Review of Live for the Moment

Introduction

Dr David Fowler (Noel Fitzpatrick) sits in his car, downs some pills and swigs some whiskey. Sobbing about some yet unspecified problem, he sets off in his car and ends up knocking down and killing a pedestrian. Staggering from his car, Fowler recognises the pedestrian as Rachel Jackson (Sasha Hermann) who was until a few seconds ago one of his patients. Fowler is arrested and taken in for questioning, where a story about how Fowler`s unrequited love for Rachel led him to accidently killing her starts to unfold.

Meanwhile, Miles (Nick Tatham) is a Tourette`s sufferer who is inflicted with twitching fits and a bit of a bad temper. He also suffers from nightmares that consist of flashbacks to a time in some sort of institution. Miles is a patient of Fowler`s and has been making progress by persuading Nick to focus on singing as an outlet aimed at either controlling or easing his condition, making life more bearable. Instead he is disappointed with Fowler`s replacement, although this is corrected when the new doctor not only recognises Miles` singing talent but also just happens to know the right person to make his long-held dreams come true.

Else-where, Rachel`s husband Sean (Matthew Watkin) is brooding and is soon plotting revenge against Fowler once he knows that not only was he responsible for the death of his wife, but also drunk at the wheel.

Video

The picture is clear, let`s be clear on that at least, but there are a myriad of problems here. The first is the dreaded steadicam shakes, first introduced in the opening shot where a flying bird is tracked across the sky. It just looks awful and is a bad choice of handheld shot, really should have been locked off with smooth tracking.

The other thing that really begins to grate quite quickly is the lack of editing within this film. Too many shots are either handheld tracking or just extremely long shots with either one or two of the actors in view, dragging scenes out longer than they need to be. On the other hand, some scenes are exceedingly short and jar the viewer with their abruptness.

Obviously lighting is probably not something within the budget, but shooting inside domestic and commercial premises causes a lot of lighting problems. There is also at least one scene where the colours shift in depth quite abruptly.

Audio

One of my biggest problems here is the background noise and soundtrack in general. There is too much wind noise and an ever-present buzz, presumably from the camera itself, and this detracts from the action almost continuously. The music included is nice enough but is sometimes added at too high a volume level so that it becomes deafening and is also sometimes jarringly cut off as we move from one scene to the next.

The sound also seems a little too harsh and not realistic, as a straight to tape recording would do. Obviously it`s all live dialogue, but it just feels like a theatrical performance rather than a film.

Features

Some production notes on the origins of the film and background on some of the principal players.

Conclusion

In many respects, this is not a bad film but it depends on the audience you are aiming at and who you ask to look at it. In this respect it`s a shame that a set of reviewers who spend their time pulling major films to pieces were asked to give this the once over. How could a home-produced film compete with multi-million dollar epics that have fallen at the Reviewer hurdle other than quite badly? On the plus side, it`s a sign of confidence and self-belief of the filmmaker that we have the onerous task of writing about this. I doubt I would have the nerve, so kudos to Richard here…

We`ve covered some of the audio and visual problems in some detail, what how does it all hold together? Not that well, unfortunately. A lot of this can be blamed on the script where some of the dialogue is either quite banal or just totally unrealistic. Some research on police procedure would have helped with the interrogation scenes, as I`m pretty sure that no-one from The Bill has ever asked a suspect to forget about the incident but come clean on any redeeming behaviour that can focussed on at the forthcoming trial. Isn`t that a lawyer`s job? And where was the lawyer? Did Fowler waive his rights to have one present? Considering the long opening shot with the tape unwrapping, surely a line or two could have been added to make it seem a little more real? A thesaurus would have been a real boon during the scriptwriting phase, as I can`t quite believe so many different characters would use the word `circumstances` in such a short period of time, or so awkwardly.

Miles, played by a real-life Tourette`s sufferer according to the notes, doesn`t really hit the right chord in his performance. Here is a main character who is supposedly moving from despair and suffering to fulfilling his dreams, so we should not only be sympathetic but also rooting for him. Unfortunately he comes across as a whiny teenager with a bit of a temper, assaulting his long-suffering mother at one point. Everything about this performance could be rooted in fact, but unfortunately I just couldn`t find anything to latch onto in order to feel the sympathy required to actually care about what happened to him. Long shots of Miles singing a capella or playing a piano didn`t help at all either, especially when the latter was effectively just the back of his head. Personally I felt a Simon Cowell moment coming on during the first rendition in the Doctors surgery, which didn`t help when he played what is arguably quite a good song a bit later on. I can`t really comment on the Tourette`s twitching as I don`t have any experience in that area, so will believe that this was a realistic depiction of this condition.

There are a number of plot holes in this script, not least the basic timeline. The initial accident is supposed to have happened in the middle of the night, but it is clearly filmed during the day or very early evening. With the lack of lighting, this is slightly forgiveable, but the time differences in the main character arcs lose any sympathy there. After the discovery of Miles` singing talent (?), Miles has not only met the Doctors friend and had a, presumably, singing lesson, but he is already lined up to headline a benefit concert for the Tourette`s Syndrome (UK) Association which is taking place within days. All this and Fowler hasn`t even been charged yet. I know that the last Home Secretary was hell bent on locking people up, but I wasn`t aware he had changed the custodial rules for suspects. OK, harsh I know, but if you are going to run consecutive storylines, then they have to be realistic or you may as well just tell the story in two different and distinct parts.

This was an ambitious story to tell and just a little attention to detail would have made this more bearable. Locked off shots, close-ups and editing are a given, but one major difference in my opinion would have been for Richard to storyboard his script and plot all the various shots required. Obviously I don`t know what budgetary or time constraints he was under, but shooting continuous shots in every scene quickly becomes boring for the viewer. The viewer needs good dialogue but also requires expression and different perspective. You just don`t get that with this piece of work.

Better acting is a must, too often the performances are either so strained or wooden you would have mistaken the actors for furniture if they stood still long enough. This doesn`t apply all the time or to all the players, but enough so that you wonder about the tough auditions mentioned in the notes. I do wonder if any of these scenes had more than one take or if any were viewed with a proper critical eye and then re-shot. A good director will not take second best in either shot or performance and this is a lesson that Richard will have to learn quickly if he is to progress.

Reviews are a harsh reality for anyone who puts their work up for public appraisal and sometimes it feels awkward to denigrate someone`s hard work with a few carefully chosen words. Unfortunately for Richard this is the career he has chosen to follow and far more experienced people have suffered far more for their art after their umpteenth film, let alone their first. Where Richard can take heart is that he has got that difficult first film out of the way and his first real feedback. It may seem harsh but there are pointers as to how he can improve his next and possibly more difficult second film. I have a lot of sympathy for anyone who treads this path and I am loath to trample on dreams, but I also can`t just say that something is good when it isn`t or just bad without explanation. That helps no one in the long run, and this is why this review is probably 2-3 times longer than a lot of reviews I`ve written previously.

I seriously hope that some of what I`ve written can in some way help Richard along his chosen path, I don`t envy him his journey but hope he can make it work. I look forward to hearing about his next project.