And finally we come to "Faery Disenchanted" from team Pancake. I missed the genre, but assume it was Fairy Tale. I thought this was probably the least of those showing last night. It was a take on "if you don't believe in them, the fairies will disappear" transposed to a contemporary setting. It included an Alcoholic's Anonymous-type (Fairy's Anonymous?) group counselling session for those fairies who seemed to be out of jobs. Although for what reason they were out of jobs I wasn't sure, as the film seemed to establish at the start fairies disappear entirely when people stop believing in them. A few inconsistencies there.
  My rating: C. Marked down for most things. Marked up for the gnome and his gelignite method of fishing.
  Did it deserve to be there? I would say no.
  Did it deserve to win? No.

So, there you have it. 48Hours for the Wellington region for 2006. As for those films in the final last night: some good, some not so good. A good film won, so not too much to complain about. A few genres missing from the finalists: Pretentious, Sci-Fi, Horror, War/Western, Superhero, Crime, Musical, Road Movie. That's quite a few. I'm just wondering if the genres got shared out all that evenly?

I'm disappointed our film didn't make it this year, again. I'm not quite sure what the judges are looking for. I think next year we'll just do a gag-reel and try to find a couple of celebrities to act for us. Nah. On second thoughts I hope we continue our independent style and try not to pander to public opinion. And that we get a cooler genre next year: come on War, Superhero, Horror or Monster!