I had never heard of Ryan Gilmore as a director before. Imagine my surprise when I crossed paths with this little gem, unprepared for what would turn out to be a real sleeper of auteur cinema.
What stands out most to me in this film is the brilliant use of anti-chemistry between the characters to metaphorically capture the isolation of existing in a time full of social media where we see everything about each other all day, and yet we're more distant than ever.
Yet even this is contrasted by the simple uncompromising sincerity of scenes like John King the Fourth (one of the characters) meeting an old acquaintance at a party. The movie plays a lot with dualities in general. In one scene a homeless man is holding up a sign saying "need $ for food", while John King is next to him with another sign that says "need $ to sell food".
This same scene also exemplifies another innate yet spiritually propinquitous trait of Ryan Gilmore's cinema: Surrealism. Both the signs have the same size and look like they were written by the same person. It accentuates the absurdity of the situation and elevates the movie to a meta-commentary on itself, which incidentally the movie is a movie about filmmaking. Coincidence? I think not.
A great other example of this hallmark surrealism is a scene where Lucas Lewandowski (or is he really Lucas Lord?) decides to get drunk in a moment of frustration. Despite being at home, he drinks the liquor from disposable papercups, and the more he drinks, the more papercups amass on his table, just to drive home how disposable they are and how disposable Lucas feels himself. Yet at the same time, as the papercups multiply and Lucas gets progressively more drunk, the amount of liquor left in the bottle remains constant. This scene is not literally Lucas drinking from 10 different cups, that would be absurd. It is a metaphysical dreamlike similitude of Lucas's mental state. The amount of cups are symbolic stand-ins for all the times he ran away before, yet also using a new cup for each sip is another subtle and clever use of absurdism to show the repetition of the rat race.
Yet as much as the disposable cups signify Lucas's own disposability to himself, they also hold a deeper meaning. The cups are trash. Disposable. Just like his problems, if only he is willing to let go of them. The level of liquor in the liquor bottle stays the same no matter how much he drinks because his wallowing in his misery is his own choice, and continuing this cycle will not reduce the amount of misery still left for him to be felt.
Interwoven with the anti-chemistry and surrealism is a reinvented form of bathos. In a surely to be iconic scene, John's friend Drake is tied to a chair using a thin strip of tape. In what would otherwise almost be a serious scene, Drake tells John that the only difference between them is that John bakes and Drake helps people get baked. The bathos isn't a mere Marvelesque rhetoric to defuse the tension. Along with the surrealism of tying up your best friend with a thin string of tape, it is a keen reminder to the viewer that what is happening isn't actually real. The suffering is not real. It is all self-imposed. Rid yourself of the illusion of suffering and you shall live free. Notice that Drake could easily lift the tape and free himself from the chair, yet he does not. His misery is self-imposed. See the pattern?
The attentive viewer will notice a subtle theme that runs through the film: "Is it all worth it?" I mentioned repetition earlier in this review, yet it is not a repetition, it is a rhyme.
When Ryan is feeling more playful, he includes scenes that showcase his awareness of contemporary social culture: Lucas's choice of a Macbook to write his scripts is perhaps a sign of this movie expressing a poignant critique of, or perhaps a benevolent jab (like Ryan's characters often do at each other) at self-loathing hipsterdom. Hipsters hate themselves, it is well known, just like Lucas hates himself. John King's restaurant burning down shows Ryan's keen awareness of BLM's fight for social justice.
Yet it is never just that. Ryan would never just include a plump reference to a real life event. No. It is always interwoven with his other rhetorics. The restaurant burns down like paper because it was a paper dream. Lucas fuels his addiction with paper cups.
Speaking of the cups, they are red. Why are they red? Red is a strong color carrying strong emotions. A sign of his suffering, it is a red flag. Yet the repetition of this red flag throughout the movie, once again a rhyme. They are a red string running throughout the movie. Running, like running a rat race. Ryan is a genius.
The movie ends with Lucas showing his movie to all the collaborators and being met with furious applause. Someone who doesn't quite understand Ryan's subtle surrealism might think this is a sign of Ryan's hubris. Does he think his movie deserves this kind of applause? Yet at the same time, another scene gives us the key. When asked what he will do if the movie does not succeed, Lucas says he will be okay with it. Ryan is not arrogant, he is exceedingly humble. He actually knows his movie is sublime, yet he has the self-awareness to act like it's nothing more than a flick to earn an applause. He underplays his hand and yet still comes out winning.
But ultimately, should we really discuss this movie? Or should we just appreciate it? Remember, it's whatever you make of it. It's as simple as that.
Is it worth it to go see this? Do you want me to tell you? Or do you want to find out for yourself?
P. S. On a side note, I have seen that someone posted an obvious 1/10 troll review on this movie. That person has obviously not seen this movie. And if he has, he clearly hasn't understood the message or perhaps he has a personal vendetta against Ryan. It is sad that IMDB allows such reviews to stay up and tarnish the director's reputation.
What stands out most to me in this film is the brilliant use of anti-chemistry between the characters to metaphorically capture the isolation of existing in a time full of social media where we see everything about each other all day, and yet we're more distant than ever.
Yet even this is contrasted by the simple uncompromising sincerity of scenes like John King the Fourth (one of the characters) meeting an old acquaintance at a party. The movie plays a lot with dualities in general. In one scene a homeless man is holding up a sign saying "need $ for food", while John King is next to him with another sign that says "need $ to sell food".
This same scene also exemplifies another innate yet spiritually propinquitous trait of Ryan Gilmore's cinema: Surrealism. Both the signs have the same size and look like they were written by the same person. It accentuates the absurdity of the situation and elevates the movie to a meta-commentary on itself, which incidentally the movie is a movie about filmmaking. Coincidence? I think not.
A great other example of this hallmark surrealism is a scene where Lucas Lewandowski (or is he really Lucas Lord?) decides to get drunk in a moment of frustration. Despite being at home, he drinks the liquor from disposable papercups, and the more he drinks, the more papercups amass on his table, just to drive home how disposable they are and how disposable Lucas feels himself. Yet at the same time, as the papercups multiply and Lucas gets progressively more drunk, the amount of liquor left in the bottle remains constant. This scene is not literally Lucas drinking from 10 different cups, that would be absurd. It is a metaphysical dreamlike similitude of Lucas's mental state. The amount of cups are symbolic stand-ins for all the times he ran away before, yet also using a new cup for each sip is another subtle and clever use of absurdism to show the repetition of the rat race.
Yet as much as the disposable cups signify Lucas's own disposability to himself, they also hold a deeper meaning. The cups are trash. Disposable. Just like his problems, if only he is willing to let go of them. The level of liquor in the liquor bottle stays the same no matter how much he drinks because his wallowing in his misery is his own choice, and continuing this cycle will not reduce the amount of misery still left for him to be felt.
Interwoven with the anti-chemistry and surrealism is a reinvented form of bathos. In a surely to be iconic scene, John's friend Drake is tied to a chair using a thin strip of tape. In what would otherwise almost be a serious scene, Drake tells John that the only difference between them is that John bakes and Drake helps people get baked. The bathos isn't a mere Marvelesque rhetoric to defuse the tension. Along with the surrealism of tying up your best friend with a thin string of tape, it is a keen reminder to the viewer that what is happening isn't actually real. The suffering is not real. It is all self-imposed. Rid yourself of the illusion of suffering and you shall live free. Notice that Drake could easily lift the tape and free himself from the chair, yet he does not. His misery is self-imposed. See the pattern?
The attentive viewer will notice a subtle theme that runs through the film: "Is it all worth it?" I mentioned repetition earlier in this review, yet it is not a repetition, it is a rhyme.
When Ryan is feeling more playful, he includes scenes that showcase his awareness of contemporary social culture: Lucas's choice of a Macbook to write his scripts is perhaps a sign of this movie expressing a poignant critique of, or perhaps a benevolent jab (like Ryan's characters often do at each other) at self-loathing hipsterdom. Hipsters hate themselves, it is well known, just like Lucas hates himself. John King's restaurant burning down shows Ryan's keen awareness of BLM's fight for social justice.
Yet it is never just that. Ryan would never just include a plump reference to a real life event. No. It is always interwoven with his other rhetorics. The restaurant burns down like paper because it was a paper dream. Lucas fuels his addiction with paper cups.
Speaking of the cups, they are red. Why are they red? Red is a strong color carrying strong emotions. A sign of his suffering, it is a red flag. Yet the repetition of this red flag throughout the movie, once again a rhyme. They are a red string running throughout the movie. Running, like running a rat race. Ryan is a genius.
The movie ends with Lucas showing his movie to all the collaborators and being met with furious applause. Someone who doesn't quite understand Ryan's subtle surrealism might think this is a sign of Ryan's hubris. Does he think his movie deserves this kind of applause? Yet at the same time, another scene gives us the key. When asked what he will do if the movie does not succeed, Lucas says he will be okay with it. Ryan is not arrogant, he is exceedingly humble. He actually knows his movie is sublime, yet he has the self-awareness to act like it's nothing more than a flick to earn an applause. He underplays his hand and yet still comes out winning.
But ultimately, should we really discuss this movie? Or should we just appreciate it? Remember, it's whatever you make of it. It's as simple as that.
Is it worth it to go see this? Do you want me to tell you? Or do you want to find out for yourself?
P. S. On a side note, I have seen that someone posted an obvious 1/10 troll review on this movie. That person has obviously not seen this movie. And if he has, he clearly hasn't understood the message or perhaps he has a personal vendetta against Ryan. It is sad that IMDB allows such reviews to stay up and tarnish the director's reputation.
