Caesar and Otto is Dave Campfield’s next film after last July's Editor's Choice-winning film, Under Surveillance. (To read that critique, check it out here.) Taking the hook from his previous film—the concept of being under surveillance—Campfield shows that spy cameras can also lend themselves to a slapstick comedy, not just to a suspense film. However, unlike the last film which cost close to $30,000 to make over the course of three years on the East Coast, this film came in at only a little over $700 over the course of a few months in LA.
Caesar is an out of work actor who’s severe short-sightedness and chronic over-acting prevents him from getting roles. However, when a group of indie film producers happen to see him interact with his large, not-terribly-bright brother, Otto, they decide to try to trick him into providing the world with entertainment. With an idea crossed between The Truman Show and EdTV, the producers bamboozle Caesar and Otto into signing releases that allow them to put spy cameras in every room of Caesar and Otto’s house. They then record a reality show of their lives without them realizing that they’re under surveillance.
As is often the case, the producers try to bite off more than they can chew in their clandestine filming and much trouble ensues. What that trouble is will be covered in the content section.
Content
The concept behind this show is very good, showing the absurdity of reality TV and the absurdity of people who flourish on reality TV. One thing I really liked about the film was that the director chose to use actual episodes from the First Season of the “Caesar and Otto Show” to work as chapters in this movie. They show the first episode, the 8th episode, and the season finale to bookend a the subplot of the producers negotiating with television execs to first buy the show and then to upgrade their budget for the season finale. This does a nice job of giving you different looks at the dynamic of Caesar and Otto as they do things like: try to get into a play, try to sell Otto’s artwork for lots of cash, and try to unravel a mystery. They include commercials during some of these shows, for clever foundations like the Overacting Syndrome Survivors and the Jimmy Carter Community College, which are amusing, although the existence of these commercials don’t really make sense. (The shows are being shown to the viewers before they are aired, so they wouldn’t have commercials yet.)
While the basic concepts of the show and film were very creative, there were some issues with the film’s content.
First off, this is a film that had a lot of trouble understanding the difference between real life and film. Film shows highlights of real life, but it can’t show all of the details of real life without giving you a headache. For example, think of the times in real life you’ve had wind blowing in your ears and can barely hear what someone is saying. That may be real life, but if you replicate that same situation on film, it’s not going to feel like real life—it’s going to feel annoying! Film is a larger than life medium, even if you’re watching it on a TV or a computer screen, and, as such, a little goes a long way.
The character who had the biggest issue with not understanding this point and becoming quite annoying in the process was Caesar (played by the director). Caesar is extremely effeminate and flamboyant, creating a character that is so foppish that he would be more readily identified as an extreme “flamer” in the gay community. The problem with extreme flamers is that even folks in the gay community get headaches from their over-the-top mannerisms. Caesar takes these extreme mannerisms and runs with them until he has left the realm of film acting and has entered the realm of stage acting. Because audience members are so much farther from the action, stage plays utilize a combination of extremely large movements, overboard mannerisms, and loud volume to allow folks in farther rows to understand what’s going on. While this over-the-top acting was most likely chosen to make the character seem somewhat like Wyle E. Coyote (with similar luck), it ended up making me disconnect with the character. (This is no dig on Mr. Campfield's acting ability, as he did a great job portraying a seedy side-character in his first film, Under Surveillance. Unfortunately, it's just the nature of filmmaking that it is very hard to be the director of any film AND the chief protagonist without losing perspective of what is enough and what is too much. I can speak from experience, as my first film had the same problems for many of the same reasons. In regard to this, the Mel Gibsons and Clint Eastwoods of this world are very rare.)
