Ink

*Adrienne and Lisa, Ink is only available on NWI until the 16th. If you get a chance, try to check it out. I watched an interview with the director and producer (Winans and his wife) in which they said that the most surprising thing about the film's audience is that women were responding to it a lot stronger than men. While men would come and bring their girlfriends/wives, it was the females who enjoyed the movie more and kept coming back. 

SPOILERS below

On our ride home from the junkyard this morning, John brought up Ink. After I resisted the urge to open the passenger door and kick him out on 38B, I told him that I expected everyone's views on the film to be split. That is part of the reason why I picked this movie. The other reason, re-confirmed after re-watching the film, is that I think it's a cool film. I loved it when I first watched a downloaded copy in 2009 and continue to feel that way with each subsequent viewing.

That is not to say there are no problems with the film - because there are. The acting isn't the strongest and the pacing feels a bit rushed at the end. I get those criticisms, but I'm also willing to let them slide a bit in this low budget, indie film. They didn't bother me as much as they bothered Howard & Howard. 

One valid criticism, as Chris points out, is that the two drifters Ink visits in order to get the code are ridiculous. They feel forced. Time would have been better spent elsewhere, perhaps adding to the mythology or filling in some gaps in the background. 

But, if I see those problems in the film, why do I continue to champion it? 

First, I think it's an honest film. Winans tells a story about family, loss, redemption and what it means to be happy in the modern world in exactly the way he wants to tell it. 

Second, it's a story about how our own negative emotions, like avarice and self-pity, can consume us from the inside and destroy what we love. It shows how the world will just hum along feeding this negativity for its own gain. 

Third, the story is actually rather complex but Winans does not spell everything out for the audience. The "timelines" are not necessarily timelines. At one point Liev mentions that time doesn't work for them like it does in the other world. Indeed, it's probably not a different timeline but a different or possible world. Or, more likely, a metaphorical world. A storytelling device to show the anguish in John's mind. I think there is a reason why everything has that dream-like haziness to it. 

Fourth, the story needs to be explored from many different levels. There are the two obvious views: the "real" world where Emma is in a coma and the "dream" or "death" world where Ink resides. But there is another level for inspection that is more abstract. What is real? How do you define happiness? What cautionary tale is Winans telling us with John/Ink? How much do we buy into parts of the culture and what effect can that have on us and our loved ones? Are we really aware of everything that we think and feel? 

Fifth, Winans and his wife did everything for this film. I think he is talented and would love to see what he can do given some money. I agree with Chris about the score. One of the strongest aspects of the film. 

A few points to Jeff and Chris:

Chris: let's not use the word "timeline." In a possible world, John kills himself over losing his wife to an accident and his daughter to her parents. Killing himself causes a lot of pain for Emma. Hence the whole sacrifice Emma thing because that is when he becomes Ink. He isn't "hell-bent" on offering her as a sacrifice. There is a confused inevitability from him about that. Liev is trying to show Ink that his actions are going to hurt her. When he realizes this at the end, the "twist" as everyone keeps calling it, is when he chooses let go of his past wrongs and embrace a new way of seeing the world. He "wakes up." Think about the story in more abstract terms and don't try to round every corner; you'll never get there with this film. 

Yes, the incubi and storyteller mythology could have been better developed. But, again, it's just a literary device to tell a different story.

Jeff: Maybe it's a result of our different aesthetics, but one of the reasons that I liked the film in the first place was because it looked interesting to me. Even if a lot of it isn't entirely original, it is still a cool looking film, in my opinion. As for the two-dimensional ideas, I don't see it. I think that the film is actually rather complex, as I mentioned above.

Will you and John elaborate on the heavy exposition comments? I see exposition but it doesn't feel out of place to me. 

John mentioned today that Ink could be a really great graphic novel. I think he's probably right. In fact, it might have been a better graphic novel than a film.

----

I don't know how well I have explained myself. I probably should have taken some time to write up a decent post last week instead of rushing through with this response. 

One thing that I find interesting is just how different we all saw this film. The aspects of the film that I focused on are entirely different than what others saw.