Friday, June 1, 2012

Less - Losing Is Everything (2010)

"Less" is screening in limited availability, but is on YouTube for $2.99.

"Less" truly captures the spirit of independent film-making. It's directed, produced and acted by relative newcomers on meager budget. It's also made with the kind of care and personal attachment that you don't find often in big studio films. There's no robots, explosions, car chases or gun fights. It's a story about people and their burdens, drama in its most elemental form.



Finn (Barnett) is a rare character. He's a homeless man who also happens to be charismatic, smart, young and handsome. I'm not spoiling any mystery by revealing he has a dark past. He's ended up on the street through hard luck, but his luck is of a darker ilk than financial trouble. Acting crazy and living in harsh conditions are his way of keeping his mind off an even harsher reality.

Finn's craziness is just a way to amuse himself. He creates all sorts of nonsensical distractions for bystanders just to see their reactions. There's dancing, begging, and occasionally he even offers spare change himself. When he finds a loaded Polaroid camera in the trash he becomes obsessed with taking pictures. He photographs mundane objects and then leaves the picture on the object he photographed. For instance, he leaves a photo of a parking meter on a parking meter, and then he leaves a picture of a rain puddle floating in the puddle. It keeps him motivated for a while. Finn asks a passer-by to take a photo of himself. He posts the picture on the wall behind him but lets the man keep the camera. He quits his photo addiction cold turkey.


The public eventually desensitizes to Finn's antics. He realizes that he can't get a reaction anymore. On the photo of himself he writes the word "invisible". What he doesn't know is that there's a lovely young woman who has been watching him from her apartment. She finds his eccentricities fascinating and admires his liberated way of life. While he's away for a bit, she writes a reply to his "invisible" caption. It simply states, "you are not". It's an exhilarating message for Finn.

Finn's secret admirer Mia (Noon) has some issues of her own. She's employed and has a home, but her social anxiety keeps her from more meaningful activities. She sees Finn's life as more peaceful than her own, despite its conditions. Courting a homeless man would seem to have advantages for someone with severe social anxiety. There's no one other than the two of them involved in the relationship. In a relationship with Finn, Mia wouldn't be held to any social standards and wouldn't be exposed to any gossip. What she doesn't realize is that there's competition for Finn's attention. It's a competition that will prove next to impossible to win.

My one minor complaint is dealing with Finn's appearance. He's just too damn pretty. He's only been homeless for a couple months, but I would have liked to see him more tattered. He could have cleaned up as his relationship with Mia evolved. It would have provided a chance for the character's emotional progress to externalize. Like I said, it's a minor complaint.

This film should turn a few heads and ultimately lead to fine careers for those involved with its creation. I learn from a bit of Google research that Zak Barnett is an acting coach. If "Less" is any indication, he's over-qualified. The best part about the movie? You can watch it for $2.99 on YouTube. It's worth a lot more than that.

3 comments:

  1. This is a very fine film. My only quarrel with your review is that you omit one of the three stars. Lew Levinson is extraordinary and his role is critical to the power of the film. How you could leave his name off the credits at the top and fail to even mention him in the text is a rather careless omission. That said, I agree that it's worth seeing. A meaningful work.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have some quarrels with your quarrel. I don't know which part Lew Levinson played. If he was the older homeless man who rips off Zak Barnett's character then I suppose I could have mentioned him. To mention him, however, would be to mention his role, and to do that would be spoiling things a bit. Also, I don't make it a point to promote actors or films, except in certain circumstances. So if I don't remember a performance as being strong, I'm not going to mention it. To call it a "careless" ommision would be to assume that I cared and simply forgot. I didn't forget to write about him, I simply forgot about him altogether.

      Delete
    2. You probably think I'm a total douchebag now. I wanna make sure you know that I'm grateful that you read the review and commented. Seriously, I'd rather have criticism of my reviews than no comment at all.

      Delete