Title: For Ellen

Cast: Paul Dano, Jon Heder, Jena Malone and Margarita Levieva

Sometimes a film is trying too hard to be interesting and insightful. Sometimes a film is trying too hard to be something else. Sometimes a film is trying too hard to make a point in an engaging way. In the case of the new film by filmmaker So Yong Kim, “For Ellen,” it just tries too hard with a gain a great sense of direction, movement or character, which is something I know the movie is trying too hard to strive for.

“For Ellen” follows the story of Joby Taylor (Paul Dano), an aging rock star trying to capture glory but is held down by his paternal responsibilities. When we first meet Joby he is driving his car to an unknown location, the director deliberately holds long close-up shots of Joby to capture the internal struggle within. But to the audience, there is simply nothing there. He is on his way to a separation settlement meeting, his past lover has given birth to a girl named Ellen and wants Joby to give up is rights as the child’s father in exchange for a settlement of a lump sum of money. Joby hasn’t been in this girl’s life for at least 6 years. He has never met her. But somehow he wants to challenge this settlement and try to claim his rights as a father.

Nothing in “For Ellen” is interesting. But it seems like there is because the way things are shot, long steady close-ups on Joby thinking, makes you think there is. Everything in this film is very surface level, and the fact that it is presented in a quasi-interesting way is probably the biggest strike against this film. Nuance is something that comes along with the investigation of fascinating characters, but when everything we need to know about Joby can be found in the first 3 minutes of this film, nothing can be really gained. Decisions made by the characters are never involved and feels so written, that I had a hard time believing that the actors involved didn’t get script pages only minutes before the director yelled “action.”

We know how this will play out and we know how it will happen, so how does the director spend the next 90 minutes of the 93 minutes running time, she displays long heavy-handed shots of landscapes and scenery. The heights this film is trying to strive for are the ones that can be easily found in Mike Leigh’s “Naked” or Bob Rafelson’s “Five Easy Pieces,” only in those films seeing a character’s narrative arc is far more engaging and involved. This is no easy feat, I know, and Paul Dano does his best to really elevate this material but I feel the filmmaker was more satisfied with delivering middling, hallow pseudo art house flair.

The main difference between Joby Taylor and “Naked’s” Johnny (David Thewlis) and “Five Easy Pieces'” Bobby Dupree is the latter were ambiguous. They were hard edged yet charming, troubled and self-loathing yet had this certain persona to them. Joby Taylor seems lost without the charm. Why are people gravitated to him? Why do they continue to give him the benefit of the doubt? It’s not his talent as a musician because that is never really shown that he is this rock star genius, rather it shows him struggling with his craft as a mid-level singer and musician. We can’t latch on to him because there’s is nothing to latch on to, only surface level.

Which is a shame, “For Ellen” seemed to have something going for it but it was trying way too hard to be something else and what was sacrificed was involvement from the audience. The “impact” of the ending is never really felt, and some would argue, is it theft or homage? If it’s theft, then shame on you and you will never reach the heights of that certain film. I will not say in the hopes not to spoil both that movie and “For Ellen” (but if you’ve seen it, you know what I’m talking about). But if it’s homage, then you didn’t deserve or earn it. “For Ellen” serves as a bad shortcut to cinema, writing and direction. It wants to gain that emotional or intellectual catharsis, but without the effort.

Technical: D+

Overall: D+

by @Rudie_Obias