Scalene

"Scalene" is a decent, crafty thriller, and I applaud its ambition to give its audience something psychologically complex to chew on. But it's also a case of a director not being up to the challenge he poses himself, and the result is a film that frustrates its audience, not because of its intentional ambiguity, but because it's at times downright confusing.

Margo Martindale plays a woman taking care of her mentally handicapped son. She enlists the help of a college student as a part-time caregiver. When the student begins to suspect that the son is being abused by the mother, she takes matters into her own hands and does something appalling in an attempt to protect him from further harm. The gimmick of the story is that it's told through three different perspectives -- the mother, the son and the caregiver -- each perspective in turn using a different chronology. The mother's story is told to us backwards, the caregiver's linearly, and the son's in a mixed up stew that is supposed to mirror his mental processes. The director has been on these message boards (or at least someone claiming to be the director) defending his film against charges that it's intentionally ambiguous. According to him, it's not ambiguous at all, and he points to the middle section of the movie, the part told through the son's point of view, as containing the key that makes the rest of the movie fall into place. After watching the film once and being a bit befuddled, I re-watched that middle section, and it does in fact bring some clarity to the film. But a better director could have helped his audience understand things on one viewing without sacrificing any of his artistic integrity. When re-watching a film gives you a greater appreciation for it, that's the sign of a well-made movie. When re-watching it simply clarifies some points that were too obscure to understand the first time through, that's poor story telling.

But "Scalene" does have a lot to recommend it, and it is thought provoking in its own modest way.

Grade: B+

When I first saw Scalene, I left the viewing with a big WOW!. Great independent film and kudos to the director, producer, writer and actors for a simple yet well arranged movie. The reverse story technique was a nice touch. Personally, I'm tired of those so-called mega-bucks movies made up of plenty of effects and little story to them. I found sympathy for the all the characters, particularly Paige, who went to lengths to do the things she had to do. The only thing I have some issues about is the ending, it could have totally been done full circle. I recommend Scalene for those who wish to leave the beaten path of Hollywood movies to enjoy a great piece of film-making.

A lot of people would not like this film, and I did find it flawed, but not for the same reason a lot of other people probably do. A scalene is triangle with three unequal sides. And this is three stories that are "unequal", not only in that they contradict each other somewhat in the famous "Rashomon" style, but they're also unequal in length. The mother's story runs about half an hour, the brain-damaged son's story is very brief, and story of the young sociology student who claims to have been raped takes up most of the movie. If one side of a scalene triangle exceeds the length of the other two combined, you obviously can't "close" the triangle. I'd have to go back and look at the running times of the three stories, but regardless the director chooses not to "close the triangle". The ending is ambiguous and leaves a lot of things unresolved and a lot of key questions unanswered.

Of course, this infuriates a lot of people who want a tidy resolution and clear answers. And they get upset with the director and start throwing around the word "pretentious", as if it's a worse crime to try unsuccessfully to do something new than to just do the same old thing. The style here is a little pretentious. The first story is told backwards, "Memento" style, which is a little too much, and the end also is a little bit pseudo-profound (a term I like better than pretentious). But ambiguity and moral ambiguity, the existence of multiple and differing points of view, no one really knowing everything, and a lot of things being left unresolved is actually very REALISTIC, much more so than the clear and tidy resolution of most movies. It's ironic that people today love "reality" shows where a clear narrative with often totally manufactured conflict and a tidy resolution or "closure" is imposed on reality. You can make reality fictional, but if you give a fictional movie like this too many aspects of reality, people get upset.

Anyway, the narrative structure of the movie I found interesting and even the ending didn't bother me. The first story is good (despite aping "Memento") and the disjointed second story genuinely seems to be "told by idiot" in its complete narrative confusion. The problem I had was the third story is simply not believable. The character of "Paige" is good, a naive young person trying to do the right thing and making bad decisions. But I didn't think ANYBODY would make some of the foolish and downright perplexing decisions she does. The performances of the actors playing the mother (Margo Martindale) and son are spot on, but the performance of Hanna Hall, who plays "Paige", is very uneven, great at times and quite awkward at others. I think a lot of it though is character and the direction, not the actress. Hall was great some years ago in "The Virgin Suicides" and she has had a more interesting career than most actresses. taking on a lot of offbeat roles and actually doing nudity even though she is not your typical Hollywood-style "hot", but looks much more like a normal girl (most Hollywood actresses who are "hot" seem to just coast on it and can be very boring as actresses). But I don't think any young actress could have been entirely successful in this infuriating role of a character who is much more realistic than usual, but who often makes completely unbelievable decisions.

This is flawed movie for sure, but that does not mean it is any way a bad one.

This Rashomon rip-off does alright with its first two stories, but falls on its ass with the third. Paige's story is so completely ridiculous, so far from the realm of reality, that it embarrasses the rest of the film to be a part of it. The movie does a pretty good job of manipulating emotions until then, but when the turn happens, everything becomes stupid, unbelievable, and ridiculous.

This is not a thriller, it's like a Lifetime movie that attempts to tug at your heartstrings but absolutely fails in the execution. You may experience the first 20 minutes of the film and be impressed, but it throws away all its credibility shortly after.

I saw this film at the private screening this past weekend in Indianapolis and left the theater sure that I had just seen what will be one of the best films of 2011. Scalene is the third film by director Zack Parker, though it clearly marks his entry into a whole new caliber of filmmaking. Inexchange (2006) and Quench (2007) were good films, but they were films nonetheless of a director still honing his craft. Scalene, however, is a film that after having seen, people will ask themselves, "why haven't I heard of this guy before?" It epitomizes the very best of what independent film can and should be. This was a low-budget film, but there is nothing about the production that would lead anyone to believe that it didn't have millions of dollars at its disposal. A higher budget would have only meant more expensive actors and crew, but certainly not better. In many ways this is a difficult time for independent filmmakers. The majority of films that now premiere at independent festivals have A-list stars attached to them which attracts audiences and money to the festivals, but makes it more difficult for first-rate productions, like this one, to receive the recognition and exposure they deserve. Often low-budget films don't interest the larger movie-going public because they expect that perhaps the professionalism of the production will be at a level below which they can appreciate or tolerate. Often this is the case. However, I challenge anyone to see this particular film and not come out of the theater with a new-found appreciation of what can be accomplished with relatively little money, but a whole lot of talent.