What do you know. Thomas Clay finally put together a REAL movie. What do I mean by that exactly? Well, he's done "The Great Ecstasy Of Robert Carmichael, a teen angsty pseudo horror quasi experimental film which caused a brief splash, managing to alienate both the horror people for not being horror-centric, as well as everybody else for the seemingly senseless gross-out nature of the subject matter. Then there was Soi Cowboy, a very arthousey existential flick with not much of a plot, and which no one cared about. Don't get me wrong, I like both of his earlier films. I thought they showed a lot of promise. The difference is Fanny Lye is a film that normies will ACTUALLY go and see, and ACTUALLY appreciate for what it is.
Interestingly too, Thomas Clay seems to have dropped the trademark long drawn out scenes. This film is tight; it's well paced; very basic plot and cast, but enough to flesh out into something meaningful and resonant. In short, it's very conventional, in every sense of the word. The message I get from this film is "I want to make a career as a director, please." I think he's done with the experimental stuff. He wants to be mainstream, and with that point, let's talk about the subject matter. He couldn't have picked a more in vogue theme if he tried, the theme of female empowerment.
So, am I bashing the idea of a film where the men are blithering idiots who might as well be running around in circles, bumping into each other's heads, while a woman cleans up after their mess? Not exactly... But my description alone should tell you that I'm rolling my eyes at it JUST a little bit. I'm bored of female empowerment.. I just am. EVERY film has to have a heroin. EVERY reboot has to have an all female cast, and we KNOW it's all about satisfying a trend, and little else. That being said, Let's judge the film on its own merits. How did he do?
To start off on the downside of things, all the action scenes seem very forced, and not particularly well handled. It often comes across as "I want this to happen now; therefore this is going to happen now." Who gets overpowered and when, all seems to come down to the whim of the director. It doesn't feel very organic. Is this irredeemable? No, but I should mention the worst example of this. Early on when the vagabonds threaten the captain as the bounty hunter approaches. He doesn't notice any of the noise, commotion, or arguing back and forth going on within the hut as he's mere meters away. And why doesn't he notice? Because the director didn't want him to! That's how that comes across to me: one sloppy aspect of the film that's hard to ignore.
Onto the better points, as I've mentioned, the plot is very basic. This being the case, the film is fleshed out with strong dialogue and very well-focused tension between the characters. This actually isn't something you've seen Thomas Clay do in his previous films. How about the actions and motives of the characters? Is fanny Lye a well-developed character and do her actions make sense? Overall you'd have to say yes. She doesn't feel like a caricature. None of the characters do really, and that's important because each of them represent a very specific and classic theme in regards to human chaos, escapism, and order. There is one gross-out scene very sexual in nature, that might come across as a little forced, but to each his own.
To recap, it's a decent film. Maybe not groundbreaking, but it does have rewatch potential. It reminded me a bit of a film called "Blood Oranges," with all the sexual tension, by a director who reminds me a lot of Thomas Clay. So yeah I dunno, at the very least give the guy a tv career if that's what he wants. It's only taken him 12 years to find his voice, but I'll say it now just like I said 15 years ago, he does have talent, and I'm curious to see where he goes from here, after this, his second birth.
Interestingly too, Thomas Clay seems to have dropped the trademark long drawn out scenes. This film is tight; it's well paced; very basic plot and cast, but enough to flesh out into something meaningful and resonant. In short, it's very conventional, in every sense of the word. The message I get from this film is "I want to make a career as a director, please." I think he's done with the experimental stuff. He wants to be mainstream, and with that point, let's talk about the subject matter. He couldn't have picked a more in vogue theme if he tried, the theme of female empowerment.
So, am I bashing the idea of a film where the men are blithering idiots who might as well be running around in circles, bumping into each other's heads, while a woman cleans up after their mess? Not exactly... But my description alone should tell you that I'm rolling my eyes at it JUST a little bit. I'm bored of female empowerment.. I just am. EVERY film has to have a heroin. EVERY reboot has to have an all female cast, and we KNOW it's all about satisfying a trend, and little else. That being said, Let's judge the film on its own merits. How did he do?
To start off on the downside of things, all the action scenes seem very forced, and not particularly well handled. It often comes across as "I want this to happen now; therefore this is going to happen now." Who gets overpowered and when, all seems to come down to the whim of the director. It doesn't feel very organic. Is this irredeemable? No, but I should mention the worst example of this. Early on when the vagabonds threaten the captain as the bounty hunter approaches. He doesn't notice any of the noise, commotion, or arguing back and forth going on within the hut as he's mere meters away. And why doesn't he notice? Because the director didn't want him to! That's how that comes across to me: one sloppy aspect of the film that's hard to ignore.
Onto the better points, as I've mentioned, the plot is very basic. This being the case, the film is fleshed out with strong dialogue and very well-focused tension between the characters. This actually isn't something you've seen Thomas Clay do in his previous films. How about the actions and motives of the characters? Is fanny Lye a well-developed character and do her actions make sense? Overall you'd have to say yes. She doesn't feel like a caricature. None of the characters do really, and that's important because each of them represent a very specific and classic theme in regards to human chaos, escapism, and order. There is one gross-out scene very sexual in nature, that might come across as a little forced, but to each his own.
To recap, it's a decent film. Maybe not groundbreaking, but it does have rewatch potential. It reminded me a bit of a film called "Blood Oranges," with all the sexual tension, by a director who reminds me a lot of Thomas Clay. So yeah I dunno, at the very least give the guy a tv career if that's what he wants. It's only taken him 12 years to find his voice, but I'll say it now just like I said 15 years ago, he does have talent, and I'm curious to see where he goes from here, after this, his second birth.