Chiefbukowski
I agree with the other 1 star review. Don't judge a film on it's budget or production process, judge it on its merits as a piece of emotion inducing storytelling. The director wants you to love this or hate it, he has a immature need for you to have an emotional connection of some sort with his film, feeling that even if you hate it he has done a great job - truth is it's pants. I didn't care enough to hate it, it just made me go 'meh' and shrug my shoulders. It comes across like the director tried too hard to make something that jumps up and down and goes 'look at me, look at me, please notice me!'. He drew shock tactics from a number of well trodden paths and overused sources that seem to have distracted him from infusing his film with the most important ingredient - an engaging story. The acting is so-so, nothing that would help this to stand out but, to be fair to the actors, they were hampered by the script or lack thereof, the main guy (can't remember his name offhand but apparently he was in Hollyoaks..) being the only one to get any sizable screen time, in which he proceeds to chew up the poorly lit scenery. As to the cinematography, well, let's just say there's hope for all those college films that are gathering dust in former film students back rooms - dust them off guys, if this can get a release there's a chance for all your short films shot on grainy minidv, lit with yer da's garden light, with the audio recorded on yer webcam mic.You may ask why I write a review if the film meant nothing to me. Well, it's because I had the misfortune to attend a (free) screening of it with a q&a with the director afterwards. As I sat there in the audience, surrounded with cast and crew and competition winning Hollyoaks fans, listening to the director's expletive ridden pretentious ranting I felt something I hadn't in the previous 1 hour 37 minutes - emotion. And that emotion was disgust. Or maybe I was just a little bloated from the curry I had beforehand. At least that part of my evening was enjoyable.
farrell-caroline
Up to the point of me getting along to the Irish Film and Television Academy premiere of Charlie Casanova, the hype had been immense, much to the credit of Writer, Director and Producer, Terry McMahon, who kept pushing forward with his challenging, and yes, abrasive exploration of morality. Not just talking the talk of controversy for the sake if it, he has created a piece of independent, Irish cinema that we have not seen before, and will, I certainly believe, elevate to cult status for future generations to dissect, critique and quote from. And it seems, Terry's incredible gift as a writer, as well as his tenacity, is paying off. To the right of him, there is the camp of fans that love the film with such enthusiasm, that collectively, they have become a major marketing tool in spreading the word. And to the left of him, the ones who hate the film; don't get it, walk out on it, fear it, or simply can't understand what the hell this character is on about. Whatever their feelings, they are still managing to generate just as much hype!Terry describes his film as being a fractured narrative about a fractured man with a fractured mind. His description is very appropriate, and it got me wondering as to how many of his audience would go home with fractured thoughts of their own! As a film-goer, my quest, for ninety minutes or so, is to empathize, to live vicariously through another life, to walk in their shoes as I re-imagine through the writings of another. Why then, as I settled in to watch this movie, could I not shake an annoying discomfort? I did not like Charlie from the get go, but he's a sociopath, so that's a no-brainer! And kudos to Emmet J Scanlon for his skill of transformation; from a well-heeled, over-educated, arrogant, yet strangely charismatic man, to a dangerous, viscerally ugly psychopath, and with such unrelenting realism that I truly believed the madness that was unfolding behind his eyes.Leaving Charlie aside however, I could feel no empathy for any of the other characters. I did not like his wife, her responses to Charlie irritated me. Same for his friends, couples themselves in different forms of crisis. Why were they all so trusting of Charlie, so easily led by him? It irked me, a lot! So what the hell was I still sitting there for, in a cold, half-filled cinema, as the director said himself, for an hour and half of my life that I'll never get back? What kept me hooked? Yes, I got it, the subtext and metaphor that Terry has spoken of many times, his reflection on society, and how, as a nation, we have allowed previous governments, without accountability, to kick the shite out of us, the immorality, and amorality of the continued criminalization of the poor, the very fabric of 'family' constantly under attack, and how we, as a society, continue to allow it, with no consequences and very few raised voices. So, in the thematic knowing of the piece, why was I feeling a tad troubled, yet compelled enough to stay on for the final gut-wrenching scene? (Even if it does end with the hauntingly beautiful and pure lament of Damien Dempsey!)The answer? FEAR…the recognition of the trait that ironically, was the reason I so disliked the characters in Charlie's life. So here's my tuppence worth of fractured thought, brought to the fore by the menace to society that is Charlie Casanova. Terry made reference to the fact that the characters in the film needed to be in their thirties, because to be older, they would have experienced the Ireland of the eighties, and therefore, they would have known too much. Through the decades of the boom, a large proportion of the current middle classes (now the hidden poor, in many cases) have come from the working classes of that decade, as indeed, did Charlie's people, so for me, the nail on the head has been truly hammered, and perhaps is where my own discomfort came from. In knowing too much from our past experiences, we can hardly bear to see it happening again. Even though it is happening. And if we cannot bear it, then we cannot face it, and so we bury the unease and carry on, minding our own and protecting what we have left with a societal and political lethargy that keeps that hammer raining down on us. And of our future, and that of our children, we blindly trust the universe, and get up each morning to salvage what hope we have left. Yes, we are fractured, as is our nation, but even in fear, it is the man and woman who get back up every day, get the kids to school and get on with their crappy paid and taxed-to-the-hilt jobs, who will keep that hope alive; but in the doing of the active citizen, the fear of change, and of fear itself, will also continue to thrive…Footnote: I was recently at a writer's event, where Terry, in his unique delivery, and I paraphrase here, stated that some people would like his film and some wouldn't, and if they didn't, F***k them! I have to admit, the comment riled me up. If I didn't like it, then it would be right back at him.I DID like the film, very much, so f**k you anyway, Terry!http://carolinefarrell.wordpress.com/2011/11/
Fatboydim
When I first started out as a writer, producers and directors would tell you that they were looking for an original voice, however they rarely meant it, which is why we are subjected to so much pap on our TV and Cinema screens. In Terry McMahon we find an original and exciting voice, that may grate on some, but will find fertile purchase in open minds. I was lucky enough to see the film in Galway at the Film Fleadh. I doubt it will get a general release, but it deserves one. Emmet Scanlan plays the eponymous Charlie a character who feels increasingly embittered by his emasculation through conformity to a society that seems to pander to the underclasses. Of course all fascists need someone to blame their woes upon and here it's the tracksuit mafia. I believe the correct slang term is "Scangers". However it's clear that Charlie has trouble feeling anything at all. After accidentally running a person over in his car he crosses a line - there is no guilt, no remorse - he abdicates responsibility for his actions. From that moment on his decisions are determined by the turn of a playing card. Sometimes the results are amusing, sometimes tragic. Charlie pulsates with anger and venom as he exacts revenge on a boring life. Willing to gamble everything in order to feel something. His superiority complex a cover for deep insecurities that his 187 point IQ cannot get to grips with. He literally doesn't know whether to laugh or cry, can fake both and feel neither. It's a powerful, mesmerizing performance by Emmet Scanlan. Leigh Arnold and Ruth McIntyre are the tragic women in his life. Damien Hannaway is a fantastic foil to the flamboyant Charlie and turns in a beautiful performance. The star however is the script and Terry McMahon's voice as a writer / director.The film was made for little or no money. This however suits the movie as the camera is almost always in the face of the characters creating a very claustrophobic feel. There are very few cutaways to scenery, sets or indeed wide shots. Mostly I suspect because there were no sets or scenery. It's a film that could have been shot anywhere. Generic hotel bedrooms and bathrooms mean there's no relief in the surroundings. You are trapped in this world just like the characters. The only scenery is a motorway at night, and that seems more like a barrier than a road to anywhere.The lighting in the film is minimal, but again that adds to the feel. The look of the piece is reminiscent of Mean Streets. It almost has a late seventies feel. This could be Scorsese's New York, but for the Dublin accents.It is very wordy and theatrical. That alone won't appeal to many. The subject matter will also put some off. After the screening, which invited us to love or hate the film, some people may well have hated it, a few people were sitting on the fence.... It's clear that I and many others loved it. I was buzzing after the event... so much so that I'm writing this review after the long drive home.I would love to see more from Terry McMahon.
