Effects


The term “independent film” has changed drastically over the years. It once referred to a small group of people coming together to make a film on almost no budget, often just for the passion of filmmaking; today, Hollywood has twisted it into a farce, to the point where anything made for 15 million dollars seems to qualify. Major studios have whole divisions designed for this type of “independent film production,” which is independent in name only. Back in the 1970s, when the term held its much more meager meaning, a number of filmmakers were building an industry in Pittsburgh that would produce some laudable works. The most influential of these was George Romero’s Dawn of the Dead. In Romero’s shadow, another film made by a small group of Romero’s collaborators was about to appear. Though it cannot hope to compete with the grandeur of Dawn, Effects is an interesting puzzle of a film that’s worth a look for Romero fans.


After its title appears in white on a stark, black background, the movie begins with a number of quick shots of various pieces of equipment in a film studio. Following a few close ups of technicians’ faces, the camera picks up a monitor that gives information about a movie that’s presumably being edited (Pay close attention to this screen. It’s a vital clue to what’s transpiring in Effects). Cut to a long range shot of a small house set against what appears to be in the middle of a million trees. Inside, a woman with a very attractive body is showering. A man who appears to be her husband pops into the bathroom. As she peers into the mirror, someone yells, “Cut!” The camera pulls back to show a small crew recording the event. This was no real shower at all; instead, it’s a staged event for a film. The director, Lacey, pulls back the boom mike that records the sound, and discusses the shot with Dom, the director of photography.


All of this information is important. Dom has been hired to do camerawork and special effects for a movie they’re filming in the isolated wilds outside of Pittsburgh. He’s brought his camera and his work ethic, and he thinks it’s that simple. But as the movie progresses, Dom, and in turn the audience, finds out that things are nowhere near simple. In fact, nothing in this movie is what it initially seems. For instance: In one early scene, Dom gets into a fight with a jerk wearing an umbrella hat at a bar. Later, the jerk turns out to be a friend of Lacey’s, and part of the production. A while after the audience discovers this, Dom does. In another scene, when Lacey shows Dom and two other members of the production what appears to be a snuff film, he claims he got it from another director. As the three men sit and watch in awe and revulsion what could or could not be a real killing, Lacey then claims he filmed it himself. Several questions arise: Is Lacey’s first claim the truth, his second, or neither? Is there actually a death taking place on film? What is real here and what is illusion?


Based on William Mooney’s novel Snuff, Effects sports an intriguing concept. Nearly 20 years before Scream, it plays on the audience’s abilities to draw the line between verisimilitude and verity, forcing those who watch to question just how far that line pushes in either direction. As director Dusty Nelson describes it brilliantly in the commentary, “It’s like peeling back the layers of an onion.”


Unfortunately, the tedious pacing in several parts of it detract from what could have been a great movie. It’s a long time before our protagonist Dom realizes he’s in any real peril, and as soon as that happens, it seems like the film’s over in a flash. Had Nelson, also the screenwriter, devoted a little less time to the setup and more to the payoff, I would have enjoyed it much more.


Still, it’s a likeable film, mostly due to the portrayal of Dom by Day of the Dead’s Captain Rhodes himself, Joe Pilato. Those expecting to find him chewing scenery until his jaw falls off will be surprised, however. Pilato’s performance in Effects is much more nuanced. This role requires a much quieter, “normal guy” performance, and Pilato delivers. When the normal guy realizes he’s in conflict with some very evil men, Pilato’s Dom acts realistically. The rest of the actors come off just as they should, as normal people, with two exceptions: Tom Savini as Nicky, and John Harrison as Lacey. Savini goes about trying to steal every scene he’s in, especially when he’s wearing the umbrella hat. He’s a little too extroverted, but a lively contrast to the rest of the cast. Harrison’s performance is restrained to the point where I often wondered if he had himself confused with a Romero zombie. A reptilian, coldblooded character, Lacey is stone faced and callous, a detached sociopath whose response to everything is no response at all. I would have preferred a more robust performance in a lead role, but from what Harrison says in the documentary, Nelson actually told him to hold himself back. A poor choice.


Perhaps the greatest joy for Romero fans will be all the shots of the desolate countryside. It was very easy for me to imagine that, one or two farms over, scores of beer swilling rednecks were firing on zombies, and that Savini’s character would trade in his umbrella hat for a moustache comb.


Effects offers a nice set of extras, both in quantity and quality. First up is After Effects: Memories of Pittsburgh Filmmaking. Nelson, Pilato, Harrison, and sound guy/editor Pat Buba sit down with Romero at poolside for an hour long discussion of the film and the Pittsburgh film scene in the 1970s. Spruced in are comments from Savini and the three other lead actors from the cast, as well as others. A laidback affair, After Effects is at its best when Nelson and company talk about how much it meant to them to follow in Romero’s path, and just get a movie made. Clearly, Effects was a labor of love for Nelson, Harrison and Buba. I can forgive them the film’s faults knowing the passion that went into its making.


The other major feature is the audio commentary. The director sits down with Harrison and Buba for what is the most technical audio chat I’ve ever heard. The passion they displayed in the documentary is evident, but I’m not a film student, so their discussion of such matters as filming on end stock and their juggling lights for scenes did little for me. If you’re in film school, this commentary is best suited for you. All others will do themselves no harm by skipping it.


Two short films also accompany the feature. Harrison’s “Ubu” is a wild, experimental film that draws heavily on German expressionism. It’s too far out there for me to enjoy. Nelson’s “Beastie” isn’t what it’s title implies. It was only about ¾ of the way through it that I realized the other shoe was not going to drop, and that “Beastie” is not a horror story at all, but a glimpse into the human heart. It’s a cute little piece. A photo gallery offers little excitement, except for an apparently abandoned advertisement in which a director’s chair sports an alternate title for the film, “The Manipulator.” Given the subject of the film it’s actually a much stronger title than Effects.


In the late 1970s, three men who ran a company that produced television commercials and documentaries decided to make a film. Effects was their final product. As a narrative piece, it’s a decent work that could have done more with a great premise. More importantly, Effects is an artifact from an era long gone, when three men who ran a commercial company could make a movie that was truly independent.


--Phil Fasso