The Shop Around the Corner (1940)

ShopAroundTheCornerIf I could be bothered to check it out I’m sure that I would eventually find an answer to the question that kept bothering me throughout the entire movie – why the fuck is this happening in Budapest? Yes, ye olde notoriety of half-naked gypsy woman dancing with bears on the streets of Budapest didn’t really played any part in this, neither did your usual Hollywood love for anything European had anything to do with it (as far as I can tell). It seems that there’s no real explanation behind it and that the answer can be summed up with – why the fuck not. Still, it’s peculiar and, in any sort of poetic sense, pretty much pointless. As far as the plot is concerned, there’s nothing distinctly Budapestian about it. This could (or couldn’t but I’ll get to that later on) have happened in any shop in the world. At least in the white, West-like part of the world.   Maybe I’ll continue to muse about it. Thing like that tend to bother me more than they should.

In any case (all things Budapest aside), I have not really fallen in love with The Shop Around the Corner. Still, I find it amusing how easily it can be translated in this day and age (let’s forget for a moment that Nora Ephron did exactly that in a horrendous You’ve got mail). If anything, this shows that some genre-formulas are more persistent than we might think (considering that, sometimes it seems that ‘60s didn’t happen at all). It’s not only that romantic setup can be easily transposed, it’s that the entire movie can be re-contextualized without any sort of actual recontextualization. Bad economy and fear of unemployment? Check. Anonymous dating service for people too shy or too busy to date? Check. Benevolent shop owners? Well, this is where we part. I yet have to see cashier at Walmart being this grateful and full of praise for her employer. Problems of the salary gap somehow managed to sink in.

vlcsnap-2014-07-24-23h01m55s5This is not the only noticeable discrepancy between now and then. Since the dawn of the internet, many a movie (or a TV-show) has featured anonymous online communication (the amount of sensationalism differed from movie to movie) as the central motif. Whether it was made fun of, or it was used as a starting point for a movie about vicious killing spree of loner computer hacker gone psychotic, it always revolved around some sort of paranoia, fear or uneasiness. It wasn’t just a fear of does she look good type (this has been reiterated in various contexts over and over again), it was more of a what kind of weirdo uses this type of thing and will I get slaughtered if I go to meet him problem. Whenever I think about it, it seems that our society has somehow evolved from easy going (yet conservative) adventurousness of the Old Hollywood (where taking a chance was prominently featured), into a society of a raging paranoia and some sort of social awkwardness. Considering the imagery (and dominant ideology of the silver screen) it might have something to do with both the consumers of movies and active participants in societal game.

vlcsnap-2014-07-24-23h02m04s68For Ernst Lubitsch and his world this anonymous communication didn’t present any problem. People who did that type of thing were all more or less sensible grown up men and women, eager to try something new yet sensible enough not to budge an inch on important things (whatever those might be). These people were both the consumers and the Society (or at least the ideal projection of it). During the dawn of the internet these things changed. Majority of the consumers were teenagers and dominant users of new technology were teenagers as well. In Hollywood imagery, teenagers and reason never went together which meant that there had to be a predator present just so that didactic dimension of pop-morality could be preserved in movies. You could trust James Stewart to make a right call (he made a career with these roles). You couldn’t do the same with Lindsay Lohan.      

Part of me interested in phenomenology is interested in these things. Especially when there’s nothing else to observe. Because, The Shop Around the Corner was both idiotic and predictable and my mind just couldn’t salvage it no matter how hard it tried. The chemistry between James Stewart and Margaret Sullawan was horrible, plot was handled badly and suspension of disbelief had to kick in hard, their subsequent falling in love and reconciliation was so stretched that it verged on parody and there were times when stupidity of it all made me cringe. Considering 1940s, both His Girl Friday and The Philadelphia Story were miles ahead of this crap. Fuck it, can’t win ‘em all. No matter how much I like these movies, sooner or later one is bound to come across something that has no script, style, direction or any particular redeeming quality to speak of. The Shop Around the Corner is one such feature, better to be forgotten than revisited for any reason.

Directed by Ernst Lubitsch
Produced by Ernst Lubitsch
Screenplay by
Based on Parfumerie
by Miklós László
Starring
Music by Werner R. Heymann
Cinematography William H. Daniels
Edited by Gene Ruggiero
Production
company
Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer

Try before you Buy

Advertisements

Evil Dead II (1987)

evildead2I remember being really pissed, sometime in the late nineties, when a friend of mine brought the VHS copy of Evil Dead II for us to watch. I wasn’t pissed about him bringing it (hallowed are the times of long summers in which it was possible to ‘waste time’ by watching movies all day long), I was pissed about it ending on cliffhanger and my rage was only fueled by next day realization that sequel couldn’t be found anywhere in our vicinity (internet you say? on dial-up? pffft). As it happened, I saw that sequel (Army of Darkness) five or six years later, when I moved into a bigger town, with greater selection of old VHS titles, but in a way it was too late. As time went by I grew up and the moment of first contact with Army of Darkness (together with a state of mind) wasn’t quite the same as the moment of first contact with Dead by Dawn. There’s a particular quality to long summer afternoons when you’re fifteen, many a novel has been written about it. Well, however I rationalize it, Evil Dead II was, and probably will always remain (together with Clerks by Kevin Smith), one of the most important movies of my teenage years in a sense that it fueled my imagination, showing me what can be done even without such things as production.

vlcsnap-2014-07-22-07h39m45s119Don’t get me wrong, as far as “B-movies” go, Evil Dead II was produced. It had an enormous budget (in comparison to some other similar movies from the eighties), it had special-effects guy, it had planning, it had rationalizing, it had relatively experienced people at the helm – basically, it had everything “big movies” had, only in a somewhat smaller scale. Yet, it looked and felt as no-budget horror-flick, so over-the-top that it was quite possible that overexposure would lead to brain aneurism (haven’t had one… yet). I couldn’t quite understand it back then (and I’m not sure that I understand it properly even now) but somewhere in the back of my mind crept this nagging feeling which was kinda hinting that what I was seeing was worth watching over and over again. So I did, watched it over and over again (funny what can you do when another friend has two VCR’s and spare time in abundance) until I became one of those zombies that keep bothering people with their interests no matter the occasion. I guess that it was a part of growing up. This ability to become “over attached” to the particular imagery. Ability to be ‘a fan’. It seems that lately I have forgotten how to do that. But that’s the story for another time.

vlcsnap-2014-07-22-07h39m53s217See, I’m still battling the urge to unleash the torrent of trivia related to Evil Dead II, and the only thing that’s “helping” me is this understanding that in three years this movie will be thirty years old. During that time, more or less everything has been said about it which means that there’s no any use in repeating it. I still didn’t have a chance to look at the modern-day remake of Raimi’s cult classic but I can already see that it “failed”. Seeing the ripples of modern-day pop-culture all over the internet I can safely assume that newest Evil Dead didn’t leave much, if any, trail behind itself. Which is, in the context of Dead by Dawn, a bigger flop than the one that could be possibly measured by a Box Office. Dead by dawn managed to become something like a cultural artifact of the American civilization of the ‘80s. Pretty much in retrospect, once can say that it was obvious that Sam Raimi was attuned to the era. I don’t see this happening with the Evil Dead of 2013, though I haven’t got a slightest idea about abilities of either Fede Alvarez or Rodo Sayagues. Maybe I’ll be pleasantly surprised. I doubt it, though. It would require one of those summers from the beginning of the text, and we all know how often they return.

Directed by Sam Raimi
Produced by Robert Tapert
Alex De Benedetti
Irvin Shapiro
Written by Sam Raimi
Scott Spiegel
Starring Bruce Campbell
Sarah Berry
Dan Hicks
Kassie DePaiva
Richard Domeier
Music by Joseph LoDuca
Cinematography Peter Deming
Edited by Kaye Davis
Production
company
De Laurentiis Entertainment Group
Renaissance Pictures

Try before you Buy

Ondine (2009)

ondine-affiche1There seems to be something like a consensus among the “haters” of this film. Almost all of them whine about harsh reality coming into play in third act which, supposedly, breaks the carefully crafted illusion which was in play for the first two parts of the movie. Up to a certain point, they say, Neil Jordan’s movie behaves like something out of magical realist handbook (with Ireland in the focus instead of Latin America). Transition from one universe to another is far from smooth and more than anything else it looks like it has been done half-heartedly, without any semblance of sensible motivation other than “fuck you”. The haters are, for the most part, correct in their assessment of this movie. I would add only one thing. Most of them praise Colin Farrell though his performance is hardly worth of note, let alone praise. You can smell sweet odor of crack floating around those who think that just because Farrell plays himself (recovering, fallen alcoholic) that he should be awarded special mention. This movie required serious acting and Farrell is, well, far from the concept of a serious actor.

vlcsnap-2014-07-20-02h24m33s198     Somehow, without an apparent reason, everything falls apart in this movie. We are, once again, introduced to Ireland. This time it’s shown to us as a place that borders between the reality of poor fishermen and fantasy of magical sea-creatures in search for husbands. Since the whole affair is enveloped within this mythical, ethereal, world it stands to reason that it should be shown to us in a weird light with greenish hue. It’s a borderline fantasy and Ireland is a green country or haven’t you heard. Is there any other way to film this (shame you Christopher Doyle)? Anyhow, for the most part, Neil Jordan handles this dichotomy well. Ondine herself is as mysterious as they come, events are either coincidental or affirmative, every direct question is either avoided or answered in a way that doesn’t tell you anything. From the information we get, we can never be quite sure of the ontological status of events. As far as we can tell, Ondine is a mythical creature (this doesn’t change even when helicopters, Romanian drug mules, guns and drug packages come into play). We’re in no different position than Farrell’s character. Thing is, her ontological status doesn’t quite matter in the big picture. This is the main reason why the forced transition from fantasy to European reality met so many negative reviews (though this transition is far from definitive/final as “haters” want you to believe) – it doesn’t really change “what’s it all about” yet it introduces new elements which read as unnecessary, over-the-top, addition to the narrative.

vlcsnap-2014-07-20-02h24m41s29 This is a technical problem and I don’t care much for technical problems it the movie offers me something in return. Ondine tries, but ultimately it fails. When you come down to it it’s a tale about struggling alcoholic who is in need of some happiness. Yet another one of those. There is one reading I thought of, which might make this movie more interesting. As always, one has to access his metaphorical abilities. One can read Ondine as a tale of modern day Ireland. Focused not on people, but on society. If we read into Farrell and his family as a representatives of working class Irish families than we come up with something like this. Farrell and his families (Ireland) believe in fairy tales (nationalist myths, collective identities, tribal affirmations). These fairy tales cause both luck and disaster, depending on the uncontrollable whim of some higher force. True happiness (marriage and reconstitution of a family) comes from removing yourself from the dreamlike state of make believe and opening your eyes to the real world outside. World in which there are no mystical sea-creatures to help you out but Romanian drug lords are a-plenty. Together with illegal aliens, slaves, and all sort of depressing shit. That’s the world one can (and should) find happiness in (or the possibility of change) and that’s the world one should fight for. Maybe it looks like over interpretation but it’s the only way to save this movie from itself.

Directed by Neil Jordan
Produced by Ben Browning
James Flynn
Neil Jordan
Written by Neil Jordan
Starring Colin Farrell
Alicja Bachleda
Music by Kjartan Sveinsson
Cinematography Christopher Doyle
Edited by Tony Lawson
Production
company
Wayfare Entertainment
Little Wave
Octagon Films

Try before you Buy

Deadly Sunday (1982)

rckfmtDon’t you all love eighties no-budget flicks? Well, I do and you can’t suck it. It’s one of those gems that’s hard to track down (unless you had the chance to see it when it was fresh) but tracking it down pays up well, especially if you’re into these sort of things (don’t look at me like that, some people fuck pumpkins, I watch stuff like this). If semiology (or post-structuralism if you like it better) taught as anything it taught as that there’s nothing more important than a code. And codes come in all shapes and sizes. Sure, one could argue that Deadly Sunday doesn’t even come close to anything resembling cinematography (the fact that you can operate a camera edit to some degree doesn’t quite prove anything), or at least its more artistic levels, but I say bugger off snobs! – as long as I can take something out of it, it was worth my time. As I have said, Deadly Sunday pays up which is even more exceptional since it doesn’t really promise you anything. Somehow that seems fairer than overhyped industry blockbusters.

vlcsnap-2014-07-17-21h28m39s107Anyway, what’s it all about? Well, it’s about crime sweetlings. At least the setup is. It’s Sunday which means that it’s time for your average Sunday-country-family-trip (How many horrors have you seen with setup like this?), and one can’t spell trip without hostages and raving lunatics right? So there, our nuclear family takes the wrong turn and winds up in hands of jewel-thieves who are holed up waiting for the fence to do his magic. So far, it’s more than familiar. Eventually, head of the family winds up in a shelter, separated from the rest of his family (mother and two children of male and female persuasion), in which he discovers that he’s not as unfortunate as he thought he was. There are others with him and they are quite mundane, without even a hint of supernaturality or any such thing. They’re just people. Like you and me. Maybe fatter.

vlcsnap-2014-07-17-21h28m47s171If you read this far you might have asked yourself about whereabouts of that gem I mentioned. Up to this point, everything seems so mundane. Told you it was hidden. Let’s play with, well…not so much with suspense as with prolongation. First, one has to list all the god awful crap in this movie. Camera, acting, editing, sound, lightning and development. There, simple enough. Its geminess comes from the dialogue, build-up of suspense and absolute randomness of one of the bad guys who keeps breaking the narrative causality with acts of sheer insanity. Remember that line from Bob Dylan’s Desolation Row? All these people that you mention, yes I know them, they’re quite lame. What we have here is nothing than a bunch of lame people, huddled together in a stressful situation. They don’t act as heroes, because they aren’t heroes, they don’t act like men, because they’re scared shitless. They bitch well, they argue well, and they can’t organize themselves if it meant their lives (as it actually does). Still, they’re not shown as cattle waiting for slaughter (as many horror flicks choose to do), they’re shown as complete individuals, and their dialogue is perfectly written to sum them all up. It’s beautifully ironic, cynical and it resonates well with the fantasy world of weekend warriors out there. Bad guys are nothing more than a side note upon which the real drama of human interaction can ensue. And it’s one hell of a drama.

Too bad that Donald M. Jones isn’t worth a shit as a director so much of it comes out mind-numbingly idiotic. Deadly Sunday was a “no-budget” production, but budget doesn’t buy you a sense of style or understanding of an editing process. While Jones might be vaccinated from style and any sort of movie-making artifice, he surely handles his suspense well. At any point in the narrative Deadly Sunday could have gone in any direction. Since characters are established and you more or less care for them, this uncertainty keeps you glued to the screen. After decades of exposure to genre, any genre-movie that can manage this is worth its weight in gold.

So, to sum it all up, if you manage to find this, give it a shot. Don’t let the IMDB rating of 3.6 steer you from the right course of action. This isn’t Hitchcock but it isn’t NW Refn as well.

Directed by Donald M. Jones,

Starring

Dennis Ely
Henry G. Sanders
Gyl Roland
David Wagner
Alyson Croft

Out of the Past (1947)

      lfWriting about Out of the Past late Roger Ebert wrote a classical line: “There were guns in Out of the Past, but the real hostility came when Robert Mitchum and Kirk Douglas smoked at each other.” Nothing could be truer than this. It’s a magic of old Hollywood, whence cigarettes were manly and people wore shoulders beneath those trench coats. They don’t make them as they used to and overreaching political correctness isn’t even the main cause. One could look silly today trying to pull Robert Mitchum. To Mitchum it came naturally, of course. And no one could replace him quite as well since.

Jacques Tourneurs movie is what you call a classic. If you take notice of these things you could see why this is so in an instant. Every genre-trope is here, everything that has throughout these decades been distilled in countless movies derives from Tourneur’s imagery and Daniel Mainwaring’s lines. Out of the past wasn’t really a groundbreaking movie (except for Mitchum), it came too late for that (noir of the thirties already conquered everything that was to conquer within this paradigm), still it managed to do what many tried but very few achieved – it managed to attain that iconic status reserved only for the best. Much of the credit goes to the chemistry of Jane Greer and Robert Mitchum, but suave Kirk Douglas (he’ll build his iconic look later in Spartacus) deserves more than a mention as well. Still, despite of everything, I couldn’t look at it quite seriously.

vlcsnap-2014-07-17-07h49m36s182Yes, Out of the past is noir which basically means that we know the fate of all our characters as soon as they are introduced. Rest of the movie is just sort of getting there. The artifice lies not within the script (which follows the pre-ordained structure, one might think of it as a fate in almost a Greek-tragedy sense), it lies within the form. This is one of the reason why Out of the past managed to remain classic up to these days. Countless movies have repeated the same script-structure but very few of them managed to repeat Greer-Mitchum-Douglas triangle (or photography of Nicholas Musuraca). Yet (and this always bothered me in every narrative that remained faithful to any genre), bits and pieces of the ‘40s show their head every now and then and while they’re not really strange or off-putting (as they can be) they are somewhat silly when seen from today’s perspective.

Yes, we know that Mitchum won’t make it in the end (this would be against the core of noir) but we’re not really sure until he kisses Jane Greer on their reunion. Movie morals of the ‘40s can’t defend this adulterous action, however justifiable its cause might be. Then there is the final scene in the car where Jane Greer pulls out a pistol from her purse and delivers a fatal kiss (in a manner of true femme fatale) to Mitchum. Forties come in play here too. The character that has been fairly rational up to that point, the character which has successfully played a hard game with big boys, suddenly fails to bury his elbow into the dame’s face, breaking her nose and knocking her unconscious, just because you can’t do that to a woman. Sure, you can slap her around (every man of that age found this perfectly justifiable especially when forced to deal with women’s histrionics), you can shoot her if you’re a police officer stopping a fugitive, but you can’t hit her like you would hit a man. It just isn’t done. Mainwaring observed these rules and in return they provided him with an opportunity to nicely wrap his movie as he was supposed to do. Unnoticed moral of the story, well – unnoticed to the people of the ‘40s at least, is that tragedy can unfold only if one blindly follows societal and ideological rules.

vlcsnap-2014-07-17-07h49m45s12Since we somehow managed to dispose of these idiotic concepts (though we introduced more than a couple of new ones, especially in the script-writing department), they tend to stand out as anachronisms. Sure, they would be anachronistic if they were to be used in this day and age but in the age of Out of the past they were quite standard. This cultural discrepancy breaks the spell of the big screen and it forces us to see this movie as an artifice instead experiencing it as a pseudo-reality. This was accessible to the people of post-WWII USA. To us, Out of the past is something out of the past. While there’s some might heavy longing for the golden age (whatever this might be) out there, one can be sane enough to see that this particular past doesn’t quite live up to the hype. Oh, it’s a more stylish age for sure, but better? – not by a longshot.

Directed by Jacques Tourneur
Produced by Warren Duff
Screenplay by Daniel Mainwaring
Based on Build My Gallows High
by Daniel Mainwaring
Starring
Music by Roy Webb
Cinematography Nicholas Musuraca
Edited by Samuel E. Beetley
Production
company
RKO Radio Pictures

Try before you Buy

Funny Face (1957)

funny_faceThere’s a moment of pure irony in connection with Funny Face. It wasn’t obvious (or even existent?) in 1957 but half a century later one cannot but laugh in regard of how it all went down. In 1957 Hollywood laughed both at Paris and Greenwich Village, dubbing all their residents as silly intellectuals or even sillier bohemians (as much as it’s laughing at hipsters nowadays), absolutely unaware that entire American cultural game will massively change in just a couple of years. Sixties were just around the corner and no one involved in the production of Funny Face saw them coming. It is interesting to note that Funny Face didn’t make such a big impact when it just came out. It required success of My Fair Lady to finally make it big (this was mid ‘60s) and it happened much because of Audrey Hepburn and her upcoming iconic role in Breakfast at Tiffany’s though when one tries to be sane about it one can easily spot that Kay Thompson actually stole the show, both from Hepburn and Fred Astaire alike. Still, going back to uptight jeering of industry’s professionals which basically makes an entire plot (together with rather nonsensical Cinderella transformation) one can’t but notice how quick it plummeted from high and mighty, sort of snobbish, attitude of an entertainment industry towards those pesky buggers from bookstores to somewhat sad example of a losing game big studios played (the fact that they reconciled after Star Wars is a story for some other time though a very interesting one because of the appropriation of bookstore-people and subsequent reconfiguration of them).

vlcsnap-2014-07-11-09h31m57s253Anyhow, this is all wildly interesting (at least it is to me) though it is so only if we assume somewhat radical position of caring about the plot in any given musical. This position isn’t that radical (mostly because it isn’t that new) and is reminiscent to many similar positions which both intellectuals and “intellectuals” took in relation with a concept of mass-entertainment (on the other hand, mass-culture was vindicated). While industry insisted (and still keeps on insisting) that movies-as-an-entertainment function within the innocent bubble governed by free market concepts of supply and demand (thus disregarding entire concept of plot outside its genre applications) opposing factions tried to show that every choice is a political choice and every political choice made by mass media is more or less connected to concepts of manipulation and cultural production. Still, what happens when we refuse to play this game of political interpretation?

vlcsnap-2014-07-11-09h31m43s128When dealing with contemporary, that refusal is somewhat luxurious. What happens now has an effect on now and one should learn to read ideological products. But, when dealing with historical artifacts like Funny Face that kind of reading can only lead to something like a cultural (or historiographical) archaeology. Are we allowed to enjoy ourselves half a century after the fact? Question is important because when we disregard the ideological from Funny Face what remains is a layer of iconic professionals doing their jobs in more than an agreeable manner. One can’t deny charisma of Kay Thompson (or Audrey Hepburn for that matter), one can’t deny fluidity of motion of almost 60yr old Fred Astaire, once can’t deny skillful use of language and sense for comicalities and so on. One can (and one should) ask himself towards what end all of these had been employed but once we answered that question (and we answered it many time since then) than our responsibility stops. Buddhists keep on insisting that entire world is nothing but a maya, illusion, yet what they fail to acknowledge is that one can be aware of the ontological status of the world and still find enjoyment in the pure quality of construction. One had to be a hell of an engineer to produce such a grand-sale illusion and it’s hard not to admire such grandiose skill. After all, credits were credits are due.

Directed by Stanley Donen
Produced by Roger Edens
Written by Leonard Gershe
Starring Audrey Hepburn
Fred Astaire
Kay Thompson
Michel Auclair
Robert Flemyng
Music by Adolph Deutsch (main score)
George Gershwin
Ira Gershwin
Cinematography Ray June
Production
company
Paramount Pictures

Try before you Buy

Pathogen (2006)

Pathogen2006filmHaginNevermind this being the internet, but I think that very few people have actually seen (or heard of) this movie so I kinda feel obligated to write a short introductory notice on what’s it all about. It will be really short, I promise. This is a zombie flick done by a 12yr old. There. I introduced it for you. Only this time, this “12yr old” thing isn’t some derogatory metaphor. It’s an actual fact. Emily Hagins wrote a script for Pathogen when she was ten years old. Two years later, production was complete. Fuck it, I remember what I was doing when I was that age and it wasn’t as nearly sophisticated or ambitious as that. Oh, I wanted to make my own movies (I think that every kid of my generation did) but I didn’t have any clue about how to make that sort of thing happen. Anyway, being done by a 12yr old Pathogen is…well…extremely childish. But we’re not done by saying that. Fact of it being childish raises some interesting questions.

vlcsnap-2014-07-10-12h22m37s54

Suffice it to say that plot, structure and narrative device are more or less the same as those in expensive, professional productions. Hagins learned a lot by watching her predecessors. Where they differ is, of course, quality of production where professional are clearly ahead (due to lack of funds and technical skills Hagins cannot compete at this level). But, essentially pointless storyline of Pathogen isn’t something that we’re unaccustomed to – especially within genre fiction – so we’re bound to ask ourselves this question: When dealing with genre fiction are we more inclined to value style over substance? In general (and Box Office numbers keep telling us that tale) it seems that we’re more inclined to value the latter.

vlcsnap-2014-07-10-12h22m43s116

If Pathogen was made by, let’s say James Cameron, with a budget of shitload o’ money it would have become international hit (especially in the context of zombie-revival that we’re witnessing for the last couple of years). On the other hand, if someone back then invested shitload of money just in distribution of Pathogen (leaving style and technicalities alone) effect wouldn’t be as grand. Pathogen behaves similarly to B-SF-flicks of the ‘50s and because of that in 2014 it has more problems than actual movies from the ‘50s. Movies like Creature from the Black Lagoon possess the aura of authenticity which then, depending on the viewer, create feelings of nostalgia, retro-appreciation, archeological/archival interest etc. Pathogen, being derivative, cannot produce these effects. Substance aside (that’s the story for another time), problems of Pathogen’s style are evident but essential for the problem of moviemaking (or movies as an Art in general).

Pathogen could have had more meaningful substance (there are many independent movies which, being done with no-budget, look a lot like Pathogen yet deal with more important matters) yet I doubt it would help any because its style is too distracting. So the question that Pathogen exemplifies well is – can there be Art without an art? I’m not sure that it can. Pathogen is nothing more than a student’s work. A work of very young student which is remarkable by itself but that’s all there is to that.

Produced by Emily Hagins
Written by Emily Hagins
Starring Rose Kent-McGlew, Alec Herskowitz, Tiger Darrow
Music by Cue, Dan Dyer
Cinematography Emily Hagins
Edited by Emily Hagins
Production
company
Cheesy Nuggets Production