Wild Tigers I have known  LFF Screenings: 23/10/06 OWE + 25/10/06 NFT |
 |
Cert: 15 (TBC) 81 mins USA Release Date (UK): 25/05/07 |
|
Being
the second experimental gay 'coming of age' drama featuring a character
with more than slight personality disorders that's produced by Gus Van
Sant might just lead to this film being compared to the year before
last’s low budget and critically acclaimed Tarnation. However that was a
documentary and this is fiction but scenes where the lead character
here (Logan) wears a wig and adopts a female persona (Leah) do further
recall Jonathan Caouette’s performance in the earlier film. Van Sant
has dabbled in executive producing before (such as on the relatively
unknown Speedway Junky) but
with this pair of films it suggests a mentoring role for young film
makers who want to create something considerably more experimental than
other gay / mainstream movies. Considering the experimental aspect of
his last three films (Elephant
/ Gerry / Last Days) – in tone and sparseness
if not technique – this shouldn’t come as a surprise.
Wild Tigers... is a lyrical and affecting movie that is most memorable for its visual flourishes that recall directors as disparate as David Lynch (particularly circa Blue Velvet) and Derek Jarman. Unfortunately where the film falls down is in its long periods without dialogue that just show footage of Logan in his solitude. This works as a narrative technique up to a point (and unlike Van Sant’s recent films doesn’t stretch the patience of the audience to breaking point) but does hamper the film, as the maxim ‘less is more’ doesn’t always apply. The cut of the film shown at the London Film Festival is different to the one shown at Sundance and I’d be very curious to see the differences. When the director – Cam Archer - originally sought funding for the film the script was apparently 105 pages long but the film shown at the LFF was adapted from only 30 pages. If the Sundance version had more of the original script in I dare say it would be more (to use an awful Hollywood word) accessible and may have featured some of the excised cast members listed on the IMdB. If the editing of this film is an ongoing project, perhaps he could include the footage on the DVD to allow the audience to construct their own version and create their own interpretation of Logan’s fractured psyche… However, if we are to consider the film as shown (and assume that Archer won’t revise it further) there is still a lot to enjoy. Logan is a beguiling, awkward character who has resonance for anyone who suffered isolation at school and Malcolm Stumpf gives a commendable performance that will hopefully lead to others (he apparently gave acting a break for 5 years after appearing in The next best thing… Well you can’t blame him!). Equally Patrick White as the object of his desires, Kim Dickens (Deadwood) as his counsellor and Fairuza Balk as his mother all turn in great supporting roles. Balk in particular who followed her experiences as a child actor in the likes of Return to Oz with great indie films such as Things to do in Denver when you’re dead and American History X brings knowing experience to her role although perhaps she could have done with stronger direction in certain scenes. As Archer’s a director who's won great acclaim for his short films (and without the missing dialogue this does feel like a short extended to feature length) it’s clear he’s got the potential to do a great feature, however he’s not quite managed it here. When I interviewed him at the festival he said he was surprised his film had been selected for the experimental strand rather than the regular (as it had been at other festivals). It’s certainly not the most experimental film I’ve seen – a large amount of it adheres to conventional film-making techniques – but it is perhaps the lack of experienta available to the festival programmers this year (and the location of drivel like Container outside the experimental strand) and the unfinished aspect of this project. Possibly the reason that this is only a good film rather than a great one (and you get the feeling there’s a great film struggling to get out here) is that Archer took on the roles of writer, director, editor and producer (and not everyone's Robert Rodriguez) when he could have done with at least one other person taking one of those roles. If next time he chooses a great collaborator as well as a great cast he’ll be onto a winner.  reviews home LFF home
 |