|
|
 |
After a chance encounter in a coffee shop, Tristan (Ross Marquand) and Tricia (Sharina Martin) begin a whirlwind romance. However, Tricia’s ex-husband appears to be a jealous brute capable of violence and Tristan makes it his mission to rescue Tricia and her son. But as the story unfolds, what began as a light-hearted romantic drama tinged with the looming shadow of Tricia’s ex, shifts into a dark thriller that examines false perceptions and one character’s descent into madness.
We open with Tristan telling someone (unseen by us) the story of how he came to meet and fall in love with the beautiful Tricia.
Tristan eats in a diner, tapping out his "Great American Whatever" on a laptop when Tricia walks through the door. After ordering, she sits at a nearby table and Tristan is immediately taken with her. He even leaps to her rescue after she spills her beverage, engaging her in a conversation. After a few awkward conversational starts and stops, he finally joins her at her table and they get to know each other better.
This first meeting leads to a first date. When Tristan arrives at Tricia’s home, he learns about her son, whom she adores, and her ex-husband, whom she seems uncomfortable discussing. At dinner, Tricia seems attracted to Tristan’s cool charm and gentle manner. He’s the “perfect” guy as she tells her friend during the ubiquitous, mid-date, check-in phone call.
Time passes and the two fall deeper in love. Everything is perfect. But alas, something’s rotten in the state of Denmark. When Tristan tells his sister, Maggie, about his lady love, she’s interested in meeting her but this interest is tinged with concern. Maggie mentions Tristan’s previous relationship and how it seems he’s rushing into things with Tricia. He assures his sister he’s not, and that Tricia’s good for him and that they’re good together…
Major Spoilers Ahead
… but the truth is quite different.
At the midway point of Happily After, the story takes a pretty hard right turn from romantic drama to a psychological thriller. Tristan hasn’t been sharing his story with just anyone as the opening scene would suggest, but rather, he’s been talking to the police, who are trying to locate a missing woman—Tricia. Oh, and it turns out that Tristan isn’t even his real name. No, it’s Guy and he works for a company that’s owned by Matt, Tricia’s ex-husband!
As the rest of the story unfolds, it’s revealed that Tristan’s/ Guy’s (from here on out, referred to as Tristan only) entire life, specifically his relationship with Tricia, was a house of cards. Everything that transpired was either made up my Tristan or based on his distorted view of reality. And as the police race to locate Tricia, unsure as to whether or not she is dead or alive, Tristan maintains his delusions about his relationship with the missing woman.
I have to commend the filmmakers for taking on such an ambitious story. The acting, especially from the leads, was professional and believable. The pacing was excellent as was the camera work and editing. From a technical point of view, other than a few minor lighting issues (see visual look) the movie was professional and well-made.
That said, while I can appreciate what the filmmakers were trying to do by blending genres, it never came together as intended. The real danger of blending genres is that by trying to give the audience a little of everything, you wind up with an uneven, confusing tone. For instance, Happily After’s first half plays out as a romance, and very little happens to indicate the impending danger. Tristan is the main character and we’re seeing the story from his point-of-view. For Tristan, everything’s light, airy, and wonderful, and considering the revelation of his delusions, it makes sense that this is how he perceives the situation. But when the story takes a turn and we’re shown that he’s suspect numero uno in Tricia’s disappearance and learn of his disturbing background, the film’s tone changes to that of a “race against the clock,” dark thriller, and there’s no longer a central protagonist who we’re pulling for. This shift in tone and viewpoint creates an emotional divide, leaving the audience on the far side, no longer able to connect with the story.
As the cops interview Tricia’s various friends and family members, the second half of the film is spent revealing what really happened. The other characters describe the same situations we already witnessed, but with much different outcomes. For example, although we were shown earlier Tristan and Tricia having an excellent first date (from Tristan’s point of view), it’s later revealed by one of Tricia’s friends that Tricia was, in fact, uncomfortable and uninterested in Tristan. This sort of reveal continues to play out for the rest of the movie, showing us that all we thought to be true was a lie. Because of this revelatory nature, the second half plays out like a thirty minute plus resolution and we never get the catharsis of a true climax that is the hallmark of great thrillers.
And although it would have been difficult to pull off, a twist like the one used could have worked, but the only way would have been to show Tricia’s and Tristan’s differing perspectives from the beginning, giving them equal weight and balance. Rather than having Tristan tell the story from the beginning, another option would have been to use a Rashomon-style device where the story was told by several different and potentially “unreliable” witnesses. You could have witnesses that support both characters’ points of view, forcing the viewer to decide who was telling the “real” story. Using a device like this would have the added benefit of creating a real mystery as to what happens at the end. As it stands now, we know soon after the halfway mark that Tristan is unstable and has either killed or kidnapped Tricia.
One final suggestion would be to have Tricia as the main character from the beginning. Maybe she really does fall for Tristan and, little by little, she realizes he’s unstable and capable of some very bad things indeed. Of course, such a plot line seems pretty conventional and overdone, but based on the level of acting and effective way the director handled the more violent and intense scenes, I think it might have made for a more satisfying emotional experience. A great example of this is 1987’s The Stepfather starring Terry O’Quinn. We know from the opening scenes what the psychotic stepfather of the title is capable of and this heightens the suspense, keeping us on the edge of our seats.
Steady camerawork, effective lighting, and excellent editing are all elements that contributed to Happily After’s professional, polished look. A Steadicam was employed to create smooth, elegant tracking shots. In fact, these shots were so well done that they never “jumped out” at me. This is one of the dangers in indie-filmmaking: self-absorbed shots (once referred to by a very wise filmmaking friend as a hallmark of “masturbatory filmmaking”). New filmmakers in their zeal to make a big splash will draw too much attention to their filmmaking techniques, not understanding that great filmmaking, upon first viewing, passes over the audience without notice. It’s not until later, after analysis, that the techniques used are pulled apart and appreciated for their artistry.
In the “Visual Look” category, Happily After excels. Perhaps, the only problem I noticed related to lighting, especially in some of the exterior, night time scenes. A few shots showed video noise due to being under lit. This is a common problem in the world of micro-budget filmmaking. The only remedy is, of course, using additional lights or shooting day for night, which comes with its own challenges. However, the lighting issues in Happily After were minimal and never distracting.
I also want to commend the director and the D.P. for their subtle use of the Redrock Micro M2 35mm adapter. DOF (depth of field) adapters are wonderful tools that can add a cinematic look and flare to otherwise flat video images; however, too often these tools are overused and almost every shot contains a foreground or background out of focus. (And of course, many filmmakers have issues calibrating their rigs properly so that there are often focus problems. too.) Thankfully, this was never the case in Happily After. The filmmakers understand how to use the right lenses and the right settings effectively, using the shallow depth of field generated by certain lenses with an open F/Stop to emphasize specific moments. This wise use of equipment adds to the visual quality of the film rather than detracting from it.
I (almost) have only positive things to say about the quality of audio. The filmmakers used Sennheiser lavs and a Schoeps MK60 shotgun microphone. They recorded sound to an Edirol R4 Pro digital audio recorder. The levels throughout were consistent and nothing distracted me from the story.
Perhaps my only criticism in this area extends to the musical score. Obviously in the film’s first half, the more romantic elements and lighter tone were reflected in the music; however, as the story progress and takes a darker turn, I don’t think the score properly captures the mood. This is a minor complaint and wasn’t enough to damage my experience watching the film.
[Editor's Note: While our normal “cap” for officially critiqued films is $30K, we do realize that sometimes budgets that are designed to be below our cap come a little above it. As such, we do provide a a reasonable margin based on special circumstances , which Happily After easily fell into. -JH]
I actually think the filmmakers made very good use of their budget, which was just south of $36,000. They spent money on equipment rental, including the Panasonic HVX200, M2 Redrock Lens Adapter, Steadicam, and jib crane for a shot at the end of the film. Money was also wisely spent on paying the cast and crew, food, and insurance.
I gave this category a high rating because the money spent on this production is all on the screen. This is especially true as it applies to the actors and the image quality. Happily After feels like a more expensive production, which is a testament to both the skills of the people who made it and their effective use of money.
The two halves of this film are so tonally and structurally different, that it causes the viewer to disengage emotionally. No longer do we want to find out what happens with Tristan and Tricia, because this question is made irrelevant. It’s the shift from one tone to the other that didn’t work as intended. However, the performances are engaging throughout and the direction is sure footed and confident despite the story issues. I think some viewers may approach Happily After more from a cerebral or intellectual perspective and not mind the lack of emotional catharsis. While others will find the uneven nature of the tone and the second half’s reveal leaving them emotionally disconnected and uninterested in repeat viewings.
I really appreciate what the filmmakers were trying to achieve in Happily After by blending genres and trying to keep the audience guessing. I think there were some interesting ideas within the movie, and director Klein’s debut was confident and shows great promise.
The main problem with this approach is that it can also cause confusion and frustration in the viewer. Because the film begins as a romantic character study, it sets up our expectations a certain way. Obviously, this was the filmmaker’s intention, because as the story progresses our “perception” of things is meant come into questions.
However, because the story’s tone shifts as well, I was left feeling detached rather than engaged. By trying to blend the genres, the film feels disjointed and uneven. Without a primary viewpoint character, it becomes impossible to connect with anyone or have a sense of where the story is going. Had this been a thriller like Sleeping With the Enemy, Tricia would have been the focal point and the one we identified with. Because Tristan/Guy is meant to be the protagonist, we’re left confused because he is.
It’s like the story was told using both the first person and the omniscient third person point of view. When writing fiction, it’s important to stick to one or the other, because you want your reader to become immersed in the story, not have to repeatedly figure out what’s going on or how the characters could know what they know.
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
Content |
6.5 |
Visual
Look |
9.0 |
Use
of Audio |
9.0 |
Use
of Budget |
9.5 |
Lasting
Appeal |
5.5 |
|
7.9 |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Joel G. Robertson co-wrote and directed the feature The Whole Town Is Sleeping and has made numerous shorts, including Shadows of the Dead, a winner of Fangoria's First Blood Drive competition. He also runs the site Forgotten Flix, which is dedicated to championing movies, both old and new, that deserve more attention. |
|
|
|
|
|
