I rented this DVD because I was very interested to see how the 3 lead actors played off each other, particularly in light their being, ostensibly at least, such different character types. I'd seen Mike McGlone in Brothers McMullen and She's the One, and then later in the excellent Dinner Rush with Danny Aiello. And James Urbaniak plays the uniquely idiosyncratic lead role amazingly in the seminal independent film Henry Fool, directed by the great Hal Hartley. Finally the least "indie" of the 3, Tony Hale, plays one of the more neurotic characters on one of my favorite (soon to be a "brilliant but canceled") shows Arrested Development and turns in the most realized and comically sympathetic performance in the film.
Although funny and compelling in places, it seemed inconsistent and admittedly I found I was a bit unsure about Fortunes on the initial viewing, but it definitely charmed me into taking another look. And I discovered that what at first felt perhaps more like pacing issues and the absence of the sharp "edginess" that characterizes a lot of independent film was actually much more of a studied, subtle exploration of early life crisis and uncertainty. The film is a sort of dark satire but with a lighter touch, resisting the indie urge at ostentation and grittiness in favor of a more supple approach.
The choice of having such different actors play took on significance and purpose in this context. They develop early on in the film as 3 distinct archetypes a cocksure alpha male investment banker, a workaholic and somewhat absentee father/husband, and a brooding, contemplative artist/writer. Their visit to a fortune teller is the catalyst that sets off their worrying about things all too familiar in an age of self doubt and mass identity crisis. Actually just 2 of them, the father/husband and the writer, get their fortunes read by the enigmatic though very un-stereotypical fortune teller, but the shift in their moods is palpable enough to affect the 3rd character in a way that creates a vicarious, osmotic experience for him as well. The film examines all their collective angst not so much with broad comedy as with a dry, wry humor, and does so patiently, deliberately. Rather than belly laughs, the effect is persistent, and consistent, amusement; the film engrosses not with shock or controversy, but with a sure-handed, steady focus and direction.
And beyond the perhaps somewhat deceptively simple premise of a visit with someone who may have access to a deeper, more mysterious realm triggering the latent doubts and insecurities already present in characters undergoing pre-mid life crises, the film, and not too heavy handedly (in fact maybe too subtle for it's own good) poses one of life's more essential questions are the events in our lives predetermined, does fate exist, - or is life actually something, as we'd generally like to believe, something we shape ourselves as we struggle through existence? Smartly, this film doesn't presume to answer the question or even favor one perspective over the other and chooses instead to observe it's "unanswerableness".
Fortunes ultimately came across to me as a kind of contemporary fable satirizing the same limitations of human consciousness that make us consider that question in the first place. It's more mainstream in some ways but it's an interesting and indie-minded study of character and theme that would have actually benefited, in my humble opinion, from more mood saturation and plumbing the humor of the futility of human inadequacy more in that vein. But the film absolutely grew on me as a very worthy experience more in the spirit of quiet, but playful resolve to convey theme rather than more desperately, more energetically doing so. A tall order given the average attention span. The acting is really good (all 3 of the leads as well as a few of the supporting cast notably the woman who plays the wife, Diana Henry) have terrific comedic and dramatic timing) subtle like the overall film and it's definitely shot very well it's great to look at. And the direction of the film brings all the elements together creatively and imaginatively, but again, with a mature sense of restraint. Getting past the initial sense of deliberateness in the film was a bit like the characters themselves getting past (ie - forced by their uneasiness to get past) their initial, natural cynicism about what a fortune teller has to say in the first place.
Although funny and compelling in places, it seemed inconsistent and admittedly I found I was a bit unsure about Fortunes on the initial viewing, but it definitely charmed me into taking another look. And I discovered that what at first felt perhaps more like pacing issues and the absence of the sharp "edginess" that characterizes a lot of independent film was actually much more of a studied, subtle exploration of early life crisis and uncertainty. The film is a sort of dark satire but with a lighter touch, resisting the indie urge at ostentation and grittiness in favor of a more supple approach.
The choice of having such different actors play took on significance and purpose in this context. They develop early on in the film as 3 distinct archetypes a cocksure alpha male investment banker, a workaholic and somewhat absentee father/husband, and a brooding, contemplative artist/writer. Their visit to a fortune teller is the catalyst that sets off their worrying about things all too familiar in an age of self doubt and mass identity crisis. Actually just 2 of them, the father/husband and the writer, get their fortunes read by the enigmatic though very un-stereotypical fortune teller, but the shift in their moods is palpable enough to affect the 3rd character in a way that creates a vicarious, osmotic experience for him as well. The film examines all their collective angst not so much with broad comedy as with a dry, wry humor, and does so patiently, deliberately. Rather than belly laughs, the effect is persistent, and consistent, amusement; the film engrosses not with shock or controversy, but with a sure-handed, steady focus and direction.
And beyond the perhaps somewhat deceptively simple premise of a visit with someone who may have access to a deeper, more mysterious realm triggering the latent doubts and insecurities already present in characters undergoing pre-mid life crises, the film, and not too heavy handedly (in fact maybe too subtle for it's own good) poses one of life's more essential questions are the events in our lives predetermined, does fate exist, - or is life actually something, as we'd generally like to believe, something we shape ourselves as we struggle through existence? Smartly, this film doesn't presume to answer the question or even favor one perspective over the other and chooses instead to observe it's "unanswerableness".
Fortunes ultimately came across to me as a kind of contemporary fable satirizing the same limitations of human consciousness that make us consider that question in the first place. It's more mainstream in some ways but it's an interesting and indie-minded study of character and theme that would have actually benefited, in my humble opinion, from more mood saturation and plumbing the humor of the futility of human inadequacy more in that vein. But the film absolutely grew on me as a very worthy experience more in the spirit of quiet, but playful resolve to convey theme rather than more desperately, more energetically doing so. A tall order given the average attention span. The acting is really good (all 3 of the leads as well as a few of the supporting cast notably the woman who plays the wife, Diana Henry) have terrific comedic and dramatic timing) subtle like the overall film and it's definitely shot very well it's great to look at. And the direction of the film brings all the elements together creatively and imaginatively, but again, with a mature sense of restraint. Getting past the initial sense of deliberateness in the film was a bit like the characters themselves getting past (ie - forced by their uneasiness to get past) their initial, natural cynicism about what a fortune teller has to say in the first place.