Tuesday, June 30, 2009

#6: Keith (Kessler, 2008)

[NOTE: This film uses tired ideas to do some wonderful things. Embracing that theme, I’ve decided to riddle the review with fun clichés. See how many you can find!]

Keith is enjoyable, if not enchanting. In the interest of disclosure, however, I should point out its few substantial flaws before selling it to you as one of last year’s hidden gems.

Keith production still

Keith (2008) production still

Keith, why so serious?


This is director Todd Kessler’s first motion picture and traces of his inexperience are evident all throughout. The first scene focuses on a digital alarm clock reading “5:59” and a seasoned audience member can expect some beeping at six. Seconds later, our suspicions are confirmed and our protagonist crawls out of bed to face her day. At this point, I could very well be describing an opening sequence in hundreds of different novice works. Visual and structural bromides like these show us Kessler is not yet an auteur with a capital “A.”

He and co-writer David Zabel have zero previous screenwriting credits. IMDB states their script is based originally on a short story by Ron Carlson. There’s nothing there to indicate Carlson borrowed his idea from the dozens of other artists who have been suckling the tit of popular young girl with everything to gain is seduced by mysterious bad-boy with nothing to lose for centuries. Honestly, if I didn’t have a thesaurus within arm’s reach, I probably wouldn’t make it through this review without typing the word “generic” a half-dozen times.

Are you excited to watch Keith yet? I told you just a few paragraphs ago that you should be—don’t let my uncontrollable urges to highlight flawed writing and lackluster mise-en-scene scare you away from the film's great acting and emotional resonance.

Keith is not groundbreaking in story (I won't detail all the romantic plot points, but know there are more clichés than a Uwe Boll marathon, though they are mostly excusable), several of the film’s best scenes are derivative but you might be surprised to find yourself smiling instead of groaning. Instead, Keith is a finely paced, spirited showcase for two talented actors who admirably embrace their characters.

Keith (Jesse McCartney) has seen Rebel Without a Cause (if not a few Neil LaBute plays) but is perhaps less disaffected than he aspires to be. McCartney is good in a role that doesn’t need him to be half as nuanced or charming as Natalie (played expertly by Elisabeth Harnois).

Natalie is blessed with academic success, a supportive family, and athletic prowess, but she isn’t the type to write “carpe diem” in her day planner. The girl will eventually meet the boy and this boy will profoundly change that girl, we've heard that tune before, but the characters give it a fresh life. She may have untapped potential, but Natalie’s interests, urges, and aspirations exist well before Keith enters the stage. It’s refreshing when she doesn’t need the insights of a wild-eyed new guy to awaken her character from a personality coma. (And it’s a minor miracle that she never dates a jerkish quarterback. There is a secondary love interest, Raphael, but he is by no stretch a hurtful or manipulative guy).

still from Keith (2008)

Keith (2008)

Keith's arrival makes Natalie reconsider her world view. Another classic example of the "4-WAY Stop Blues."



The two develop a bond in their chemistry class (you see what I did there?) and their friendship evolves naturally. As we would expect, Keith shows Natalie the fun in coloring outside the lines. Keith throws out the “picnic rulebook” in their first adventure; they sneak into the conference room of a busy law firm to enjoy a lunch of Twinkies and Slim Jims. When the pair is eventually noticed, Keith is actually saved by Natalie’s quick talking and creative wit. Scenes like these allow Todd Kessler to turn a generic concept into an endearing and genuinely touching movie.

Final score: 81 out of 100.

2 comments:

coldincline said...

Keith is played by Jesse McCartney.

mmmtravis said...

You are absolutely right; it has been corrected.

Thanks for pointing out the error.