Stalker

Baze

Finally seen this tonight after waiting well over a year to see it. I really liked Mark O'Connor's Between The Canals, even though it was obviously very rough around the edges and came across as quite amateurish in parts. King of the Travellers was much more mainstream and enjoyed it also, but tbh I was dying to see this film as it is back to streets of Dublin and I had heard so much about it from a few people who had seen small screenings last year.

It doesn't disappoint. I absolutely loved it. It's mental for sure, but perfectly mental. Beautifully mental in fact. It's about as raw as film making gets. Nothing is honed or polished here. It's just an onslaught from start to finish.

The film apparently, even though made for a relatively small amount of money, still took a couple of years to get funded by the film board and separate independent donations (through crowd funding.. FundIt.ie mainly) and has won Best Film at the Dublin Underground Film Festival and also best Irish feature at the Galway Film Fleadh, so not being ignored for sure.

It's about a homeless guy, played by John Connors (from Love/Hate and King of the Travellers) who befriends a teenager, played by Barry Keoghan (the cat killer from Love/Hate) but the pair of them fo on to have some unwanted attention and grievance from Peter Coonan (Fran from Love / Hate). So as you can see, it's a little bit of a Love/Hate lovefest but honestly, all three of their characters in Stalker, are nothing like their characters from Love/Hate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoIsYYLfHyQ

All of the performances were excellent, but for me, Barry Keoghan steals the film. He really is an excellent little young actor. I haven't seen him in Stay, but heard from all that seen it, that he was very good in it too. This film just has to be seen and while a a gritty, raw, psychological thriller about a homeless Dublin guy might sound weird.. never mind that, as it's a gem. Just go and see it, if you haven't all ready that is.

However, that won't be easy, as it is only showing in Dundrum (8pm each night, until next Thursday).

Be interested to hear opinions on it from those that have seen it, both good and bad (as I'm sure it will undoubtedly divide opinion).

johnny_ultimate

I cannot in good conscience pay to see this film. King of the Travellers and Between the Canals are two of the most toxically awful films I've ever seen, the rare sort of films I'd effectively call completely worthless. And then O'Connor boasted about how inspired by Charlie Casanova he was for this film, which certainly didn't inspire any confidence whatsoever (and name checking Tarkovsky in the title is a cheeky start :pac:). I hate being so negative on Irish film, especially low budget stuff that doesn't conform to the usual Oirish tropes. But then I almost never have such overwhelming negative responses to a film.

Maybe if Stalker shows up on Netflix someday I'll watch it, but I'll have to be in a particularly generous mood that day. I know every film deserves a chance, but I've given O'Connor two already and I've regretted it greatly.

Number of people I trust saw it during the week and all agree that it's amongst the worst films ever produced. A nonsensical, terribly written, poorly acted piece of trash that looks like it was shot on VHS back in the 80s

Baze

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I cannot in good conscience pay to see this film. King of the Travellers and Between the Canals are two of the most toxically awful films I've ever seen, the rare sort of films I'd effectively call completely worthless. And then O'Connor boasted about how inspired by Charlie Casanova he was for this film, which certainly didn't inspire any confidence whatsoever (and name checking Tarkovsky in the title is a cheeky start :pac:). I hate being so negative on Irish film, especially low budget stuff that doesn't conform to the usual Oirish tropes. But then I almost never have such overwhelming negative responses to a film.

I of course read, and heard, all the knocking Between The Canals got, but in my opinion the vast majority of those that did so, would have loved it if it was set in New York and made by some in vogue new director that it had suddenly become quite hip to speak of as the next new 'up comer'.

I'm not dismissing your opinion of the film, but to me we are unjustifiably quite hard on these types of films here, just because they are experimental. Yet, we seem to have no problem celebrating that same quality (among others) of films from further afield, all. the. fecking time. Hell, we'll even have threads (not just on Boards) dedicated to discussing the symbolic aspects and nature of these films and spend months debating the subtle nuances contained therein and how genius they are but when one of own throws their hand in the pot, they get snubbed and dismissed for their efforts, out of hand.

Holy Motors is a good example of that, but it's Leos Carax so.. best to just talk about how exceptionally out of the box it is. Seems to me, there is a very very large aspect of the Emperor's new clothes to films, especially what would be considered art house films (although, never quite sure what qualifies as such, especially these days, if even they ever should).

Meanwhile, the latest banal popcorn movie gets enough bums on seats to keep it at the local cineplex for seven or eight weeks.

I think people don't get O'Connor to be honest.

They will see this and think that the style of the film is accidentally amateurish, or that the acting is exaggerated because of either poor direction, or just bad acting, but to me it is anything but. I believe O'Connor has made an excellent film here and executed precisely what he wanted to. Some might even say it's so bad, it's good, which I feel would be a shame, as it should be appreciated for just what it is. It's not supposed to be a 'conventional' film. The whole point was to not make one.

If you do see it eventually though, be interested to hear what you think of it either way.

e_e

I'm going to give Stalker a go, but if it even has half of the entertainment value, imagination and creativity of Holy Motors I'll be very surprised.

Baze all due respect but your comments there read like typical reverse-elitism, where anyone who disagrees is a hipster and everyone else is too stupid/naive to tell that the emperor is naked. It's all too easy to do and is very condescending. You can discuss the films at hand without making disparaging and naive claims about the people who disagree with you. I am also quite bothered at this trend where whenever anyone dares to criticize an Irish work their opinion is dismissed out of hand as begrudgery.

I think the problem is more with the endless back-patting that goes on in the industry that just does not allow it to grow or learn from its mistakes at all. I at least applaud that somebody is making more daring and experimental within Ireland (even if I find it to be absolute garbage, like Charlie Casanova) and I'll certainly take a chance on Stalker, but I'm not going to be kinder to it just because it happened to be made on this island. I'm intrigued by this film and do hope that it inspires others to make the films they want to make within Ireland though.

johnny_ultimate

What an unfortunately condescending post, Baze. I find it very hard to have a debate - and I'm happy to discuss O'Connor's work - when those kind of generalisations and veiled insults are utilised

Between the Canals is IMO not an experimental work. It's the same kind of 'gritty' working class crime story we've seen a thousand times before (from La Haine to Pusher), simply stripped of the cinematic competence, artistry or even entertainment value illustrated in the best or even acceptable examples of its type. There are more moments in both that are inadvertently comic rather than compellingly dramatic, and both offer appallingly written, over wordy scripts that drown out any potential for nuance or subtext. I'm not willing to forgive its amateurish production values, dodgy acting and haphazard direction because to me they are just that and there are no rewards for overlooking or forgiving them (as you get in the best examples of independent cinema - I hate to use a 'New York' film, but The Colour Wheel is one film I've seen recently where the startling destination was worth the amateurish presentation to that point). Both BtC and King of the Travelers are generic melodramas that offer no surprises, and do so in a profoundly uninteresting way. There's nothing to get in the films, and both struggle to stretch out wafer-thin plots to feature length - look at the party scene in BtC (not to mention its deeply regrettable portrayal of the African characters). Obviously countless films from everywhere in the world - Ireland included - do support thin plots with flair and intelligence, but O'Connor's films in my experience offer neither. The reason they don't stand up to the best offerings of world or independent cinema is not because of some baffling elitism, but merely because they are remarkably poor films. I'm confident I'd recognise them as such regardless of their country of origin, although I'm sure we'd never actually have seen them if they came from anywhere else.

To its credit, Stalker does sound more 'experimental', but given my overwhelmingly negative response to O'Connor's previous works, you can surely understand that I'm in no particular rush to watch it - especially since it has received such awkward screening times, even in Dublin. Like e_e, I'm pleased that these films are being made and there's some sort of 'underground' movement emerging - in theory, at least, I admire O'Connor's efforts (although alas I don't think he does himself any favours in interviews, where he comes across as obnoxious). But that doesn't mean I have to like the films.

For the record, I have nothing against Irish cinema, other than wishing it offered more films of note. IMO Lenny Abramason is transforming into a world class filmmaker, and I couldn't be happier for him and hope there are more like him in the future.

fiachr_a

Baze wrote: »

I think people don't get O'Connor to be honest.

He's the type of filmmaker that gives digital video a bad name. A decade ago he wouldn't be allowed make films but now he can get away with it. Proof that mouthing off to the media overrules talent. No skill in directing actors, a message that gets hammered to audiences, simplistic moralising, and lack of any intelligence. Surely a director needs to develop good filmmaking skills before having something to say?

Baze, you post defending O'Connor and his work is incredibly condescending.

I gave O'Connor's first two films a chance and was met with two of the poorest films that I have ever seen. Between the Canals just hurt to watch and the casual racism made it hard to warm to at all. King of the Travellers was equally poor, not so much a film as it was a series of disconnected scenes strung together with the flimsiest of plots. Was like someone had poorly edited down a miniseries into 70 minutes with no idea of how the scenes were to play out or context.

There is not a single area in which either film excelled, in fact it never even reached the level of barely adequate. To try and defend the poor film making by saying that people don't get what the director was trying to do is nonsense. A film should stand up on it's own merits and sadly nothing O'Connor has been involved has been anything other than trash. Reviews for Stalker seem to agree that at best it's a film that's so bad it's watchable. Not exactly an endorsement.

bleebtobleeb

Darko

I think you mentioned in one of your other hatefilled posts about Stalker you said you left half way through the film, I find it hard to read your comments and agree with you when you havent seen the film, please tell me how that works?

again please feel free to post links to your own artist work, or are your comments as far as you go with expressing yourself.

e_e

Ah the old "You need to make a film to have an opinion on one." fallacy.

I left after 45 minutes as it was terrible and so amateurish that zooit was hard to watch. It's a terrible film and after watching his previous funds I knew it wasn't getting any better. Also I'm wondering since did having made something become mandatory too judge another's work? I've a few things I worked on but I don't think I need to link too them in order to appease any one.

Roquentin

I clicked onto this thinking it was about tarkovskys film

njC

Deleted User wrote: »

I left after 45 minutes as it was terrible and so amateurish that zooit was hard to watch. It's a terrible film and after watching his previous funds I knew it wasn't getting any better. Also I'm wondering since did having made something become mandatory too judge another's work? I've a few things I worked on but I don't think I need to link too them in order to appease any one.

Amateurish? Making a film on 15 grand around inner city Dublin, with a big cast and a lot of locations, somethings got to give? Granted the cinematography isn't as polished or as cinematic as maybe a lot of films are nowadays but does it need to be? People over look how challenging the script was against the normality of what you see in popular Irish films.

It's a shame to see people outright calling some films bad, and lightly touching on what they didn't like about it. It's even worse to see when people denounce indigenous filmmaking, I've seen people previously attack certain Irish filmmakers personally as opposed to offering a rationale thought on their films, too much of that seems to happen on the likes of boards.ie broadsheet etc. But I suppose that's the internet for you...

I think its really getting into an interesting time in Irish cinema, there has been a string of great features come out over the last few years and the list is growing at a fast rate. I welcome the likes of Mark O'Connor and other filmmakers who have seemed to find their feet with the help of digital filmmaking.

bleebtobleeb

Deleted User wrote: »

It's a terrible film and after watching his previous funds I knew it wasn't getting any better.

Why did ya go then?

How are the audience reacting to your work?

I think your a fake, I think your just jealous of what ever o'connor did, i think your begrudged.

Not to worry, O'connor, McMahon, Foreman, Shaun Ryan, Barratt, Walsh, Canty, Kavanagh, Mcgrail and the likes will always shine, when narrow minded people like you hate the tall poppys.

As i said the floors your to show us a link to your work.........

bleebtobleeb

njC wrote: »

Amateurish? Making a film on 15 grand around inner city Dublin, with a big cast and a lot of locations, somethings got to give? Granted the cinematography isn't as polished or as cinematic as maybe a lot of films are nowadays but does it need to be? People over look how challenging the script was against the normality of what you see in popular Irish films.

It's a shame to see people outright calling some films bad, and lightly touching on what they didn't like about it. It's even worse to see when people denounce indigenous filmmaking, I've seen people previously attack certain Irish filmmakers personally as opposed to offering a rationale thought on their films, too much of that seems to happen on the likes of boards.ie broadsheet etc. But I suppose that's the internet for you...

I think its really getting into an interesting time in Irish cinema, there has been a string of great features come out over the last few years and the list is growing at a fast rate. I welcome the likes of Mark O'Connor and other filmmakers who have seemed to find their feet with the help of digital filmmaking.

What a reply

Time for Irish films to shine rather than egg's/critic ****ting all over it becasue there own work is not up for it.

Think its people like these that has been holding back irish cinema, instead of having a "worst Irish Film" and having a laugh, why not have a "Best of indie film", your the very people that are killing the industry, becasue your think you know something, YOU DONT.

Your replys are lacking a certain contant, you have been challanged about what you said, everyone else has stroked your ego with agreeing with you, but I wont, I disagree, I think your wrong and I think we should all be proud of what we create, sneer, remark what ever, these people had the balls to make something. it might nit be the best but **** me its a dream into reality, and thats what film making is all about.

see you at the Fleadh

bleebtobleeb

Fly the Flag

Rather than burn it.

johnny_ultimate

Man, the whole 'show us your work before commenting' argument...

I am not a filmmaker. I am simply a viewer with the deepest love and enthusiasm for the medium. Does the former fact mean I am not entitled to discuss or comment on a film I've watched, whether that's positive or negative? I sure hope not, because the discussion and debate can enhance my appreciation, provide fresh insights, give space to dissent (always welcome). I love the dialogues that surround films, and that to be involves the viewers, the filmmakers, the critics and more - great films are only enhanced by the discussions that surround them.

When I go to see a film, it's not my job to simply watch it in some sort of emotionless vacuum and backslap the filmmakers for actually getting some images onto a cinema screen. Yes, I have respect for their achievement - even most 'bad' films are the result of hard work, passion and commitment (clearly commercialised, cynical tripe aside) - but I don't consider it my responsibility to say 'A for effort' and leave it at that. That to me is actually dishonest, because the reality is as a paying, enthusiastic viewer I will have an opinion and a reaction to any piece of work. Everyone does, and I find the idea of censoring or muting that response troubling. What's the point of making a film that you don't want to affect, incite or excite an audience in some way? You can and should be proud of your creation, but an audience is absolutely entitled to respond in their own personal way to a film they've just watched: after all, great filmmakers are always thinking about how those images might affect the audience in a darkened theatre.

So yes, let me restress that I express my respect for Mark O'Connor having successfully finished three films and getting them onto screens around the country (and the world): lord knows that's far more than anything I've achieved. And yes, I will restate that I think it's a positive a sort of underground 'movement' is emerging in Irish cinema, which is needed in a country where filmmaking has often been incredibly safe and conservative. But as a viewer, I must also confess that I found the director's first two films vapid, haphazard, formally uninteresting, thematically lacking, derivative and overstretched. And as much as I'd like to come out saying 'these are brilliant steps forward for Irish cinema' - as I've stressed above, I would love nothing more than a rich and creative Irish cinema landscape - that would be a pretty blatant untruth.

There's an argument often put forward that basically boils down to: "what do you want, Citizen Kane?" Erm... yes actually :pac: Obviously one of the most important films is a rather high benchmark to set, but I look around the world and see countless filmmakers doing incredibly exciting things with incredibly limited budgets. I look at directors like Shane Carruth, Hong Sang-soo, Joshua Oppenheimer, Andrew Bujalski, Ben Wheatley, Guy Maddin, Jia Zhangke etc..., directors from Iran to Japan, the States to Saudi Arabia, making films that challenge cinematic form with often genuinely gobsmackingly limited budgets that make the finances of many 'low budget' Irish efforts seem like blockbusters in comparison. Many of these directors make debut feature that hit me right in the gut. When I see Irish films that live up to the best or even the 'pretty good' international cinema has to offer, I'll take to Grafton Street with a ****ing megaphone to sing their praises if I have to. But honestly I don't have it in me to give what I feel are mediocrities (or worse) a free pass - it would take a better man than I am to give Between the Canals even a neutral recommendation. When I critique Irish cinema one way or the other, it's because I want to be proud of our national cinema, and for it to be absolutely the best that it can be: why the heck would we accept anything less?

I'll also take this opportunity to offer positive words on the last Irish film I watched in the cinema: Living in a Coded Land. I wouldn't necessarily put it up with the best 'essay films' out there, but it's a film that engages with deep and intriguing themes in an experimental and fiercely intelligent way that is quite unlike anything I've seen before.

e_e

bleebtobleeb wrote: »

Fly the Flag

Rather than burn it.

In 7 words you just summed up what's wrong with the Irish film industry.

I'm more than happy to fly the flag of films if they really impress me but we shouldn't just blindly thumb up whatever gets put on our plate. So many great cinematic (and just overall artistic) movements come out of a general dissatisfaction with the norm and again our industry can't be expected to grow without some acknowledgement of our flaws and willingness to change. I just can't stand this "3 stars from critics, a few esoteric festival showings. Aren't we great?" back-patting. Things become so static and just stagnate due to attitudes like that.

I'll be seeing Frank tomorrow. I look forward to it for 2 reasons: It's an Irish film maker making a significant move internationally and I like each of Abrahamson's 3 movies to varying degrees. Begrudgery you say? Here's a director that few have a negative thing to say about and I can't help but think that it makes the old "stop begrudging!" card seem that bit more redundant.

krudler

bleebtobleeb wrote: »

Why did ya go then?

How are the audience reacting to your work?

I think your a fake, I think your just jealous of what ever o'connor did, i think your begrudged.

Not to worry, O'connor, McMahon, Foreman, Shaun Ryan, Barratt, Walsh, Canty, Kavanagh, Mcgrail and the likes will always shine, when narrow minded people like you hate the tall poppys.

As i said the floors your to show us a link to your work.........

See this is what annoys the crap out of me about Irish films, that people should go easy on them because they're Irish, sorry but no, if something can stand on it's own two feet and be criticised as such then it shouldn't matter if it for 5 grand or 50 million. Fact is there's a slew of piss poor Irish films being made, regardless of what people say about "well if you don't like it make your own" that's a nonsense argument.

njC

njC wrote: »

Amateurish? Making a film on 15 grand around inner city Dublin, with a big cast and a lot of locations, somethings got to give? Granted the cinematography isn't as polished or as cinematic as maybe a lot of films are nowadays but does it need to be? People over look how challenging the script was against the normality of what you see in popular Irish films.

It's a shame to see people outright calling some films bad, and lightly touching on what they didn't like about it. It's even worse to see when people denounce indigenous filmmaking, I've seen people previously attack certain Irish filmmakers personally as opposed to offering a rationale thought on their films, too much of that seems to happen on the likes of boards.ie broadsheet etc. But I suppose that's the internet for you...

I think its really getting into an interesting time in Irish cinema, there has been a string of great features come out over the last few years and the list is growing at a fast rate. I welcome the likes of Mark O'Connor and other filmmakers who have seemed to find their feet with the help of digital filmmaking.

bleebtobleeb wrote: »

Why did ya go then?

How are the audience reacting to your work?

I think your a fake, I think your just jealous of what ever o'connor did, i think your begrudged.

Not to worry, O'connor, McMahon, Foreman, Shaun Ryan, Barratt, Walsh, Canty, Kavanagh, Mcgrail and the likes will always shine, when narrow minded people like you hate the tall poppys.

As i said the floors your to show us a link to your work.........

bleebtobleeb wrote: »

What a reply

Time for Irish films to shine rather than egg's/critic ****ting all over it becasue there own work is not up for it.

Think its people like these that has been holding back irish cinema, instead of having a "worst Irish Film" and having a laugh, why not have a "Best of indie film", your the very people that are killing the industry, becasue your think you know something, YOU DONT.

Your replys are lacking a certain contant, you have been challanged about what you said, everyone else has stroked your ego with agreeing with you, but I wont, I disagree, I think your wrong and I think we should all be proud of what we create, sneer, remark what ever, these people had the balls to make something. it might nit be the best but **** me its a dream into reality, and thats what film making is all about.

see you at the Fleadh

bleebtobleeb wrote: »

Fly the Flag

Rather than burn it.

Going to reply to all the above in one so as to make things easier.

If you bother to read through any thread where O'Connor's work is discussed you will find multiple, indepth posts where people put forward why they think his work fails. It is not a case that we are unfairly judging his work for anything as ridiculous as mere begrudgery, in fact is there anything as insulting as when people trot out that line. No, I look at O'Connor's work from a subjective point of view, I watch a film hoping to be entertained, to be moved, to be wowed, something that O'Connor cannot do. To say that it's acceptable to have poor cinematography because the film was made for cheap is an utter cop out. I have seen films made for a couple of grand that have been visually impressive and looked great, all of O'Connor's work has a cheap shot on DV look which is unforgivable in this day and age. And to say that the script for Stalker is challenging is nonsense. It's such a generic, trite and cliched piece of amateurish writing that no one could look at it as anything but.

I went to see the film because I got a free ticket and I left midway because life is too short. I endured O'Connor's first two films all the way through and after 45 minutes of his third I'd had enough. He is not a talented filmmaker, simple as. His work is infused with not a single drop of wit, ingenuity, visual flair, intelligence or anything else that makes a film good. It's bottom of the barrel stuff and fails on every conceivable level.

If either of you bothered to read my thoughts on Irish cinema you would see that I celebrate a number of Irish productions and count What Richard Did and Pilgrim Hill amongst the best of their respective years offerings. Both are intelligent, well made films with something to say. And it doesn't hurt that there's a visual flair to both. What's been holding Irish cinema back is people like O'Connor and Terry McMahon who make films with nothing to say and that look like they were shot over a weekend by some friends. They then refuse to accept any criticism and resort to cheap bullyboy tactics. The Live Line interview in which O'Connor and others came on to pimp their wares and attack critics of their work is an example of the egos in play here. It's great they think so much of their work but honestly they are cashing cheques their egos can't pay.

And this constant call for us to share our own work is nonsense. I notice that when people post nice things about these films no one is asking them to share their work, surely that's something of a double standard. I do not need to share my work with you or anyone else in order to validate my opinion. It's ridiculous to think otherwise, should film journalism all over the world only be done by film makers? Does this notion only apply to film, can I not criticise a novel or a song unless I have published one or the other?

I would love to see Irish cinema produce some great films and it has, I've already mentioned two but O'Connor's work thus far will never be considered amongst the best we have to offer. Sure he's got his film out there and more power to him but that doesn't mean that it's not utter trash.

And before I finish, celebrating a film simply because it is Irish does both the film and those involved a disservice. In essence people are content to celebrate mediocrity or in many cases utter crap simply because it's Irish. I'm sorry but that makes no sense to me, we should hold Irish cinema up against the same standard by which we judge all else. We should never give a film a pass just cause it's Irish, it's a restrictive mindset that will stop the industry here from ever going anywhere interesting.

Roquentin

Does anyone know where i can see the films? Not on youtube at all

johnny_ultimate

Roquentin wrote: »

Does anyone know where i can see the films? Not on youtube at all

Youtube isn't exactly a legitimate source of film distribution :pac: As critical as I am of these films, I still think curious viewers should support small independent Irish film!

Between the Canals and King of the Travellers are available on DVD, the latter certainly should be on VOD and iTunes too. I'm sure Stalker will become available shortly too, since it has only recently been in cinemas.

Roquentin

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Youtube isn't exactly a legitimate source of film distribution :pac: As critical as I am of these films, I still think curious viewers should support small independent Irish film!

Between the Canals and King of the Travellers are available on DVD, the latter certainly should be on VOD and iTunes too. I'm sure Stalker will become available shortly too, since it has only recently been in cinemas.

Sound. Will check them out. Will reserve my judgement until i see them

Keep an eye on TV3 as they've show King of the Travellers in the past. I had the misfortune of being stuck in A&E one day with the film playin in the waiting room. It made an already long day feel ten times longer.

Roquentin

Deleted User wrote: »

Keep an eye on TV3 as they've show King of the Travellers in the past. I had the misfortune of being stuck in A&E one day with the film playin in the waiting room. It made an already long day feel ten times longer.

Il ask my friend as well and see what he says. he knows more about the independent film scene than me.

which one of his three is the best in your opinion, cause thats the one i will buy?

Roquentin

Roquentin wrote: »

Il ask my friend as well and see what he says. he knows more about the independent film scene than me.

which one of his three is the best in your opinion, cause thats the one i will buy?

Honestly, there's not one of them worth paying money to own. May be best to rent one of them and see what you think