It had been a few weeks since I had seen one of the Sonnet Project films, so I was looking forward to this one. The text seems to find a man trying to somehow convince himself that an infidelity, or loss of a partner is somehow not so bad and maybe can work in some way, even though it clearly will not. This is delivered fairly straight, with a man pondering this from afar while another man sits with the woman he loves. Reading the text I found it a hard one to really put into context as to why the writer would think and speak this way – what is going on that this is something they are dealing with in this fashion? I wasn't sure and unfortunately the film doesn't shed much light on that either.
The man stands off, justifying things, before convincing himself of a conclusion and rushing in, only to find out how wrong he was. I won't pretend that it made total sense to me as to why – not the fault of the film perhaps, since I didn't get the conclusion drawn in the final few lines. That said, I was hoping it would help but mostly it does not – it just delivers the words. I did like the performance from Patterson though, he was expressive with it and I did feel that while he was delivering the lines, he was trying to work something through in his own head. I did have a reservation about him though, and that is that he does not come over 'straight'. It is maybe an odd thing to say and I apologize if that is offensive, but everything about him seemed to suggest that the film was simply subverting the use of him/her by having the woman be the 'other man' – and it was the casting of Patterson that made me assume that since it seemed so obvious and deliberate.
A so-so delivery then, as it doesn't really add much to the text itself, and, while I liked some aspects of Patterson's performance, I do think his casting was a distraction by virtue of him not fitting the words and feelings he had to deliver.
The man stands off, justifying things, before convincing himself of a conclusion and rushing in, only to find out how wrong he was. I won't pretend that it made total sense to me as to why – not the fault of the film perhaps, since I didn't get the conclusion drawn in the final few lines. That said, I was hoping it would help but mostly it does not – it just delivers the words. I did like the performance from Patterson though, he was expressive with it and I did feel that while he was delivering the lines, he was trying to work something through in his own head. I did have a reservation about him though, and that is that he does not come over 'straight'. It is maybe an odd thing to say and I apologize if that is offensive, but everything about him seemed to suggest that the film was simply subverting the use of him/her by having the woman be the 'other man' – and it was the casting of Patterson that made me assume that since it seemed so obvious and deliberate.
A so-so delivery then, as it doesn't really add much to the text itself, and, while I liked some aspects of Patterson's performance, I do think his casting was a distraction by virtue of him not fitting the words and feelings he had to deliver.