I really did enjoy this movie. The writing was interesting, and the acting was top notch. I did have a problem with the editing or maybe the cinematographer. I think if they could have stopped with the misplaced quick cuts and the "artistic" b roll shots, this movie could have been great. Every time one of those shots happened I felt pulled out of the movie. Did anyone else find it mood breaking?
shareI just watched Man in the Chair. I agree with you about the quick cuts, etc. I'm sure they did that for some particular effect, but I found it distracting and apparently missed the point. I don't think the story needed it as the acting and the story itself were compelling without the odd bit of editing. I speak with no cinematic authority, it's just my opinion as someone who enjoys movies.
I thought the use of all the old movie clips was great and fit well with the story, not to mention I enjoyed seeing them, and trying to quickly identify them without wandering away from the movie itself.
I always wanted this film to be a poem, a non-conventional cinematic experience. The "in-camera" handcrank composites were designed to create emotion. To draw the audience deeper into the film not take them out. To take a page out of the WONG KAR-WAI book. "When you reconfigure a spatial or temporal timeline, it becomes more emotional, more poetic and affects sensory response - the brain and the heart". It's called "lyrical intensity". The writing and especially the amazing acting was balanced visually to create primary emotions not secondary echoes of them. It's "style as content not style over content". There is a small minority of viewers of MAN IN THE CHAIR with the complaint they were taken out of the film by this technique, but there is an over whelming vast majority who loved the style and were taken somewhere unexpected by this film; which is very fulfilling to we filmmakers who strive everyday to put art and substance back into the movie experience.
Michael Schroeder
Writer/Director, MAN IN THE CHAIR
Thanks for taking the time to comment. Unfortunately I didn't get the intended reaction, but I will watch the movie again with this new knowledge, and hope for a better reaction. It is always nice to get a little insight into the directors intentions. Thanks again.
shareI enjoyed this movie. The juxtaposition with old folks homes and city dog pounds is so over looked (particularly by animal lovers who toss senior family members into nursing homes).
Blardy good! I will be sure to recommend it!
I have to say I found the cuts/timebreaks extremely fitting. Since the movie is about making films; it kinda gave the whole thing a finished touch.
Dry smooth perfected (standard) quick cuts and easy watching is so far from art. This movie was quite artistic and very very well written and played. Christopher Plummer as well as Michael Angarano and all the others,( except for (in my opinion) the 'bigtime producer', Taylor Moss, played by Robert Wagner, who actually overacted and wasnt as believable as the rest.) they played awfully good. But Christopher Plummer and M.Emmet Walsh played so fantastically perfect!
I always liked thier style, but in this movie they had some great roles to play. Nice script, nice shooting, nice story. Oscar-worthy if ever a film was.