sarah drummondAussie film ‘Gabriel’: no budget, but some appeal
December 4th 2007 05:30
As I idly trawled the cinema times website, I came across a film I hadn’t heard of (which in the last few months is not a rarity, sadly) and chased up some info. The film is called ‘Gabriel’. It’s an Australian film made for peanuts, which is strange considering the genre.
It’s a … um, I guess the genre that most describes it would be…. Hm. I suppose it would be a sci-fi/ mythological/ fantasy/ religion/ action/ drama. I’d class it in the same realm as films like 'Constantine' and 'Underworld'. I watched it in its’ entirety – which not everyone did, about half the two-dozen-strong audience walked out in the first thirty minutes – and the most lasting affect the film has had on me is to make me wonder why / how film makers with little funding would try to tackle a film in a style synonymous with huge budgets.
The film itself is watchable on two levels: as an experiment in filmmaking or if you can ignore the home-made style special fx. Which is what I found interesting. In an age when a ten year old can create animation or special fx on their home PC, surely having no budget and making a film would be easier than it was twenty years ago. Not entirely true.
Apart from the distraction of the varying accents (the film is set in purgatory and therefore all the characters have ‘neutral’ accents, but many of the actors – with the exception of the lead – have significant trouble keeping it constant and will slide into American or English) I also found myself unable to concentrate on the (occasionally trite and corny) dialogue because I kept watching the background.
Wait, this is all way too unstructured. Let me pause, regather and continue.
Films have been made on low budgets before. Comedies, dramas and quiet little stories with local settings and local talent. What is not often attempted (these days) is to try and make a film with a fantastic setting that will involve a lot of computer intervention – with a tiny budget.
Reality can be replicated easily enough (easily, read: cheaply). Purgatory is a little harder to create for the camera. Even though inexpensive computers are now capable of creating masterful fx, when put up on the big screen, you realise that the ridiculous budgets of Hollywood films really are put to use.
The fx serve their purpose in this film, even add to the tone of the setting and the mood of the film. They are simply not as polished as in films that have become the norm. So I don’t think domestic computers are capable of meeting corporate-made fx just yet, but kudos to the ‘Gabriel’ crew for trying. It works in its own way.
I realise that my assessment of this film seems to only discuss flaws, but I actually encourage those interested to go see it. It’s an Aussie movie, a bonus on its own, with moodiness reminiscent of ‘The Matrix’ and some decent action. The main character is strong enough to carry a film and is very watchable. If nothing else, just go see it to see what is possible even without hundreds of millions of dollars.
It’s a … um, I guess the genre that most describes it would be…. Hm. I suppose it would be a sci-fi/ mythological/ fantasy/ religion/ action/ drama. I’d class it in the same realm as films like 'Constantine' and 'Underworld'. I watched it in its’ entirety – which not everyone did, about half the two-dozen-strong audience walked out in the first thirty minutes – and the most lasting affect the film has had on me is to make me wonder why / how film makers with little funding would try to tackle a film in a style synonymous with huge budgets.
The film itself is watchable on two levels: as an experiment in filmmaking or if you can ignore the home-made style special fx. Which is what I found interesting. In an age when a ten year old can create animation or special fx on their home PC, surely having no budget and making a film would be easier than it was twenty years ago. Not entirely true.
Apart from the distraction of the varying accents (the film is set in purgatory and therefore all the characters have ‘neutral’ accents, but many of the actors – with the exception of the lead – have significant trouble keeping it constant and will slide into American or English) I also found myself unable to concentrate on the (occasionally trite and corny) dialogue because I kept watching the background.
Wait, this is all way too unstructured. Let me pause, regather and continue.
Films have been made on low budgets before. Comedies, dramas and quiet little stories with local settings and local talent. What is not often attempted (these days) is to try and make a film with a fantastic setting that will involve a lot of computer intervention – with a tiny budget.
Reality can be replicated easily enough (easily, read: cheaply). Purgatory is a little harder to create for the camera. Even though inexpensive computers are now capable of creating masterful fx, when put up on the big screen, you realise that the ridiculous budgets of Hollywood films really are put to use.
The fx serve their purpose in this film, even add to the tone of the setting and the mood of the film. They are simply not as polished as in films that have become the norm. So I don’t think domestic computers are capable of meeting corporate-made fx just yet, but kudos to the ‘Gabriel’ crew for trying. It works in its own way.
I realise that my assessment of this film seems to only discuss flaws, but I actually encourage those interested to go see it. It’s an Aussie movie, a bonus on its own, with moodiness reminiscent of ‘The Matrix’ and some decent action. The main character is strong enough to carry a film and is very watchable. If nothing else, just go see it to see what is possible even without hundreds of millions of dollars.
| 59 |
| Vote |
Shared on
Subscribe to this blog
