In 2008, filmmaker Josh Safdie released his directorial debut. In a year that marked the start of superhero blockbuster "cinematic universe"'s, also came the start of one of the finest filmmaker pairs of this generation, albeit with a much smaller 'bang'. Despite not having the luxuries of the 140 million dollar budget of Iron Man, Josh Safdie was still able to create a nice and satisfying movie for what limited supplies he had.
That said, the budget definitely shows, but doesn't detract. It's no secret that making movies is expensive, even just the act of shooting on film costs money. So, to save on cash most indie directors shoot as little footage as possible and as simplistic a setup as possible. This film is no exception, with most scenes usually only being made up of 2 or 3 shots, and the lighting not being altered at all, i.e: it's all natural to its environment. While in bigger budget movies that would be a horrible drawback, it fits this film's realistic homey nature very well. So, while it may limit the director somewhat in conveying certain emotions, it ends up capturing something that no million-dollar setup in any superhero movie could ever truly imitate: a pure, raw environment. No matter how much a crew can try to mess up a room enough to make it seem lived in, the effect will never be as good as just filming a room that is lived in. And that's something that this thousand-dollar budget film captures perfectly.
While most of the visual aspects are all well and good, there are some things that can't be fixed without a lot of money. So while Safdie can definitely circumvent some other limitations, there still remains elements of the film that do detract from the believability. Perhaps the most obvious example occurs during the zoo scene. In it, Eleonore climbs over the railing into the zoo habitat to get a closer look. The obvious fact that they didn't actually film inside the habitat is not what detracts from the scene, it is the fact that the actress didn't pet or swim with a real polar bear. I know, I know, no movie would have an actor swim with a real-life polar bear. Most movies can, however, make a fake polar bear realistic enough to allow the audience to continue their suspension of disbelief, that is not this movie. This movie uses a stuffed animal. Another example can be found in, well, every scene. I have frequently noticed that, for what reason we may never know, good actors only want to work on good movies with good pay, and not cheap, indie, directorial debuts. So, the stars of this movie are not Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie, they are director Josh Safdie, and co-writer Eleonore Hendricks. Surprisingly, these performances are not always the most believable.
Now that we've gotten through with most of the surface problems, let's finish by talking about writing. Simply put, this movie could not afford to have a plot about a multi-billionaire escaping from Iraqui terrorists in a flying super-suit equipped with homing missiles. So, the writers logically went with a very simplistic, low-key plot starring relatable, middle-class Americans. That's not really a problem though, the issue with the writing is in regard to the theme. This film wasn't made to be a masterpiece, it was made to be an experiment, to see if making feature films was possible for Josh Safdie. So there is no sophisticated connection between the theme and the plot, in fact, there is a rather loose one. The theme is best described during the end credits: "For... anyone who's experienced the pleasure of being robbed." It's trying to convey the fact that when one of your possessions are stolen, the thief would be having a good time, and you should feel good about that. This has a very optimistic outlook for life (something that can be found frequently in his earlier short films), but it is very obviously a false hope. Eleonore's ignorance is hard to forget when we have experienced what the other side of the story is going through. Despite all the effort the movie makes to bring their characters to life, we cannot help ourselves from feeling wronged by each of Elonore's crimes. So, perhaps this movie fails to tell a fully truthful story, but it sure as hell tells an interesting one.
That said, the budget definitely shows, but doesn't detract. It's no secret that making movies is expensive, even just the act of shooting on film costs money. So, to save on cash most indie directors shoot as little footage as possible and as simplistic a setup as possible. This film is no exception, with most scenes usually only being made up of 2 or 3 shots, and the lighting not being altered at all, i.e: it's all natural to its environment. While in bigger budget movies that would be a horrible drawback, it fits this film's realistic homey nature very well. So, while it may limit the director somewhat in conveying certain emotions, it ends up capturing something that no million-dollar setup in any superhero movie could ever truly imitate: a pure, raw environment. No matter how much a crew can try to mess up a room enough to make it seem lived in, the effect will never be as good as just filming a room that is lived in. And that's something that this thousand-dollar budget film captures perfectly.
While most of the visual aspects are all well and good, there are some things that can't be fixed without a lot of money. So while Safdie can definitely circumvent some other limitations, there still remains elements of the film that do detract from the believability. Perhaps the most obvious example occurs during the zoo scene. In it, Eleonore climbs over the railing into the zoo habitat to get a closer look. The obvious fact that they didn't actually film inside the habitat is not what detracts from the scene, it is the fact that the actress didn't pet or swim with a real polar bear. I know, I know, no movie would have an actor swim with a real-life polar bear. Most movies can, however, make a fake polar bear realistic enough to allow the audience to continue their suspension of disbelief, that is not this movie. This movie uses a stuffed animal. Another example can be found in, well, every scene. I have frequently noticed that, for what reason we may never know, good actors only want to work on good movies with good pay, and not cheap, indie, directorial debuts. So, the stars of this movie are not Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie, they are director Josh Safdie, and co-writer Eleonore Hendricks. Surprisingly, these performances are not always the most believable.
Now that we've gotten through with most of the surface problems, let's finish by talking about writing. Simply put, this movie could not afford to have a plot about a multi-billionaire escaping from Iraqui terrorists in a flying super-suit equipped with homing missiles. So, the writers logically went with a very simplistic, low-key plot starring relatable, middle-class Americans. That's not really a problem though, the issue with the writing is in regard to the theme. This film wasn't made to be a masterpiece, it was made to be an experiment, to see if making feature films was possible for Josh Safdie. So there is no sophisticated connection between the theme and the plot, in fact, there is a rather loose one. The theme is best described during the end credits: "For... anyone who's experienced the pleasure of being robbed." It's trying to convey the fact that when one of your possessions are stolen, the thief would be having a good time, and you should feel good about that. This has a very optimistic outlook for life (something that can be found frequently in his earlier short films), but it is very obviously a false hope. Eleonore's ignorance is hard to forget when we have experienced what the other side of the story is going through. Despite all the effort the movie makes to bring their characters to life, we cannot help ourselves from feeling wronged by each of Elonore's crimes. So, perhaps this movie fails to tell a fully truthful story, but it sure as hell tells an interesting one.