In the course of researching a review,
I was clicking through Whedon’s Internet Movie Database page for one reason or another
and saw an entry for a movie that not only had I never heard of but came out one year before 'Age of Ultron'.
'In Your Eyes' is the second release from Bellwether Pictures,
the L.A. based production studio
founded by Joss Whedon and his wife, Kai Cole.
The movie was written by Whedon,
directed by Brin Hill,
and stars Michael Stahl-David
and Zoe Kazan.
The first picture made by Bellwether was the Whedon written and directed adaptation of 'Much Ado About Nothing',
that I, despite being a major Shakespeare and Whedon buff,
have not been able to bring myself to watch.
It’s just...*sniffle*
...It's too soon okay?!?
Bellwether Pictures mission statement
(and I got this off their Wikipedia entry as I couldn’t find a website for them)
is to bring micro-budget movies to an audience, bypassing a traditional studio structure.
It’s an admirable project, something Whedon gets to give life to by virtue of his other successes.
As I mentioned, a year after 'In Your Eyes' released came 'Age of Ultron'.
I think expectations are important when it comes to independent films,
especially ones with fantasy or science fiction ambitions.
Just as when sampling food, there is value in preparing your palate for what you’re about to eat
rather than treating every meal like black truffle night at the Michelin Star award ceremony.
So, before we get into the review,
let’s consider what the term “micro-budget” actually means
by making a totally illogical comparison between two movies,
purely because their names are similar.
'In Your Eyes' had a reported total budget of about a million (1,000,000) dollars.
'For Your Eyes Only',
which I googled more than once by accident while researching this review,
had a budget of 28 million dollars back in 1981.
Reportedly Roger Moore, the most embarrassing Bond in the history of the part
(Timothy Dalton FTW)
made 7 million dollars from the film.
That's SEVEN In Your Eyes-es!
Effective low budget in film inevitably means simplicity.
Generally, simplicity of design.
But it does NOT mean simplicity of concept.
Dylan and Rebecca live on opposite sides of the country, unaware of each other’s presence
until one day when Rebecca is sledding and Dillon experiences the journey through her eyes,
and suffers a similar fate when she hits a tree.
Dylan’s penchant for being a smart man who hangs out with scumbags
continues into his adult life,
as we discover he is now on parole having taken the fall for the crimes of his two degenerate friends.
Rebecca has married a successful and professionally consumed man
who manages her as though she were a tool in his company.
"--thingys."
"Oh, yes. Thank you."
[stop-y hand]
"She's good."
[gossip]
Dylan is also terribly insecure around women,
for reasons we never quite learn or understand.
And because we never get to the heart of Dylan’s insecurity
and it comes in the form of
liquid man-tastic that is Michael Stahl-David,
it feels a little bit like a detail created purely for some situational comedy later on.
A problem that comes up a couple of times for me with the movie’s plot.
More on that in a bit.
One day, while Dylan is late for work and rushing down the road, he and Rebecca have a breakthrough.
"Can you hear me?"
[heavy breathing]
Through experimentation, they discover they can’t hear each other's thoughts,
but they do experience each other’s senses.
As they get to know each other, they discover that they’ve been sharing experiences throughout their lifetime without realizing.
It is the unfolding of their relationship that is the most joyful aspect of the movie,
along with the delightful implications of their shared senses.
Zoe Kazan and Michael Stahl David give charming, extremely watchable performances
that somehow conjure chemistry
in a relationship occurring between two characters that are almost never in the same room together.
It’s very fun to watch.
It’s almost a shame then that the movie had to have a plot
because almost nothing about THIS plot feels in service of these two engaging characters.
They are both presented predictable obstacles to overcome that feel perfunctory to me.
Plots created for characters from other lesser movies,
not for the characters being embodied by Zoe and David.
Dylan’s problems with his past
and Rebecca’s choice of husband
spiral into a series of irrelevant set pieces
ending in a strange finale that all felt like a distraction from what I really wanted to watch,
the two of them falling in love with each other.
Or maybe, discovering the love for each other they always had.
But let me be clear:
I absolutely enjoyed 'In Your Eyes' and I do recommend it.
Call it a bias for fun fantasy concepts and characters with chemistry.
It’s a really powerful idea, this notion of shared experience,
and reminded me of one my favorite latter season 'Star Trek (:The Next Generation)' episodes,
'Attached',
in which Picard and Beverly end up psychically linked
and share an intimacy in their relationship they’d never discovered before.
It’s a fun concept, for a reason I think that is simple and profound.
This is definitely a Whedon script,
as evidenced by the characters and the Whedonific dialogue:
“Methinks the man doth protest too much.”
[laughs]
“I’ve pretty much thought that you were PMS.”
“Yeah, a lot of people get us mixed up.”
The movie is admirably directed.
I liked what Brin Hill did with color to distinguish between Dylan and Rebecca’s perspective,
and how that comes together at the end.
There are also a couple sequences in which he found really clever ways of portraying their shared experiences in a single space.
Moments I won’t explain here for spoilers,
but moments that for me verged on visual poetry at times.
But ultimately, it’s the performances of the two leads and their supernatual connection
that carried 'In Your Eyes' for me.
I stumbled on an AskReddit question I’ve been kicking myself since for not saving.
The question was,
"Why do you think fiction is valuable (as opposed to non-fiction)?"
"Why does it serve a purpose in culture?"
And my favorite answer pointed out
that the nature of the human experience is that it is an inherently solo one.
Utterly linear.
Thoroughly rooted in one single perspective,
yours.
But fiction, multiplies that experience.
Allows us to live other lives and other experiences in our imagination.
I wonder if that isn’t part of love’s value as well?
There is some freedom in coming to grips with that part of the human experience is to be lonely.
It’s not something to be afraid of or to run from.
In fact, resistance can make the ache inflamed.
Loneliness is just a part of the human condition.
In a crowd of a hundred we are still alone, trapped in our own heads.
Separated by millimeters of bone, a bit of flesh and the gulf of individual experience.
Sometimes, the possibility of two people coming together seems an unlikely miracle,
especially when its beginnings are supposed to occur from the woefully inadequate nourishment of language.
And sometimes I find myself wallowing in that perspective.
Dealing with my own loneliness by employing a sort of defensive resignation.
But watching 'In Your Eyes', I was reminded partially of why we choose to pursue love,
reminded in a way your average, middle of the road romantic comedy can’t manage.
Relationships can be work.
And tedious.
And agony.
But at the pinnacle of that experience, there is probably our greatest opportunity for connection.
Those brief frozen moments in time
when we can’t find where we end and the ones we’re with begin.
Where we finally know, and are known, by someone else,
...if only for a moment.
“I mean, the best thing..."
"...the ONLY thing..."
about me that I like,..."
"...is you.”