^ Definitely. Gray comes from a Russian Jewish family, that helps.
Well, I liked. A lot. But I'm a huge fan of James Gray and this first film already contains the core themes and treatment of his following stuff so it's no surprise really. I don't see the fact the Josh is a hitman as overly dramatic, that's just part of the film noir setting in which the film operates. But you realize that Gray just use that setting as a springboard to film what he's really interested in, the muffled inexorable agony of this family (Joshua is almost like a living dead, just visiting). It's a one hour and half long funeral march, haunting, glacial.
That feeling that the first minute of the film (the chorus, the darkness, the empty eyes) tells you:
you already know how this ends. The use of wide shots and long takes contribute to this feeling, the characters appear removed, isolated in the snowy landscapes (that makes Little Odessa look even more insular, closed in on itself), prisoner of their environments, powerless. There's a distance that makes it difficult to identify with them, you can only watch from afar as their fates unfold. The pace is contemplative, the average shot length in a US film today is around 2-3 seconds, the average short length in
Little Odessa is 12 seconds. In addition, the use of the (slow) zoom (which has also become quite rare in today's films) heightens this feeling of isolation (even when zooming in, like in the scene with the father and his mistress in bed). I feel like the zoom is also a great way to evoke some kind of inexorability, like an external force that move things forward while keeping the characters immobile, frozen. In contrast, the few handheld sequences (as jwjp pointed out) feel strangely weightless like some ghost is peeking over a shoulder or smthg.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BillKillgore 
Secondly it was pretty odd how with so much dialogue at hand the characters revealed so little about themselves. I wasn't really sure what I was supposed to care about in the end; terminator kid didn't even have any dreams or aspirations, neither did anyone else.
I have to disagree with this. This is much more a film of silences than dialogues to me, and some of those silences said more than any dialogue could (there's a lot to be said about Gray's directing of actors imo). I don't think you can hold the fact that the Reuben kid din't have any aspirations against the film,
that is the film.
The film definitely has some flaws though. I wasn't bothered by the "nobody must know I'm here" thing, didn't even register on my radar tbh (seems like a pretty irrelevant detail when considering what the film accomplishes as a whole, but I can see how it can be annoying). The whole girlfriend storyline could've been better developed, as it is it definitely felt tacked on to me. The editing also felt a bit spasmodic, there was a lack of fluidity that made the succession of sequences a bit clunky and it definitely pulled me out of the film at times. That said, I think the film manages to work wonderfully despite all those flaws, which to me is a testament to how otherwise well made it is.
More ramblings to come later probably.
Did anyone else (besides those who have already posted) got a chance to watch it ?
Anyone else familiar with James gray ?
indesertum, did you watch it on iPad in the end ? Glad you liked it.
!!?
