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.

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.

This film is about a set of interconnected characters and their fates. It is very dark, as the characters all seem to be doomed, disturbed, or both. The performances are all very good, with Daniel J Travanti standing out as the alcoholic father/salesman. It is also visually very striking, including the use of flash frames. The look is also partly the result of it being shot on a type of film that is close to obsolete, called Super 16 reversal. The story was apparently inspired by a poem of the same name by Robert Frost. Seen at Cinequest (the San Jose, CA film festival) on 3/3/2002.

Note that the cinematographer is the infamous Pete Biagi of HBO "Project Greenlight" fame, although the director of this film (who also wrote the film and played one of the main characters) swears that Pete was great to work with and plans to continue to work with him.

Brian McCaskill once again steals the show in this runaway dark comedy romp. As "Sven", a slightly off-center office clerk who always seems to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, McCaskill delivers his best performance since "Serious Business". While we are waiting for the rumored director's cut of "Serious Business" to finally arrive on DVD we will have to relish every minute of Sven's time on screen.

My only real problem with "Design" is I thought it would have a little more of McCaskill's signature tongue-in-cheek zingers he is so well known for. If you are mostly familiar with McCaskill from "Serious Business" then this new, drier approach in "Design" may seem a little stiff at first. After all, in the arena of wry quips he is only rivaled by off-screen friend Hugh Grant. Granted, Sven's speech impediment didn't give McCaskill a lot to work with, but they could have had a dream sequence or something where we could get to see him riff a bit more.

Other than that, all around awesome flick. The action rocks and the jokes are hilarious. If I were casting the movie I might have gotten someone other than Daniel J. Travanti to play Peter Mallow; he just seemed uncomfortable with the role and ends up turning in a disappointing performance. But he is on screen for such a short time that it doesn't at all weigh down the film. All around, I highly reccommend seing "Design" but only after seeing "Serious Business" at least twice.

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.