By Chlotrudis Independent Film Society
Rating: 3.25
Director: Miranda July
Starring: David Warshofsky | Hamish Linklater | Isabella Acres | Joe Putterlik | Miranda July
Country: germany, united_states
Year: 2011
Running time: 91
IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1235170/
Jason says: “THE FUTURE is kind of amazing, in its annoying little way. It finds the shortest possible path from its characters doing something nice to them being ridiculous and insufferable, and then spends the next hour or so finding ways to make them more aggravating. What’s worse, filmmaker Miranda July can’t just make a movie about unpleasant people; she has to try and be clever.
“Sophie (July) and Jason (Hamish Linklater) have just rescued a stray cat, whom they name ‘Paw-Paw’ and who serves as our narrator. One of the cat’s legs is broken, so it will have to stay at the animal shelter for a month. Upon getting home, they realize that this means they’re settling down, which scares them, so they decide to quit their jobs (which they don’t much like anyway) and spend the next thirty days doing something fulfilling. For Jason, this means going door to door selling trees for an environmental initiative; for Sophie, posting a new dance clip on YouTube every day. They get distracted, though – Jason by a nice but lonely old man who sells him a hairdryer on craigslist (Joe Putterlik) and Sophie by Marshall (David Warshofsky), who is on the other end of a phone number she stumbles upon.
“I’m sure many couples have the idiotic conversation that sets this movie into action at some point or another, but even the ones without the self-awareness to realize how spoiled they sound will recognize that their grand plan doesn’t actually make any sense. Not Sophie and Jason, though – they go an do things like canceling their internet access for no reason other than forcing an issue in their movie’s contrived plot (Sophie needs to feel properly isolated and lonely as she does her ridiculous dance thing). Even if you grade on a curve for the movie being full of off-beat, exaggerated characters, nothing that these people do has a good reason behind it.
“That’s not a good thing, considering that the main characters are a fairly flat pair. Miranda July and Hamish Linklater play their parts as distaff mirrors of each other, blank and selfish and devoid of wit. They’re given small behavioral quirks at the beginning that play into the last act (where they do at least begin to display some recognizably human panic and guilt), but otherwise they are frustratingly lifeless. There’s no chemistry between them, and any concern the audience is supposed to have about the effect this month of following lame whims has on their relationship is muted by never being presented with enough passion to feel like there’s anything at stake. David Warshofsky’s Marshall is a bit of a blank, too, although Isabella Acres at least shows a bit of life as his daughter. the best performance probably comes from Joe Putterlik, who is less an actor playing a part than a sort of found object, a guy the filmmakers met and plopped into their movie, letting the character form around him.
“July isn’t devoid of ideas; there are nuggets of insight and creativity that could shine with a much better movie around them. Paw-Paw’s narration, for instance, is often such a beautiful and painful evocation of what it feels like to find someone to love you and whom you can love in return that it’s wasted on a couple that at best seems somewhat affectionate. There are moments of surreality that capture the audience’s imagination, even after it’s clear that one is a metaphor for pathetically lying in bed. That this is not entirely a stupid movie – that it’s got a very definite central idea about where trying to force happiness leads – only makes the weakness of almost everything around that core more frustrating.
“That’s clever, but being clever isn’t worth a whole lot if it’s buried under characters and situations this ridiculous. THE FUTURE has its strengths, but its weaknesses are so crippling and so basic as to render them impotent. 1 3/4 cats
“Seen 30 April 2011 at the Brattle Theatre (IFFBoston 2011)
Michael says: “Sophie and Jason decide to adopt a cat who only has a short time left to live, but when the diagnosis proves to be less than certain, and a few weeks turns into the possibility of months, the couple sees their youth suddenly slipping away. July’s sophomore effort as writer/director travels dangerously on the edge of preciousness, but ultimately succeeds. She cleverly uses some dramatic science fiction elements as a metaphor that explores a painful break-up of a young couple. 4 cats”
Toni says: “So apparently Jayson really didn’t like this film (see his review above) but I kinda did, think it’s worth seeing, and give it 4 cats.
“There were pieces near the end of this movie that I thought were really brilliant including the shirt dance and reaction to it, as well as the scenes surrounding it (Sections 9 and 10) and things Paw Paw has to say near the end of the film. If you liked the dance in PINA (which I’ve only seen the trailer to but believe comes from a similarly creative/modern place) or if you’ve ever seen Snappy Dancers of Boston, you’re more likely to appreciate the beauty of the shirt dance, and July being a non-dancer and self-choreographed, I think she did a great job in that last dance scene.
“If you try to make complete sense of this film’s flow and logic you could be disappointed but if you just go with the flow and ideas it’s throwing at you I think it’s quite entertaining and very very poignant in at least one scene (which unfortunately I had to listen to about 7 times to understand what the little girl was saying which was key-duh next time I’ll turn on the English sub-titles).
“There were a few inside things going on – one allusion that wouldn’t be so funny (or at least understandable) unless you’d lived in LA. Another set of visuals in the film that related to synchronicity that made no sense unless you listened to the director’s commentary (which was well worth listening to) and still confusing but – well – I liked them anyway – and have in reality experienced a somewhat similar sort of thing myself! Perhaps the director was a little too close to this film…
“The story is based on a one woman show that July did and also has some very strong ideas of hers and how she foresees the future (hear the end of commentary for that one)….
“David Warshofsky’s Marshall was very well done in being the sort of bland, suburban, anti-Sophia’s-type character he was supposed to be. He apparently is a very good singer according to the commentary, which one would not know from his singing in the movie- Yes Isabelle Acres probably does have the most liveliness to her and does an excellent job. But July and Linklater play the characters they’re meant to play. And I think they do it well. Flat in the beginning, not able to face reality, as if in a dream and then suddenly jerked back into reality at the end. Joe Putterlik, a non-actor who July found through the pennysaver and decided she needed to cast him in her film, was a gem. He did an excellent job in his second role as well. He died right after the movie was finished. He told them he didn’t have long to live before they started which is just amazing as you see no self pity or any of that sadness in his character.
“I also found a new group and song I now love via this movie: Beach House ‘Master of None’- the song July’s dance was done to. It’s on utube…”
Diane says: “I think I’d give it 3 cats. Some parts I loved (how the cat was executed [pardon the term], some killer dialogue, pitch perfect acting of two leads, the dance!) and some parts I disliked (all the phantasmagoric stuff in the second half). I do admire July’s mind.”