Wild Tigers I Have Known

Keep in mind, this film had a budget of about $50,000. That is peanuts relative to movie making. Consider how many names are in the end credits, then film processing, assuming it wasn't shot in digital, then distribution cost. I'm sure there are 50 people listed in the end credits, that's about $1,000 apiece, except given permits, insurance, cameras, sound equipment, lighting, and countless other details, it is probably more like $250 apiece. How do you hire people to make a movie for only $250, if even that? Plus, yes, the movie was 'stylized'. It was intended to be haunting and mysterious. I thought some of the Subplots could have held together better, and I though the editing could have been smoother, and more clear relative to the story, but for the minuscule budget they had, they did a pretty good job.

The movie was made in 2006 and we are still talking about it. I watched in last night on Netflix, it did what it was intended to do within its tiny budget. That is, I could see the Directors underlying intent, even if he didn't have the budget to do the best possible job. Many of these low budget films are really film exercises for young directors, writers, actors, etc.... They all need a starting point. They all need to do some low budget 'concept' films to prove their worth for larger films.

Because I love Independent Film, I can excuse some imperfections and take the budget into consideration when I judge a film. I judge this film to be pretty good within the proper context.

The above is a copy of a post I made in the "Wild Tigers I Have Known" IMDb discussion, but I think it serves as a worthy review. This movie is worth watching to see actors and directors trying to make a movie out of a starvation budget, and I think they did a pretty good job given what they had to work with. I say it is worth seeing.

EDITED:

I watched Wild Tigers again today (May 12, 2013). This is probably the 3rd or 4th time I have watched it, and it still holds together as a look into the haunting mind-scape of a 13 year old boy coming to grips with who he is. Malcolm Stumpf (Logan) is truly haunting in this role, and given how little he had to work with, I think he did an outstanding job. This is a highly stylized movie with journeys into the dreams and fantasies of this boy. But I think it is a movie anyone who tries can relate to. I repeat, if you love indy film, then you will like this movie.

EDITED:

I watch Wild Tigers again (2015) and it still stands up. In fact, I'm thinking of watching it again (still 2015). But admittedly anyone looking for standard Hollywood Blockbuster fair is not going to get this movie. That's OK, not everyone is required to like every movie.

In another review someone (Sammy) quoted Roger Ebert, and I think that quote best characterizes this film - "You instinctively understand that a film is not about WHAT it is about, but HOW it is about it." This is not a linear PLOT movie. Character A doesn't go to Place B and say thing C. This is a journey through the internal Dreamscapes and Emotions of an isolated and alienated 13 year old boy. It is an abstract film. I think my total viewing has now reach about 5 or 6 times, and I have the urge to watch it again.

You have to take this movie for what it is, not for what you want it to be. But ... if you simply don't get it ... that's OK, not everybody has to get everything.

A sensitive story about boys discovering their sexuality. The primary character, Logan, gradually comes to realize his homosexuality. The film follows Logan to a final coming out. The story telling is enhanced by clever devices such as the times when Logan writes short sentences about his feelings on his naked chest and belly. The one where Logan moves his hand to cover the lower half of a heart shape is a nice way to give words a miss. Dialogues are sensible and honest. The young actors do a good job of delivering their lines with naturalness.

The mood through the film is of quiet determination. Alone and with almost no one to share his feelings, Logan has not had and will not have an easy time in school. The risible attempt by the principal for a show of tolerance by the rest of the students is well portrayed. Kids can be a cruel lot.

The use of primary colors, especially red and blue, often exclusive of any other hues feels at first like a whim. The heavy saturation of colors suggests the film spent too much time being digitally processed. In time it becomes apparent that the color scheme serves the purpose of creating a surreal environment that prepares us for the use of metaphorical visual and vocal devices. The voice of Leah is an example. It's an elegant solution that would have been harder to achieve through conventional means.

A fine directorial debut for Cam Archer.

Instead of making a fascinating film about the development of a "crush" in adolescence, the filmmaker has managed to create a hollow story that goes nowhere, develops none of the characters, and is apparently attempting to be poetic and arty about the subject of sex involving a boy's obsessive love for a fellow classmate.

The dullness begins with the opening credits which are so blurry that you're left wondering just what it is we're supposed to be observing. Unfortunately, that feeling never lets up even as the slim story moves forward, never letting us see or feel what the main characters are thinking or even doing. Instead, we get a series of close-ups, dull conversations, and it becomes painfully obvious that the abstract subtleties will continue in the same vein throughout without ever giving any real glimpse into the childhood fantasies gnawing at the central character. The attempt is made but it fails to involve the viewer.

None of the performances are worth commenting on--not the mother (whom we never understand or get to know), nor the boy playing the maladjusted youth. Only PATRICK WHITE shows some semblance of understanding his role as the handsome, open minded youth who doesn't mind being the target of infatuation and is open to an approach by the most unpopular kid in class. He registers the correct mixture of surprise and rejection in the cave sequence where he has been led to believe that a girl wants a sexual liaison with him. Other than his one note performance, all the others are even less impressive. The doting mother is a character that is never fleshed out by the script or the performer.

The self-conscious artistry of the whole work is wasted because there is no real story, nor is there a satisfying ending.

Summing up: A total waste of time on a subject that should be explored in a more serious, detailed and sensitive light by a good independent filmmaker.

I just watched this movie recently, and at first (while I was watching it ) I got angry and said to myself, "I can't believe I wasted my money on this". I was getting very annoyed about that. But I figured, if I had already spent my money I might as well finish it. Boy, am I glad I did. After I finished watching this movie- I realized I couldn't get it out of my head. It made me feel like going out an taking photographs. I guess it inspired something creative in me. It really does have that dream like quality but not in a good way, more like in that ugly way you feel in childhood. This movie was really good at making me feel that. I remember feeling that isolation, awkwardness. It just hit it right in the mark, the feelings it evokes. FOr anyone who has ever felt depressed, confused, ostracized during childhood---well, this movie is the closest that I have seen at really touching on those emotions, just the overall feel. I would say this movie is about a feeling. It evokes a feeling in you that you recognize all too well. And it makes you feel grateful that those childhood years are finally over. So overall, yes, I did really enjoy this movie. It's funny because I rented three movies,, and I was sure I was going to love the other two,, this one I had no idea because I had never even heard about it before--I just saw the title and it caught my eyes,,but it turns out I enjoyed this one more than the others.

Ebert said something a while back that caught me...

"If you understand why the new 'Texas Chainsaw' was bad, but 'Kill Bill' was good; why 'Cat in the Hat' was bad, but 'Bad Santa' was good... Then you have freed yourself from the belief that subject matters. You instinctively understand that a film is not about WHAT it is about, but HOW it is about it." That said, it's not that gay teens haven't been done. They actually seem to be the latest trend. It's not even that there's much of a shock value to the film (a boy in lipstick? see 'L.I.E.' or 'The Heart Is Deceitful Above All Things'). And I've seen this compared to 'Mysterious Skin' as well, a likening I wholeheartedly reject. Skin left me nauseous (I thought it was brilliant, but quite difficult to see). Tigers left me somewhat dumbstruck.

The entire film plays out like a haunting music video. Low rumbling, chimes, bells fill in the silence so there really isn't any. Each song seems it's own plot revelation, and if I see it again, I'm sure I'll find they are. In between the intentionally 'tape playback' narration, which reminded me in style of 'Gummo', and the music scenes, there are vignettes, almost, of moments in Logan's life.

I think this film tells it's story, not so much through dialogue and plot (though I don't discredit the story at all), but rather in tone. Sitting alone on my couch in the dark with the music and eerie noise and occasionally psychedelic visuals... I got lost for while. It's like a guided tour through how Logan FEELS, instead of what he does.

A must-see. (MAR '07 - See it in theaters or rent from Digital Cable's On Demand)