So, when his debut feature Eagle vs Shark
came out a couple of years later (having been worked through the Sundance labs in 2005), everyone was taking note, waiting to see what would happen. Not a lot did happen, and while I liked the film, I can't really say that I'm surprised by this. While it has been likened to Napoleon Dynamite, it is much deeper and less superficially comic, making it that much darker and harder to simply laugh at - rather, the laughter has to come from a place of identification, or else risk being that of one taking advantage of those in a much weaker position.
Lily (co-creator Loren Horsley) and Jarrod (Jemaine Clement) are awkward social misfits. Lily works at a fast food burger outlet, with a crush on Jarrod, who works in a gaming store and is more interested in Lily's co-worker. One day, when the co-worked is not in, Jarrod drops off an invite to a party he is holding. Lily dutifully passes the invite on, but when it is brushed off without even a glance she decides to attend the party herself, dressing up in the costume of her favourite animal (a shark) as requested on the invite. The party is attended by similar apparent misfits, and the party culminates in a video game competition, with Lily ending up competing in the final to Jarrod (dressed as an eagle - get it?), losing primarily because she spends much of the time staring at her crush.
So begins an awkward and seemingly ill-conceived relationship between sweet-hearted Lily, who is willing to put up with a lot of mistreatment, and selfish, confused and angry Jarrod, a compulsive liar who by his own admission is 'too complex.' As his complexity continues to rear its ugly head, however, Lily tires of putting up with it and determines to escape. Her determination is, however, thoroughly thwarted by a bus timetable, allowing for Jarrod's hard and created shell to collapse under the weight of his own fear, letting the scared little boy inside climb out.
The comparisons to Napoleon Dynamite are valid, but as mentioned there is a much deeper commentary on social pressure underlying Waititi's work. The laughs are derived from the same comedic realm, but where Dynamite's are heartier guffaws, Shark's tend to more reserved, tending to the sardonic or the relieved. The comedy is also very evenly spread - Waititi's script has been very well honed to reveal his characters gradually over the course of the film without there being a need for an expository act of somberness to give depth to otherwise under-realised characters.
That being said, the film did feel somewhat longer than its fairly short ninety minute runtime. The pace, while even, is slow, and the grouchiness of Jarrod coupled with the meekness of Lily are quite draining as prolonged thematic elements. In fact, there is very little in the way of light in the film, either light characters or laughs or storylines. For the most part, until the film begins its small arc to a conclusion, all of those introduced have similar problems or contributions to the world as our initial protagonists. And when the light does crack through as the film closes, it doesn't seem bright enough or long enough to truly lift the film up.
It is a great debut, obviously very intricately worked to arrive at the final product, incredibly lean. As a study of Waititi's abilities it works very well - it's a great little calling card that has obviously worked as his second feature Boy played at Sundance this year in the World Dramatic competition (Eagle vs Shark played in that competition also in 2007.) I will definitely be looking out for a chance to see Boy as soon as I can, because I'm sure Waititi has progressed leaps and bounds and that could only mean wonders for his sophomore effort. In the meantime, Eagle vs Shark is definitely worth a look, though don't expect fireworks. Solid and interesting, but not earth shattering. 3 stars.
No comments:
Post a Comment