FILM REVIEW: Nobody Loves You And You Don't Deserve To Exist - Chapeltown Picture House, Manchester.

Billed as a Manchester film, the only real connection to this city is that it was filmed here using the city's creative talent both infront of and behind the camera. This soon-to-be-released feature by Brett Gregory and Serious Feather, with the overlong title of, "Nobody Loves You And You Don't Deserve To Exist", is a rather long (110 minutes), and unsatisfying watch. Allow me to elaborate:

It is quite clear that much thought and attention to detail has gone in to the production of this film. From the quality of cameras used, to the choice of each individual frame, to the colours, the lighting, and even the mood music in the background. There is much to admire from a technical and photographic point of view. The quality of the actors chosen is not ever in question; they are all extremely talented and have given much consideration to their roles, bringing about excellent characterisations in their individual scenes. So what is it about it that makes it so unsatisfying?

I am a huge fan of retro European cinema, especially the films from France and eastern Europe, and so am more than used to extensive scenes where there is little or no dialogue, and long sequences where hardly anything actually happens. I am used to changes in mood and tempo, and odd juxtapositions of images and thought processes. I was not however, prepared for what this film had to offer. On the one hand, this is not a feature film in any conventional sense of the phrase, and yet it is advertised as such; neither is it a documentary (or even mockumentary) either. Instead it seems to sit somewhat uncomfortably between the two genres not really knowing where to go. Every scene has a single person only in it [ideal for lockdown filming I imagine - but not ideal for a viewing public]. Every scene is a monologue [some being far more theatrical than others and would work well as stand-alone items in a theatrical showcase], and each monologue is delivered directly to the camera. What effect does this have? On the one hand it makes it more intimate and I imagine perhaps the director wants us to be closer to the characters by employing this technique. It is as if we are sitting the other side of the table interviewing the characters for most of it. However, this also has a distancing effect, making us not accomplices in the story, but simply bystanders and narrators of it, unaffected by it - especially if this technique is repeated in every scene with every character as it is here. So ultimately, we have to ask ourselves whether or not we care about this film and the outcome of it's protagonist; and the simple answer is no, we don't. 

I also feel that the directing (Brett Gregory) is very self-indulgent, trying to wring out every ounce of meaning from every millisecond of shot, which is why the film drags. There is symbolism and imagery aplenty throughout, some more obvious than others. Ones which stuck with me were: the use of Hieronymus Bosch's famous triptych, 'The Garden Of Earthly Delights' which was seen in every indoor location, and obviously used a metaphor for our character, Jack's, story. Others came in the form of a long sequence where the young Jack [in his only scene in the film] is taking his dog for a walk, and in the time he spends talking to the camera, and the distance he covers doing this, there is no sight nor sound of any dog. Again, this is, I believe, a deliberate metaphor for the empty life Jack leads, and the trials and suffering he encounters along his way - even calling out the mythical dog's name in his final throes as a middle-aged man in despair. He also laboriously drags behind him [like the ghost of Marley in A Christmas Carol drags his chains] a large suitcase which when opened is empty - again a metaphor for his life perhaps. One does wonder why though, a rather obvious and large phallus-shaped object was chosen as his place of haven and refuge, and not the mammary-shaped hill upon which it stands... - perhaps Freud could help here?

There is one element in this film though which I feel I must mention. Three seperate actors had been chosen to play Jack at three stages of his life: as a child, as a twenty-something, and at middle-age. We are told that as a young boy, he moved from down south, and was bullied because his accent was posh. His grandmother (whom we hear only as a voice-over has a clipped RP). However, the young boy in this film didn't sound particularly southern and certainly not posh. His university-aged counterpart had a soft Mancunian pronunciation (not overt); whilst in his later years he seemed to have developed a definite Liverpool twang! Adnittedly, the three actors could conceivably and believably be their younger / older selves by looks, but certainly not vocally.

All in all, this film is thoughtful and moody; but has no real thread to it, other than to highlight how and why Jack is in the position he is. But who is Jack? and why should we care about him? It is a portrait of a man who has had bad luck and bad karma throughout his life; driven to the brink by nighmares and ill-luck; but the film is too 'clean' to convey this. In fact it is beatifully filmed, immaculately post-produced. There is no change in pitch, dynamic, narrative drive; nothing that moves the film forward. It is a series of talking tableaux. There is no natural background noise, we get no sense of his anguish or torment, other than by being given beautifully sculptured images, as if looking at a painting (we're back to Bosch). There is little or no story, and none of the characters ever interacts with any other, and so it becomes very static, predictable, and ultimately, boring and unsatisfying.

Reviewer - Matthew Dougall
on - 15.1.22