Design

I saw DESIGN at the CineVegas film festival in June 2002. It's a complex meditation on the role of fate and free will in a person's life. One one hand, it seems to suggest that our lives are pre-determined and beyond our control to influence. But a closer reading of the film shows that the main character made choices every step of the way on the path to his ultimate situation. The stories of four or so characters interweave, though there is a main character. Especially original was the use of montages to show the different POVs of the characters. Daniel J. Travanti went above and beyond in his role, leading the cast with gripping energy, though I'm surprised no one has noted the acting performance of the writer/director - subtle yet intense, Davidson Cole can act too! Bravo for this film! Let's hope it gets distribution.

Easily the best film I've seen at Sundance 2002.

I could go on at some length about this incredible debut from Writer-Director-Actor Davidson Cole, but I'll attempt to be brief by summing up the main strengths of the film.

Everything is brilliant.

Okay, okay, I'll be a little more specific.

From the thematically powerful and narratively complex script that works on so many levels, to the darkly atmospheric look of the film captured in its cinematography and production design, to the ultra-effective score and sound design, to the innovative editing style, to the absolutely strong, compelling performances by the entire cast (made up mostly of newcomers, but filled out by the seasoned Daniel J. Travanti, who turns in an incredible performance)... well, in short - like I said - everything is brilliant.

Watching this film reminded me of watching Darren Aronofsky for the first time. Not so much in Davidson Cole's filmmaking style as in the sense of feeling that I was witnessing the work of a powerful artist who has a unique voice and distinct vision that truly permeate his work.

Watch for Davidson Cole to develop into an important Writer-Director, and remember that you heard it from me first! As Dan Travanti told me at my second screening of the film earlier tonight, someday I'll be able to reminisce and say, "I remember when I saw Davidson Cole's first film way back at Sundance 2002."

Probably as close to poetry on the screen as possible. The technique interests me far less than the concept, executed with an honesty rarely found in this kind of film. No muddled fooling around with time and point of view here -- simply a harsh, existentialist stream of consciousness that leaves the viewer with more questions than answers.

What stands out as well is the clarity of character conveyed by superb acting. Of course, that is achieved in part by what I infer as good direction, camera work, and editing. There is no posturing here, even though some of the split-screen stuff seemed unnecessary. Personality lingers in the air long after one scene fades into the next, leaving visual images that create layers of imagination in the viewer's mind. The "design" is thus simultaneously both idea and image.

I suspect it may take a while for this one to be recorded and remembered by the public at large (if ever!). It could well be a stepping stone for some budding careers.

I'm probably a but biased as I took part in the making of this film and know how much went into it and so much that wound up on the cutting room floor, but if you can go in with an open mind and set aside the idea that a modern film should consist of green screen and CGI. Very few films these days take the time to actually delve into characters and development and story telling. Jennifer Morrison is wonderful, and if she'd been cast as Black Widow for this, it would have been a much bigger picture. I'm not saying anything negative about the very talented Scarlet Johansson, only that the movie really didn't get its due because it is an independent feature and fueled by artists dedicated to their crafts and not product placement or an extended cinematic universe.

Take a chance on an independent venture and put aside popcorn movie thinking. Especially considering it's a Chicago based production by Chicago artists, it deserves more acclaim than it received. There are no Michael Bay explosions or fancy special effects - just a filmmaker telling a story because he has something to say and everyone involved cares about the material.

I got to watch this at a screening at UCSD. Shot on 16mm reversal stock, the movie is richly silvery blue and very grainy, which works well. My only complaint was that the film is so dark, sometimes you can't see the characters' facial expressions (the DP was Pete Biagi, the same guy as Project Greenlight, and it was his work on this picture that got him Stolen Summer). After the film, I got the chance to talk with Davidson and John about this film and what they were going for. It was interesting to note what a technical challenge it was to utilize many different formats (everything from super8 to DV) on the screen at once in Gallo-esque (and arguably Korine-esque) montage sequences. It's not the most original plot ever conceived, and many strong plot points are taken from other films, but really, there is no such thing as a completely original film anymore. Just good films and bad films. And this was good. I wanted to get it on DVD but I guess they need to get a distributor first. I really hope they do! I'd love to watch this in a major theater (possibly brightened up a little in parts) and I'd definately buy it on DVD when it's available. Not for everyone, but that's one of the reasons I liked it. Imagine a Lynch film without the pretentiousness and ambiguity. There's actually a plot and engaging characters. The colors are beautiful and the acting is really good. For a first-timer, this was really good.