Good Posture

source: Good Posture

Script has an early draft feel about it, with a lot being done for effect without really making sense. At best, it's one of those regular negative exemplar warnings for would-be Baumbachs and Gerwigs, and fetishists of '70s Woody Allen. Turns out that a gentrified boho setting, attractive but dysfunctional intellectuals, a quirky folk soundtrack and a ukulele aren't going to be enough to make your movie. One might further venture that if touchingly realist character studies are your ideal, you might have spent a lot more time trying to understand the characters you decided to depict and a hell of a lot more making their interactions feel unique, plausible, motivated and meaningful.

Van Patten plays a pleasant but selfish and lazy individual, who, dumped by her boyfriend has to stay with her father's friend, a reclusive, successful author - Julia. Seemingly unable to communicate effectively with Julia, she decides to make a documentary about her. This is a pleasant enough tale about growing up, with a Van Patten good company in the lead despite being something of a jerk.

I haven't researched this movie. But I will offer my deduced reasonings. It may assist you when you start to see similar movies that are a waste of your time. This is set in New York. I have seen a pattern emerging of late. It is easy for me to spot, as I live in Australia, so I am not directly influenced from living in the United States of Amerikar. Firstly, the story. It begins and I thought, this may be interesting. It is cute. After 30 minutes, the actors transition from one state of antagonistic behaviours to a state of love for each other by the 60 minute mark. At 61 minutes, resentment and self importance has them going into emotional lock down. Not that you can pick it from the script. Because the scripting melted down 20 minutes ago and the movie is in free fall. By 62 minutes I am finding this story so tedious, that I have to shut it down and go watch an episode of Homeland. During my viewing as the story falls apart, I start to salvage whatever I can to maintain my interest. I remind myself to be grateful that entertainment is democratized. For a pittance I can watch someone's creative blood, sweat and tears. Someone's art, that they are possibly willing to die for. The back end story is probably young New York film maker, sleeping in the back of Chevy Van, eating out of supermarket dumpsters and borrows friend's Canon 5D ... convinces semi-name actors to participate and gets the backing of an investor who is a bona fide Democrat, voted for A.O.C. and applauded the resistance of Amazon's HQ2 in New York. There is a righteous theme to this movie ... namely that we can do whatever we like in Amerigar because of freedom of speech, inter-racial relationships are normalized, symbolic inclusiveness and diversity is mandatory in film making and when a movie has a story about writers, people in arty glasses and budding film-makers, who borrow other people's toothbrushes, then it will naturally be good even if normal people 'just don't understand'. And if you don't like it, don't watch it because there will be people who will relate to the story and love it ... so who cares what you think Mr. Downunder? By the way, the cinematography is something to behold ... and not because it is good. There is scant regard for lighting and the focus of the camera, particularly in the first 30 minutes appears to be all over the place. You could almost wonder if this has been deliberate in an effort to stylistically further the story ... more than likely it is just another of this movie's downfalls. For all of this I gave it a score of 2/10 rather than the realistic 0/10. Why did I give it so much praise with my 2? Because it was cute for the first 5 minutes. p.s. the episode of Homeland I watched immediately after verified what good story, acting and cinematography really is.