Director: Samuel J. Punto
Writer: Samuel J. Punto & Charys Schuler
Cast: Samuel J. Punto, David Juarez, Peter McGiffin, Jeff Book, Charys Schuler
Running time: 17mins
The Grate Director is a short comedy about a young filmmaker being brutally chastised non-diegetically by a pompous, English voice; insisting it is better to make nothing at all, than to sacrifice the purity of dreams in the service of “mediocrity”. If this were a Facebook post from a decade ago, I would have clicked “I’m In This Photo and I Don’t Like It“.
This is the third film Samuel J. Punto has submitted to Indy Film Library, and it’s a complete step-change from his previous work. Verzerrung was an experimental short about social alienation, while The Holding Room was a disturbing serial-killer drama. But perhaps this is to be expected of someone who repeatedly references Stanley Kubrick (whose diverse filmography somehow includes The Shining, 2001: A Space Odyssey, and Dr. Strangelove) in this latest script.
Whether Punto has traversed those three genres quite as successfully at this stage is up for debate – but it would also be a ridiculous debate to have on the basis of three films produced during the explorative opening of the filmmaker’s career. This is a movie which was produced knowing that Rome was not built in a day, and it is important not to play it safe when learning the ropes – with a story that embraces the virtues of failing fast, and finding out what works and what does not.
That’s an admirable message to deliver to other filmmakers, but it’s another thing to actually live by it – and it’s commendable that Punto has committed to do that here. In the process of this fail-fast project, he has stumbled upon a number of successful formulae, which he will be able to deploy in future stories. But there are also less-enjoyable features in this warts-and-all final product, which he will need to adapt or pivot away from.
In part, I have to take a little of the blame for that – considering Punto literally sent me the script he and Charys Schuler wrote, asking for feedback. I took three months to give him any response, by which time 95% of filming was complete. So, some of this is going to be me playing Captain Hindsight – which I have to apologise for (though in future, if asking for feedback, it is a good idea to include a deadline for it to be delivered by).
There is a lack of context for the relationship between The Director (played by Punto himself) and his assistant director Josh (David Juarez). Considering the story is about a filmmaker whose ideas outstrip his means, we need some kind of explanation as to why Josh is just so invested in a project that he is so often the fall-guy for. When the expensive camera is stolen, when the script isn’t finished, when the crew fight, The Director vanishes, and leaves his long-suffering colleague to pick up the pieces. Josh is good at it – but beyond that, it’s never clear why he would stick around to fulfil this thankless role. So, outlining this friendship is really important to making the story work – as well as inserting a level of personal jeopardy into proceedings which many low-budget filmmakers actually face. Working with your friends is cheap, and can yield good results, but it also puts your most treasured relationships under huge strain – and the risk is that they do not always recover from that process.
Further, it might have been worth explaining why any of the crew are willing to put up with The Director – who, despite his grand title, has never actually completed a project, and is not paying for anyone’s time. Robert (Jeff Book) in particular seems to utterly resent being involved as the director of photography – bristling relentlessly at any interaction with the rest of the crew. He needs an arc that never emerges. So, while his spiky dialogue, and barking of “Noooo” as a response to any request is initially a refreshing and humorous contrast to the other crew (the relentlessly sunny assistant Charlie, played by Charys Schuler, or the catatonic sound-guy Seth, played by Ethan Punto), eventually, he just seems like a jerk, who only seems to be present because he wants to be performatively cruel to the other people there.
That is one example of how sometimes the jokes in The Grate Dictator simply don’t work, however many times they circle back. But that being said, some genuinely surprise you when they actually pay off – and that’s when you find yourself laughing out loud. One case of this is the repeated misspelling of title cards, one of which intentionally/unintentionally suggests the director is about to cast the first of many incompetent or stupid people.
At the same time, the splendid rich voice of the narrator (Peter McGiffin) is an absurd beat at first, because no offense to Punto, but he’s not going to grow into a plummy, aristocratic drawl – however long he is working in the industry for. But when it transpires that this is actually the voice of his inner monologue in the present day – rather than an accomplished filmmaker, smugly looking back on his younger days – it is a genuinely funny moment, that says a lot about the frame of mind the character is in. There are some fun moments where the story plays with this device, breaking the fourth-wall in a way that manages to actually be endearing and engaging – while thankfully avoiding the abrasively knowing fourth-wall shenanigans seen in films like Deadpool.
Though their delivery could have been sharpened a little – some of the interactions feel a little like an early read-through, rather than an organic argument – the cast also largely put in a decent shift. The slight problem is that nobody comes close to matching the performance of Juarez – whose energy and commitment gives the rest of the actors a bit of an unflattering contrast. In key moments, Juarez carries the film, though – which is why I think it is even more of a shame that he wasn’t given more of a chance to outline his relationship with The Director. Even so, he manages in moments to bring a genuine gravitas to proceedings, even when the dialogue isn’t particularly weighty. At the same time, what I think is most impressive is that he can go from emotional clout to comedy so easily – illustrated by an audition scene where he genuinely convinces as a character who ‘can’t act’.
There are missed opportunities here, too. While doing his ‘bad actor’ schtick, Juarez is doing something strange with his arms. Apparently, he could not remember the dialogue, and so wrote every line on his arm – but from where the camera is sitting, his arms look completely unblemished. If Punto really wanted to stick this landing, there needed to be a close-up of the arm-writing which could underwrite this punchline. Alternatively, this could have been taken in a different direction, where an actor gets through the audition having ‘remembered’ dialogue this way, only to get onto set and be unable to control their muscle memory, habitually flexing their arms into odd positions even though they can remember their lines now. Perhaps a bit of Strangelove arm-based comedy – just without the same connotations…
Following on from this, the film has another chance to really come to life during the second round of casting prats. A montage kicks off promising to really show off some amusingly untalented individuals – and this could be used to cram in some extra laughs in a comedy of under 17 minutes. The main issue is that few of the procession of candidates do as good a job at being ‘bad’ as Juarez did. One gushes offputtingly about the opportunity, and his need to stay humble, one is just monotonously boring, but the crimes of the rest – in auditioning for the part of a murderous gangster – seem to be that they are too convincing, and legitimately scare the Grate Director himself. That means, when ‘the good one’ delivers his lines relatively well – but rules himself out by asking what the pay will be for the role – the joke doesn’t really land. There are other equally good options, and they will do it for free…
At the same time, the dialogue in the sequence finds itself competing with an obnoxiously-loud faux-Iggy Pop track, which makes it hard to concentrate on the auditions. The audio mix does reduce the levels of the song a little when the characters are speaking, but not by enough – especially as the singer delivers up gruff verses of his own to compete with the sometimes quite-gentle lines offered up by the actors.
Even so, the film manages to pull itself together for a likeable ending, in part thanks again to the efforts of Juarez, who delivers a tub-thumping final speech to thwart the super ego of the disembodied narrator, and rouse The Director from his depression to actually make a film. It doesn’t matter if it’s ‘crap’, “make it YOUR crap” might not sound like the kind of thing you would want to lean into when producing your first movie – but looking at the sweep of history in IFL’s more-than 400 reviews, I wish more people would live by it.
So often, independent filmmakers without the means try to deliver projects with the same production values, and the same ideas, as Hollywood. And universally that process delivers not only crap, but boring crap. A pale-photocopy of a photocopy, devoted to recreating something which was already a flaccid and tame procession of establishment ideas. A tribute act which plays Oasis covers.
But the limitations of independent cinema are also its salvation. The structural inequalities we contend with in this space are ripe for reinvention, for finding creative ways to cut corners and deliver something new. It’s why studio horror films are so often outflanked by their low-budget rivals.
I won’t suggest for a second that The Grate Dictator is ‘crap’, but it is unashamedly Punto’s film. Rough around the edges, but an engaging and enjoyable experiment, which will lay the foundation for some excellent work in years to come. It is not trying to be something it is not, or to parrot the same tedious beats of a mainstream comedy. Most importantly, perhaps, this is reflected in what it is using its laughs for. Eventually, it transpires that this was all to make a point about living with ADHD – how it can both inhibit artists when it comes to attention to detail, but also how it can help creators to think outside the box, and build exciting new worlds.
And what better way is there to leave a pompous, English critic feeling like they have no more grounds to nag about a piece of art, than that?
Over the trajectory of Samuel J. Punto’s submissions to Indy Film Library, there has been such a wonderful variety of projects. None of them were perfect – but in a way, that’s the most exciting thing of all. He is fearless in his experimentation, and that has equipped him with the tools to make something really masterful in the future, provided he takes his time, and is willing to adapt his vision to fit his means. This film suggests he is learning to do just that – so I can’t wait to see what the future holds.