My reactions to this film are on two levels. On one level the director has shown great skill in his handling of his cast, whom I presume mostly to be inhabitants of the locale. He was less successful in developing the story, particularly in developing the motivations of the characters. The denouement was clumsily handled and seems as much an accident in the screenplay as in it is in the film. On another level, the cinematography was technically atrocious. Presumably intentionally so, for I cannot perceive anybody showing such little technical skill getting the job (mind, I have known one guy who got such a job without even knowing how to determine exposure). There are lengthy tracking shots that are unwatchable on the big screen. There are many 360 blurred pans and many out of focus shots. I got to waiting, during these lengthy out of focus shots to see what in-focus thing would eventually move into frame. One presumes that everybody knows about depth of field and pulling focus, so I guess the director intended to suggest mystery (which he did: what is the mystery object that the camera is focused on?). In many ways this film rehashes techniques of 50s European "reality" films (eg. Bicycle Thieves, The Goatherd, etc), but less successfully. Presently there is a fashion for rough cinematography - bumpy hand held, soft, muddy in the belief that this represents "truth" (compared to Hollywood slickness). In fact, it distracts the viewer from the story.