Putty Hill

This film has: no plot; countless, pointless, extended shots of virtually nothing happening (a guy getting a tattoo for ten minutes, a girl crying on a dark porch for eight minutes, people swimming and smoking weed, people with nothing to say driving around in the dark, etc.); no character development; and apparently no script. Take a camera, go to a poor neighborhood and film the most boring people you can find sitting around doing nothing, and you can personally recreate this waste of time disguised as film making. Apparently, this guy had $50,000 on hand to accomplish this feat. What? The backdrop for the end credits is actually more interesting than anything else in the movie (which is why I gave it a 2 instead of a 1). Well paid critics apparently like the novelty of seeing what poor people do all day, but for those who already know, this is utterly pointless.

can't dislike this odd movie! again as i stated in another movie, "bad posture", the viewer is taken into the lives of these lower working class people. you share their feelings, what they see, their thoughts, etc. my favorite scene are the girls in the house. they have too much time on their hands and quietly talk among themselves about nothing in particular while lounging on a rather very used mattress.

the one scene that i found confusing was the angry girl yelling at her father. there just wasn't enough buildup to support her reaction. plus we know nothing of her life in Delaware. so all we have is a frustrated girl taking it out on her father - she never really knew him! but with that issue aside the entire film is very 'artsy' and i'm using that term as a compliment.

in my worthless opinion the director pulls his intentions off very well because the feel, look, sound, pacing, attitude of this movie is consistent. bravo!

Putty Hill did everything right.

I'll skip any in depth discussion of formal excellence -- real critics like Roger Ebert and Richard Brody have already said much about that -- and just say that almost every shot, every element of the film is fantastic. Porterfield has a great instinct for composition, for length of shots, for what to focus on and what to leave off the screen. He introduces a few unique elements, including a lot of lingering shots away from prevalent dialogue. The visual style alone is reason to see the film.

But it's not the most important reason. Putty Hill accomplishes something very, very exciting on the level of the heart. In a brief Q&A after the film screened, Porterfield was asked about his decision to shoot the neighborhood and people he did, rather than any of the "shine" that the city of Baltimore has. Porterfield answered that it was part of where he came from, and that he saw it as an ethical responsibility to represent the working class in a moderate, non- sensational light. Much more than something like The Wire (or, say, Winter's Bone, another contemporary film with a similar focus on devastated, poor working class America), Putty Hill does not exploit poor, mostly "white trash" (as one British writer called them) characters, does not sensationalize or wring out their dire situations in hopes of creating great drama. The film is stark and realistic, but the treatment of characters is sympathetic. This is not a film that tries to shock the viewer with a saturation of hyperrealistic details about "what life is like on the other side" of the poverty line: it's not all drugs and violence and grime. Instead, Putty Hill is a film that shows a group of people living their lives just as they know how to. Sure, some things are dark, some things are gritty, some things are sad... but on the other hand these are people, like anybody, with great capacity for love and understanding.

Putty Hill is the greatest current example I have seen of art treating the lives of the working class with both realism and respect. It's not coddling, it's not political, it's not a shock piece. The camera rolls, and what we see is Life, with all of its imperfections, problems, and beauties intact.

When this accomplishment of subject is combined with stunning formal elements, what results is one of the most exciting, important films I've seen in years.

Saw this at the Charles recently. The reviews really had me excited. After watching it I remembered why I don't normally listen to reviews.

This film is mundane. Wide shots for much too long and poor sound quality.

After the film a friend and I debated whether films like this are highly rated by reviewers because they see so many films that ANYTHING new seems exciting or breath-taking. Or if it's "The Director's New Clothes." I take the latter position. A case of wasteful film making. Setting a camera down and watching amateurs entertain the monotony of life day to day isn't a fantastic new cinematic experience. It's tedium.

If you accumulate all prior reviews that have rated this film 4 out of 10 stars or less, then you'll gather enough eyewitness testimony from those of us who are now miserable, poor saps who were so misfortunate to have been subjected to this train wreck of a film -- a very slow-moving train wreck. Sound editing and general editing are performed with such cluelessness that you feel confident this film can serve as a guide on how not to make a film. I like slow-paced films when they have vision and substance and POV, but when there's no cement or glue to the story...to keep the narrative and plot moving somewhere, then you have problems. Lots of problems. Acting is fine. Writing and direction is beyond problematic.