Wild Tigers I Have Known

I'm kind of on the fence with this film. While I found the visuals to be interesting, the actor, Malcolm Stumpf, to be really good, and the concept pretty interesting, I found the film to be pretty hollow. The film is pretty much about this kid who basically is going through that awkward stage in which he isn't totally sure who he is and what he feels and, as a result, makes some mistakes. This concept can be effective when done right. Look at WELCOME TO THE DOLLHOUSE or L.I.E. This film, WILD TIGERS I HAVE KNOWN, in a way, works. It works in it's awkward staging of events and works in creating an isolated world in which this kid doesn't really seem to have anybody that he can personally relate to. However, the film is also extremely lifeless. There isn't any kind of energy to the scenes and the tone, not even sad energy. The whole film has plenty of opportunities to explore these little events in an interesting way and only halfheartedly does. The kid may or may not be gay, but he never really seems to care either way. Maybe if the film had allowed him to show some sort of feelings toward his own-self then it would have been a more interesting film to watch. I applaud the filmmakers for crafting this together, considering the subject matter. I understand that teenage sexuality is a difficult topic to explore and craft a film out of. However, the film just doesn't seem to try to even explore the idea in any way. Sure, one could say that WILD TIGERS I HAVE KNOWN is honest, but that's only because it doesn't take any chances trying something new. It's so weird because the character of Logan reminded me a lot of myself when I was his age, but I was unable to relate to him. He struck me as boring, as a matter of fact, which is more than I could say about myself at the time. Perhaps I'm just trying to find things wrong with the film, and in all honesty it isn't a bad film by any means. It just seems like a missed opportunity to me. I know that it's possible to make something out of this concept. I just feel that twice as much effort would have helped it a lot more.

A very delicate and sensitive but powerful film, depicting the struggles of a young boy encountering his feelings.

The loneliness and isolation we feel surrounded by a heteronormic environment when growing up is beautifully depicted. Nothing is rushed through in this film. The parallel between us and the unwanted and feared tigers is stunning.

This movie is not about romance or lust, it is about inner feelings. These grow slowly when you realise that you are (considered) different from the rest, as if you were the only one in the midst of a totally different species.

If you do not have the patience to sit and absorb (as some commentators have expressed here) just go watch Batman and Robin, this film is not for you. But if you can feel with us what we have been through, this is one for you.

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.

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.

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.