What!? How did this happen? When did Canada suddenly become good at soccer? Did they play these matches on ice and use sticks to move the ball aboot? At the time that I’m writing this, not only are Canada atop the standings of the octagonal, but they’re four points clear of both the US and Mexico. Hopefully either FIFA or at least CONCACAF will launch an investigation to figure out how these hosers cheated their way into the World Cup. Perhaps this will happen after they go to Qatar and get exposed for the frauds that they are. But alas, sigh!, they made it in and I should critique one of their films, which honestly shouldn’t be that difficult to do.
On a more serious note over the past few decades the Canadian film industry has produced a fascinating and wonderfully eclectic body of work for cinephiles who are daring enough to explore. Granted among their English language titles, very few of what could be called ‘proper Canadian’ films ever manage to be commercially successful. The main problem is their inability to compete financially with the cinema product of their obnoxious neighbors to the south. I suspect that this has led a good portion of their home grown talent to ply their trade in Hollywood which only then exacerbates this problem. If you combine this with Hollywood’s long tradition of shooting films north of the border in order to take advantage of cheaper labor and production costs, it probably wouldn’t be impossible to find a Hollywood production that would satisfy my criteria for a ‘Canadian’ film. Even if I could find such a thing, do you seriously think that I would come this far just to consider the merits of a Hollywood film? No, no, Canada is a country where it feels more appropriate to dig deeper into their cinematic output. Perhaps a dark office comedy from 2000 by Gary Burns should suffice.
This selection was initially distributed to American theaters by Lot 47 Films, one of many of the numerous distribution companies that reside on filmmaker Jeff Lipsky’s resume. A decade earlier Lipsky co-founded October Films, the company responsible for bringing Life is Sweet, my English selection, into US theaters. I’m not quite sure what became of Lot 47 and I’m just assuming that they went under after a brief existence in the early part of the century. Less mysterious however is the fate of Home Vision Entertainment, the company that released the film onto DVD. Home Vision spent 20 years acquiring and distributing mostly independent and foreign titles, sometimes in partnership with the Criterion Collection, before being acquired itself by Image Entertainment in the mid aughts. Evidence of Home Vision’s handiwork though can still be found in libraries. According to worldcat.org, there was 1 public library within 20 miles of where I live that was holding a copy of this title. Within 40 miles there were 6 public libraries holding a copy. A DVD copy can also be rented out from Facets or purchased from online retailers. Apparently Home Vision never dabbled into streaming, so once again DVDs are going to be the better option for access.
One could argue that the film set a rather confusing, contradictory tone in how it began. The use of side by side split imagery of the main characters on their way to work, with the images themselves contrasted by their hues, one colored in a faded sepia tone and the other a dark, sleek metallic blue, suggested a fast paced action film or perhaps even a stylish spy thriller of some sort. However the annoyingly repetitive electronica score heard during this montage better reflected the true spirit of a film set in an office environment where one would be constantly bombarded with boredom, existential dread and a sense of listless stasis. And yet this successfully conveyed what made the film interesting, it constructed what may have been the closest facsimile to an action film that one could imagine given its setting.
It helps that the film had an interesting premise to entice its viewers, as 4 office workers make a bet to see who can stay indoors the longest. Although the twist here was the presence of Calgary’s extensive network of skywalk bridges connecting a fair number of buildings in its downtown area. This offered the possibility for a person to stay inside for weeks or even months at a time. But the film didn’t simply rest on this novel concept. The narrative contained a large number of characters, none of whom seemed insignificant, and multiple story arcs which were well developed enough to bring a great deal of intrigue and complexity into the film. The story also took place at lunchtime which afforded the characters some space to roam, effectively establishing how extensive this urban bubble was. The narrative was for the most part unstructured, relying mainly on the chaos of chance interactions for its charm, and its an approach that worked wonderfully here. This was in part due to how natural and organic the interplay between the characters felt. The narrative also got a boost from its tendency to introduce elements that only gained significance later in the film. For instance when Phil casually mentioned the use of marbles to break through the glass windows, the bottle in Bradley’s backpack suddenly took on a much different weight as an object in the story. This was a film that allowed the viewer to connect some dots, which is a great tactic to employ in order to generate some engagement.
If there were any mild complaints about the narrative it would’ve been the lack of a story for Randy, essentially the 4th participant of the bet, who spent most of the film hanging out with the security guard and who didn’t get all that much to do. The film also gave the character of Tom a few narrated monologues in what may have been an attempt to give the film some saliency. If this was indeed the intent, I would say it was a failed effort, although the youthful naivety of the character was projected well through this content. In his most whimsical of thoughts, Tom pondered the notion of downtown Calgary becoming untethered from the rest of the city.
I suppose thematically this could suggest the depths to which humanity has crafted realms so far removed from any earthly reality that they’ve become their own ecological system. With this notion, it’s interesting to point out that the film rarely showed anything that one might consider to be ‘nature’. In reference to my Swedish selection, there was no ‘MIMA’ that one could take refuge in. Every scene was cast against cubicle walls, drab hallway corridors, office equipment, pane glass windows, cash registers, ceiling tiles, marble floors, asphalt and so forth. While everything looked familiar, there was a constant ambiance of artificiality that was inescapable. And this was a deeply rooted tone that went far beyond the simple fact that one was watching a film. Given this particular staging it shouldn’t be a wonder when a character thinks of such a world as a castle floating in the air.
As for the staging as a whole, I was initially annoyed by some of the early work in the film. The combination of laser quick jump cutting, unwieldy camera pans and zooms, and a very awkwardly tight, intimate framing approach made the early potion of the film disorientating. On top of this the handheld, shaky cam movements that one encountered, like in an early scene between Tom and the convenience store clerk, suggested a crude, low budget production. Even if one could consider possible thematic arguments for such tactics given the unstable and self-absorptive nature of the characters’ existence within such an environment, a jump cut to a wobbly zoom shot of an office clock still gave the impression of work done by rank amateurs. The framing and mise-en-scène only got marginally better as the film progressed, showing the occasional glimpse of quality. One such peek at quality was the long shot of Tom and Kathy as they walked closer to the camera during their first verbal exchange. This shot wasn’t particularly impressive, but it stood out given the overarching style seen elsewhere in the film where short takes and a massive amount of jump cuts where the norm.
The lone saving grace to the cinematography was the editing and overall arrangement of the shots which were often excellent. For one, the editing gave the film a very quick pace which moved the story forward efficiently. The quick pacing may have also helped constantly push the film beyond its inadequacies. Perhaps only a well shot film can afford to take its time. The film also showed a flair for some interesting inter-cutting between different stages of action. For instance the shots of Bradley rolling his bottle of marbles back and forth added an element of banal monotony to Curt’s modest romantic advances towards Vicki. The near romantic tryst between Tom and Kathy also employed cutting to a shot of the retirement gift precariously sitting atop Tom’s car in what was likely an intriguing symbolic representation for the anticipation of sexual gratification. Unfortunately the poor camerawork during this latter sequence ruined the concept.
The editing though did support the film’s tone and theme really well. The repetitious cutting to shots of an air vent and fictional men falling off the side of a skyscraper became more hypnotic as the film progressed and did a good job of complementing the slowly developing madness of the film. Adding to the insanity were fantasy elements like scenes of Tom swimming through the downtown area like a captive creature stuck in a fish bowl, or short shots of a mysterious superhero running through downtown Calgary, which gave hint to the mental fragility of the protagonist. What ultimately made this film work was that it succeeded in transcending its own fascinating premise. This film was not about an office bet, but rather the spiritual emptiness of a life completely devoted to being a nondescript office drone within a rigidly sterile corporate structure. This was not exactly an original concept in cinema, but unlike say the American entry Office Space this film more evenly balanced the somber depression and comical absurdity of such a life. This was a darker film that dared to amuse and haunt the viewer in near equal measures.
The film’s two best acting performances highlighted this dichotomy. Don McKellar’s performance was not exactly one that will easily delight viewers, but yet he so convincingly portrayed a character that had been so subjugated and so dispirited by a lifetime of corporate drudgery that it was more interesting than it had any right to be. McKellar set the appropriate tone in his first scene when he offered Tom nothing but silence and oddly awkward stares that made his lethargy and apathy unmistakably transparent. The infamous ‘stapler scenes’ were also eccentrically perverse due to the nonchalant and undramatic manner in which McKellar performed the act in order to stay true to the character. Throughout the film McKellar nailed all the small nuances in the performance that made Bradley seem so constantly meek and pathetic that it wasn’t surprising at all when he botched his own feeble attempt at suicide. Marya Delver by contrast wore her emotions on her sleeve and was exceptionally good at getting enraged at Tom’s psychological warfare. This subtly set the template for her character to have a mental breakdown later in the film, which Delver performed with great skill. With this particular aspect Delver brought a great deal of manic fervor to the film that made her performance quite compelling. One could see this in the self-assured manner in which she ripped fragrance samples out of a magazine, or the vigor that she displayed when realizing how she could use a revolving door for some circulation. Delver was also great at injecting the film with much of its humor, especially during the scene where she unconsciously tossed her cell phone over a railing. Her commitment, energy and talent at capturing her character’s insanity made this film more enjoyable to watch.
Fabrizio Filippo, in the role of Tom, was not required to venture as deep into crazytown and thus I felt his performance was a bit more conventional and bland when compared to the other performers. Granted there were times when I felt he conveyed too much of a laid back vibe in the role, and it wasn’t as if he couldn’t handle some emotional complexity. I liked his anger when finding out about Curt’s past and thought he did some excellent work with his physical acting. His look of concern when he could only watch from a distance as Kathy chased down Paul was quite striking. As one of the younger, less corrupted characters he still effectively offered a more subtle sense of humor to the film.
As for some of the other performers, Tammy Isbell was interesting given how she would shift the emotional tone of her character’s personality with such an effortless grace. Isbell offered a more cheerful, highly spirited persona that gave the film a certain spark that it lacked elsewhere. She was a great complement to the rest of the cast. Gordon Currie consistently performed his material with a great deal of personality and inflection. His best work though came in the scenes with Vicki, where the combination of his solid physical acting and his modest changes in tone showed a professional polish. Currie’s coy smirk when admitting that he too was engaged was absolutely flawless. Jennifer Clement often portrayed a character who seemed like a total emotional trainwreck, but got a chance to broaden her character a bit in her scenes with Curt. She too did well with the physical acting of this exchange and if anything it was the suggestive, subtext laden silent pauses in their conversation that stood out more than the actual small talk that they partook in. I also thought that Xantha Radley and James McBurney did some good work in relatively minor roles.
Overall the acting was good and duly contributed to the film’s quirkiness, from which it derived its charm. And while it may not have achieved the poignancy it was aiming for, waydowntown was still thoughtful and introspective enough to be interesting to watch.