Protagonist Lucas immediately comes off as an arrogant, possessive, jealous, demanding pompous, reactionary, sexist, know-it-all jerk who isn't remotely likable. It's not a good start. Nor is the fact that Shan Serafin's script immediately overflows with such overbearing, self-important, pretentious, verbose dialogue and scene writing that, admittedly not knowing anything about him, the filmmaker himself comes off as arrogant and pompous just by virtue of what he's subjecting us to, as if he's saying "I'm smarter than you and this script is proof." Meanwhile, even Violet is written as tiresomely conceited, and Sophie Kargman is transparently being directed to play her in a manner as mechanical and inhuman as possible, so while the character is more likable than Lucas, it's not by much. It would be one thing if we as viewers were made to feel uncomfortable by the nature of Lucas and Violet's relationship, and the harsh energy of those dynamics astounded us, and drew us in; Richard Bates Jr did exactly this with his 2016 picture 'Trash fire,' and it was fantastic.
Yet Serafin's approach here isn't wry, only dead serious and rather egotistically forthright. Moreover, it's readily evident that Serafin is intending to tell a story of the mind, of two people who in their own ways are struggling with distorted conceptions of reality and subsequently come into conflict. Psychological horror or drama requires a delicate, nuanced touch, however - and as if the instruction Serafin imparted to Kargman isn't indication enough, it becomes very clear very quickly that 'The believer' is characterized by cold, precise, emphatic direction. There's barely a single moment that doesn't come across as the cinematic equivalent of the cliche in public speaking of a person slamming their hand into their fist to accentuate a line, and here it feels like Serafin is telling us over and over, "I am doing horror. This is smart. This is good. I am smart. You find this impactful." With all that firmly in mind, this as an instance in which crystal clear sound design, and crisp and vivid cinematography, don't do the movie any favors and only add to the heavy-handedness.
I've seen Kargman elsewhere and I know she's a good actor, and I see that skill buried beneath the writing and direction, aching to burst through; she was the reason I chose to watch this in the first place. We all know that Billy Zane is a good actor. I'm not familiar with the other folks involved but I trust that they, too, would illustrate their skills if given the opportunity. I think there are terrific ideas here in the scene writing, and in the plot, including those kernels of plot that are suggested through dialogue. I believe there does come a point, within about the last third of the length, that Serafin allows his ego to take a back seat in at least some measure to overall genre vibes, closing in instead on the sinister horror fun locked within of unreliable perception and the suggestions of something wonderfully wicked on the edges. As he does, there's no doubt in my mind that the heavy-handedness subsides, and in every capacity - the storytelling, the acting, even the original score - we see and feel the nuance, the possibilities, and the dread atmosphere that we should have been getting all along, and would have were it not for Serfin's spotlight on his own brain.
That last stretch is so strong, in fact, that my opinion of 'The believer' is elevated to some degree. The underhanded power and delight in Kargman's performance, the fear in Aidan Bristow's, the deviousness of the goings-on and of the broader implications, and the commensurate ambience that envelopes all this: these are what make this feature enjoyable. It's a shame that they're restricted to the last stretch, and that the single most dominant factor for almost the entire first hour is the severe and gawky enunciation of just how smart the script is, just look at all these words and phrases on these pages, look at the big brain on Serafin. Am I being facetious? A little bit. But only a little. Maybe I'll watch something else the man has made and I'll be impressed, and I'll see what he is capable of. As it is, I think what this title needed was for a second person to revise the screenplay, and to co-direct with Serafin, to limit his self-aggrandizing. And hey, maybe I'm wrong! Maybe I'm misreading everything, and I'm genuinely being unfair to the filmmaker. I'll admit it's possible. As I write this I know nothing of him beyond this film, so maybe I need a larger sample size. Then again, that allows me to assess this more objectively, even though I'm already a fan of Kargman - and, well...
I'm glad for those who get more out of 'The believer' than I do. I see what this could have been. The fact remains that in my opinion the value that peeks through in the last third or so, the value that helps upraise the whole, does so only because that's where Serafin deprioritizes himself. And maybe I'm being too kind as it is.
Yet Serafin's approach here isn't wry, only dead serious and rather egotistically forthright. Moreover, it's readily evident that Serafin is intending to tell a story of the mind, of two people who in their own ways are struggling with distorted conceptions of reality and subsequently come into conflict. Psychological horror or drama requires a delicate, nuanced touch, however - and as if the instruction Serafin imparted to Kargman isn't indication enough, it becomes very clear very quickly that 'The believer' is characterized by cold, precise, emphatic direction. There's barely a single moment that doesn't come across as the cinematic equivalent of the cliche in public speaking of a person slamming their hand into their fist to accentuate a line, and here it feels like Serafin is telling us over and over, "I am doing horror. This is smart. This is good. I am smart. You find this impactful." With all that firmly in mind, this as an instance in which crystal clear sound design, and crisp and vivid cinematography, don't do the movie any favors and only add to the heavy-handedness.
I've seen Kargman elsewhere and I know she's a good actor, and I see that skill buried beneath the writing and direction, aching to burst through; she was the reason I chose to watch this in the first place. We all know that Billy Zane is a good actor. I'm not familiar with the other folks involved but I trust that they, too, would illustrate their skills if given the opportunity. I think there are terrific ideas here in the scene writing, and in the plot, including those kernels of plot that are suggested through dialogue. I believe there does come a point, within about the last third of the length, that Serafin allows his ego to take a back seat in at least some measure to overall genre vibes, closing in instead on the sinister horror fun locked within of unreliable perception and the suggestions of something wonderfully wicked on the edges. As he does, there's no doubt in my mind that the heavy-handedness subsides, and in every capacity - the storytelling, the acting, even the original score - we see and feel the nuance, the possibilities, and the dread atmosphere that we should have been getting all along, and would have were it not for Serfin's spotlight on his own brain.
That last stretch is so strong, in fact, that my opinion of 'The believer' is elevated to some degree. The underhanded power and delight in Kargman's performance, the fear in Aidan Bristow's, the deviousness of the goings-on and of the broader implications, and the commensurate ambience that envelopes all this: these are what make this feature enjoyable. It's a shame that they're restricted to the last stretch, and that the single most dominant factor for almost the entire first hour is the severe and gawky enunciation of just how smart the script is, just look at all these words and phrases on these pages, look at the big brain on Serafin. Am I being facetious? A little bit. But only a little. Maybe I'll watch something else the man has made and I'll be impressed, and I'll see what he is capable of. As it is, I think what this title needed was for a second person to revise the screenplay, and to co-direct with Serafin, to limit his self-aggrandizing. And hey, maybe I'm wrong! Maybe I'm misreading everything, and I'm genuinely being unfair to the filmmaker. I'll admit it's possible. As I write this I know nothing of him beyond this film, so maybe I need a larger sample size. Then again, that allows me to assess this more objectively, even though I'm already a fan of Kargman - and, well...
I'm glad for those who get more out of 'The believer' than I do. I see what this could have been. The fact remains that in my opinion the value that peeks through in the last third or so, the value that helps upraise the whole, does so only because that's where Serafin deprioritizes himself. And maybe I'm being too kind as it is.