It’s 9:15 pm on a Monday night. I had just left a post film Q&A for Past Lives with writer/director Celine Song early so that I could make it into the screening of a film titled “Chestnut”. All that I knew was that it was a film starring Natalia Dyer, it was queer and it was the first time that it was being shown to anyone. I found that last point to be a bit surprising as Inside Out Fest isn’t the biggest festival in the world and many of the films screening made their debuts at other festivals. Passages screened at Sundance while I Use To Be Funny was a SXSW darling. An hour and a half later I left feeling mixed. I collected my thoughts about it on the train and I have come to the conclusion that it’s kind of a mixed bag for me.
Before I get into any discussion on the film, I should probably first explain what the movie is actually about. The film follows Natalia Dyer as a young woman who becomes romantically entangled with a couple before she moves to LA for bigger things. That plot synopsis is where my first issue with the film is. Throughout the film, I had a list in my mind of films that this one felt derivative of. For starters, Passages came to mind because they share the exact same premise except for a few minor differences. The difference between the two is that Passages played at Sundance and was celebrated for how complex and horny the film ended up being. I found that fact quite interesting because Passages was the opening film of this festival, which I unfortunately wasn’t able to get tickets for. I also found it to be a weird coincidence that I watched Past Lives before this one. I get more in depth with what I felt on that film in its own review, but I definitely found a lot to love about Celine Song’s debut. There were multiple moments while watching Chestnut that I got major deja vu from plot points to even certain scenes and how they were constructed in Past Lives. That fact alone made it hard for me not to connect the two films previously stated with this one purely based on the love triangle plot line, one that I got to see and loved and one that I heard amazing things about. This film also had moments that had me thinking of other festival dramas that I’ve seen in the past including one titled The New Romantic. These two films felt thematically similar, but I think I might prefer that one purely on the risks that it took. This film also feels similar to another festival film from this year that I haven’t had the chance to check out yet but sounds fantastic! That film being “Eileen”, a film where Thomasin McKenzie has a thing with an older woman. That film was praised on how over the top and bold it was. To put this point simply, the film felt very derivative of other films past and present that did similar things and concepts, but did them in a more unique and interesting way.
I don’t wanna sound completely negative because the film wasn’t terrible and I had some elements that I found interesting. The performance from Natalia Dyer was a great one and proves that she has a good future once Stranger Things ends. She was probably the best part of this film and I could see this film being bolstered by her performance when they start to officially market it to audiences. The film also does well in the story department when it diverts from the examples listed above and finds its own footing. There were a few moments that showcased what the film could have been and the unique identity hidden at the core of this film. The scene with Natalia dancing in the club was one of those moments.
The biggest issue of this film probably comes from the fact that it has some issues technically. The one stand out element being the sound mix. The dialogue sounds like it was recorded with a potato. When it’s isolated, you can hear truly how it doesn’t jive with the scene and when the scene has music in it, like the club scenes, you can tell what was added after the fact that it’s quite jarring. The film also has a problem with falling into a loop of repetition. I don’t know if that has to do with the script or the editing as I haven’t read the script, but it feels very much like there’s a pattern of scenes that doesn’t let it breathe and be its own thing. It’s almost like the film runs on a Scene A, Scene B, Scene C, Scene A, Scene B type model that you definitely feel by the end. People in my audience were starting to Mystery Science Theatre the film by the end based on the stupid decisions of Natalia’s character. I heard someone audibly say “NO” when she asked the dismissive love interest what it would be like if she decided to stay in Philly. Because of this repetition and surprisingly dumb decisions by the lead, the film definitely got reactions that I don’t think were entirely intended.
This has nothing to do with the film really but I wanted to note it because whenever I watch a film set in Philadelphia, it’s always on my mind. Since half of the film is set in bars, I find it to be quite a huge missed opportunity that one or a few of those scenes wasn’t taking place at Paddy’s Pub. Seeing Charlie sniffing glue and killing rats would have been a sharp left turn, but it would have probably kept the audience on their toes.
This film is definitely reminiscent of the first films coming out of younger new york directors. It has the vibe of such films as Shiva Baby, but I don’t think it reaches the heights that that film and others in the category end up reaching. Some elements were strong while other parts of the film fell flat. The film wasn’t down to earth and raw enough to be a standout drama and it wasn’t horny or crazy enough to be an unhinged queer cult drama/comedy blend. The film kinda falls in the middle of the spectrum. It feels reminiscent of so many other films, but it doesn’t feel unique or fresh enough to run with those other films. The film’s issues when it comes to structure and technicals also doesn’t help the film in the long run. My opinions might change and develop as I ruminate with it at bit and see it again when it comes out fully, but at this moment, it’s a youthful and stylish mixed bag. It’s not a terrible film, but I definitely can see where it could have been so much more and broke through the metaphorical roof that these types of films find themselves under. Some good elements, but also some elements that could have been tweaked to strengthen the film as a whole.
The Score
Comentarios