Kung Fu Elliot

I saw Kung Fu Elliot last night at the New Zealand International Film Festival.

It looks like it premiered here and it was only getting two screenings in a very small cinema, so I guess no one else will have seen it? It doesn't seem like it'll be a big film internationally.

But I think it's an interesting film to watch. It's a documentary about a Canadian guy who wants to/is creating a Kung Fu film scene in Canada. The guy is completely deluded (I won't say any more for the sake of spoilers), but here's the trailer which gives you an idea: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoNLanfCMGo

It's pretty hilarious, and made me think of a few of the famous threads we get here with people aggressively rejecting criticism, insisting they're essentially god's gift to filmmaking, then eventually everything crashing down around them in a simultaneously horribly depressing but probably deserved manner. For that aspect alone, I thought of IndieTalk, and us all being aspiring filmmakers, an interesting and relatable film for ITers to watch.

But there were a few things that I think are worth discussion (it'd obviously help if anyone here has seen it).

1) Ethics of documentary making - the film concludes at the very end with Elliot's life beginning to fall to pieces. The documentary crew is no longer welcome. Most of the documentary is clearly aimed at making fun of Elliot - and it does so pretty hilariously. But part of that comedy is that Elliot doesn't realise he's pathetic and hilarious. Further, at the end of the film, we see some pretty private moments that would further upset his personal life. Regardless of him doing anything wrong and signing waivers - is it fair for the documentary crew to document this? Obviously it makes far more interesting watching, but on the other you're also contributing to messing up someone's life. And it is pretty apparent in the final scenes, Elliot doesn't want certain stuff documented... but it is

How do people feel about that? A lot of that material is really great watching, but is it morally ok? If not, why do we let documentaries do this to people so often?

2) Audio. Holy crap. The sound sucked. You know when you make your first film on your handycam and you're audio has this hissing, so you cleverly fade that out between lines of dialogue (but in reality this makes it even more noticable)? That. And for the most part you could hear where one track started and ended. How did this happen?? The rest of the film is fairly well constructed in terms of narrative and cinemtography. It's clear they had a low budget, but... how?? And how did it get into a semi-difficut festival to get into (it's not a real competition festival, but the festival pretty much just takes winners from the top tier festivals and screens them in NZ)? Is story really enough?

There was a shot at the start with a dude standing in the corner of a shot with a zoom (or something similar) and it looked like he was holding it the wrong way. It was unclear if it was someone that Elliot had taken himself to his "autographing session," or part of the filmmaking crew. I suspect the latter, since Elliot was just using a handycam for everything he did. The fact they were using a zoom (handheld) the wrong way would explain the terrible sound. I figured it would be a low budget shoot, but they had the money to go to China to follow Elliot! Is it just some fresh/first time filmmakers who have a talent for pulling together a narrative in a cohesive way and had a killer story getting lucky? I was baffled.

Interestingly, while I could barely put the audio issues aside, and found them incredibly distracting, my girlfriend didn't notice it at all. Nor did my friend who saw it a few days earlier. So perhaps I'm just being an overly critical filmmaker (though I didn't really think it was acceptable).



There are a few more points I'd like to discuss, but I really don't want to spoil the film as it's best to go in cold imo. But I'd recommend the film for entertainment and relevance to ITers alone. It's quite flawed in quite a number of areas, but those two factors alone make it enjoyable watching.
 
The trailer looks like it could be a mockumentary as well :P

On the ethics: I thinks it can be really inappropriate to make an invasive documentary.
But somehow loonies in deep shit can make interesting stories :P

I'd at least want to watch this one :)
 
Well the mockumentary thing was what I was trying to not spoil :P it's advertised as a documentary, and for all of the film facades a documentary. The final 20 minutes or so make a point about how much we can believe of someone (and of documentary) and its kind of ambiguous. I didn't want to spoil that though, as I found that more enjoyable going in cold :P A Couple of the reviews I've read treat it as non-fiction, and it is certainly designed in a way that seems non-fiction. But there is a moment or two that seem fictionalised - but it's never clear either way. The film makes you question how much of Elliot's life is real and how much is him being deluded, before (at least, to me) asking the audience to evaluate how much of the film (and by extension, documentary in general) is real. I think it's a really interesting conclusion to the film, and an interesting discussion. But one needs to see the film first really. Though, as I've said, all criticism treats it as a piece of non-fiction.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top