In keeping with the random aspect of so many different storylines, this film has many different visual aspects. In this case, however, that tactic seemed to work quite well. It might be a bit disorienting for some expecting a traditional film, and could certainly turn them away. If the audience buys the art/experimental film concept, they will probably be far more likely to accept these unique shots. The images ranged from Ghost Hunters-style grainy night vision shots of Portland to artistic scenes and dreamlike images to traditionally shot interior scenes.
I particularly liked the creepy effect of the grainy, surreptitious, “stalker” footage that popped up randomly throughout the film. True, it doesn’t match with the rest of the movie, and some viewers – including Jeremy Hanke who previously critiqued this film – might see this as a negative, due to the fact that it breaks from Lexie’s perspective. I, however, think this helped to contribute to the art film aspect, even if it may have detracted from the traditional film style.
The only “spoken” dialogue in this film is in subtitles, but since I can’t attest to the accuracy of the translation, I’m going to leave that to the experts and focus on the music. It appears that the filmmaker got rid of the sporadic sound effects that had been put in the previous film that Jeremy Hanke had suggested he remove. This was an excellent call, as not having sound effects makes it easier for people to buy into the concept of being deaf.
The score comprised many alternating beautiful and eerie pieces of music strung together throughout the film. It does make a nice soundtrack that seems to match with the overall theme, though I would have liked to see the music matching with the action on occasion instead of just being long pieces of music laid end to end. Perhaps splitting the storylines into individual shorts would help prevent the constant repetition of tracks.
This film’s $10,000 budget was spent over 5 years worth of work, and went toward a multitude of items; the most impressive one, I thought, was that the director built his own movie set, fitted with halogen lights, moveable walls, rollaway windows and the like. This allowed the set to be changed and dressed to fit a variety of indoor locations, and I’m sure came in handy if any retakes had to be done. I’m sure the studio was not easy to construct, but was probably a great choice.
Another thing that is surprising is the fact that this film was shot on the West Coast for so little money. Though, if you have to shoot anywhere in the west coast, Portland, Oregon seems like the best place to do it.
As mentioned above, this film will likely find a following within the deaf community, people who are generally ignored when it comes to cinema.
Lexie Cannes has a very unique style, which might find a cult following because of its quirks. Although the lack of dialogue might turn off some audience members, as they won’t be able to look away from the screen for any length of time without losing their place. But many otherwise lost audience members might still be gained if the structure problems mentioned previously are fixed.
This is a very daring and ambitious project, and many of the more unusual and experimental aspects of this movie were done successfully. This is certainly a sign of good things to come.
