Wild Tigers I Have Known

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.

My fear in seeing this movie is that it would evoke a feeling of exploitation of a child and make for a very uncomfortable viewing, or a similar feeling of sickness I felt while watching Mysterious Skin, a painful film to watch yet an excellent film. However, I was surprised, this is a visual wonder into the mind of an outcast and his sexual awakening. In fact I found myself relating and remembering my awkwardness towards sex at that age and the gray emotions of trying to understand what I was feeling, emotions and confusion not limited to sexual preference or even gender, just the desire for another and not knowing how to correctly move forward or interpret. The director does a brilliant job and the cinematography creates the mood with music, natural images and hallucinatory visions into this teenagers mind. The young actor, Malcom Stumpf, gives a perfect performance as the outcast, who does not mind that he is not liked by others or uncomfortable with who he is becoming, I hope to see more rewarding work from him in the future. Fairuza Balk turns in a great performance as his frustrated mother trying to relate and get through to her son. At times it feels as if she harbors resentment towards him, but she truly loves him as we see in a very real moment as they lay in the grass. This film was a pleasant surprise and I am glad that I did not pass it by as planned.

Cudos to Archer, Stumpf, cast and crew! I saw this film at Sundance '06, and it was a very powerful experience. After leaving the theater, the movie stayed in my head for days in a way that most of the other films I saw at the festival didn't. This is a very beautiful, sensitive and intelligent film that fills a gap desperately in need of filling. From the opening shot until the end, this film has real style - style adeptly tempered to serve the film's meaning. The amazing audiotrack and moody cinematography juxtapose marvelously together into that haunting feeling that everyone can relate to - that terrible obsession that dominates everyone's youth experience: the Crush. But what made this film so memorable is the way in which that crush is conveyed. The film succeeds to frankly and respectfully navigate the subject of teen sexuality without ever feeling obscene. The movie comes off not so much "sexy" as it is simply beautiful, intimate and scary. The director lets each scene unfold slowly; the shots are methodical, precise and poignant; the film is lovely with an undercurrent of dread. Logan (played by the eminently watchable Malcolm Stumpf) to his credit never seems to be acting, but rather the primary characters are allowed to simply exist naturally on screen, allowing the story, cinematography and soundtrack convey the message. There are no monologues, no exaggerated displays of emotion or angst - except for one positively soaring performance by Fairuza Balk playing Logan's self-absorbed mother. There is teen drama without melodrama. Logan's just a normal small quiet boy thrust into adolescence, outcast, uncool and powerless, searching for a personal identity that will enable him to satisfy the feelings he cannot admit to having.

The heartbreak and trauma we all experience during our awkward youth stays with us and defines our lives forever. Being a gay adolescent is even more confusing. There are no role models to look up to. No compass to guide. No gay professional athletes in sports, no gay marquee actors on the silver screen, no gay politicians, no gay teachers. The majority of "queer cinema" yields only stereotypes and caricatures. The violence this lack of role models imposes upon the self image of gay teens is an abominable disgrace that future enlightened generations will look back upon in shame. This is the conflict that Logan must endure. And this is perhaps what writer-director Cam Archer is looking to rectify. In a world fixated on the fetish of youth, the young are exploited and sold empty style by a media machine that doesn't care about substance. Perhaps one day when movies like this wonderful film are shown in the multiplexes of mid-America as the normal faire de jour (and that day will most likely never come), film historians will look back to Wild Tigers as a seminal piece that had the courage to openly, realistically and artfully look at love as it is. Until that day, I will proudly display my ticket stub on my wall next to my autographed poster (thanks guys) and proclaim, "I was there when it all happened. I saw a film that had the guts to matter."

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)

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.