source: L for Leisure

Part documentary, part music video, part amateur theatre… zero percent cinema. It doesn't intend to be the former three but it does hope to be the latter. Lev Kalman and Whitney Horn's L for Leisure is a rather bizarre experiment but not necessarily an outlandish one. It's formed of episodic vignettes set across the globe during particular American holidays in late 1992 and early 1993. They follow college kids relaxing and partying alone or together while they muse upon their studies. However, it's a deliberately stilted film. If it were to be taken purely at face value – this would be abysmal. You have to assume that the performances are intentionally caricaturesque and it's operating on a desert-dry sense of irony. Taken on that level, the film is hilarious. While there are miniscule fragments of stories that don't lead or need to lead anywhere, the film's dialogue is comprised of pseudo-intellectual conversations and thought processes. It wants to be a study of the relationship between leisure and profession (in this case, potential profession) but it doesn't quite succeed. Sometimes it is relatable and thought provoking – particularly a brief poignant anxiety about not being good enough to execute your own artistic ideas – but other philosophies breach absurdist levels with how many straws they grasp. This is mostly due to how they're delivered unemotionally and insincerely. Frankly, non-actor cast or not, it's * grade acting. Not even a poor student film quality. It's actually kind of better for it, because the script would feel much more obnoxious taken more seriously, instead opting for this odd bewildering atmosphere. It results in quite a dreamy mood, perhaps reflecting the uncertainty of the ideas. That wistful aspect is certainly bolstered by its astounding original electronic soundtrack composed by John Atkinson. Part contemporary, part 90s nostalgic, it's simply too good for the film and not just in its production value. It doesn't gel with the image nor reflect a character's perspective. While the creative choice to shoot on 16mm film does have its homemade charm, it sacrifices a lot of the cinematic atmosphere and it feels as cheap as the film itself was to make. This is a melting pot of a lot of different things that just won't mix – but it's not necessarily an example of trying and failing, it's just an unusual direction that will click with very few. Even though I was initially repelled by the clumsiness, vagueness and blatant superficiality of its style and script, I couldn't help but be drawn in, even if just out of morbid curiosity. At the very least, if your sense of humour can fit in sync with its satirical nature, then it's entertaining enough on that level to pull you through. It's just really difficult to tell whether it's in on the joke or not. L for Leisure is the type of film where you can't decide whether it's dumb or brilliant. This is a bit of both, and its genuine awfulness and ironic awfulness balance out to an interesting and average quality movie, with certain compliments and reservations. It's worth watching for its short length (just shy of 70 minutes) if you're a fan of college films such as Harmony Korine's Spring Breakers or Richard Linklater's Dazed and Confused and films of their thematic ilk. Though perhaps this is too light of a portion for what it could have served. 6/10 Read more @ The Awards Circuit (http://www.awardscircuit.com/)

While slightly less atrocious than the team's first 'film' "Blondes in the Jungle", L for Leisure is the type of vapid cesspool that fills the void when talented, thoughtful filmmakers either lack the means of making films or simply promoting/distributing them. Centered around a group of smug, completely uninteresting, privileged "grad school students" who sit around smoking drugs and flaunting their privilege, this witless bore clocks in around 74 minutes, but feels at least twice as long. What's even worse, is that it's clearly not a commentary against these people, but presented as if they were lovable, relatable "characters" worth watching because they were able to film them. As with their first excretion (Blondes in the Jungle), the dialog is unbearable, the acting non- existent. (save, perhaps for one montage of a singe "character" out exploring the world on his own.) If it weren't for a handful (say 2-3) bad ideas, L for Leisure wouldn't contain any at all. Nobody should encourage or pay attention to anything these two do until they actually have something to say, a story to tell, some level of commentary or just plain anything. The fact that this has been screened as widely as it has it a crime against film and art. My only advice for the "directors" would be to find a new way to spend your trust fund, preferably one that doesn't drag audiences and entire cultural art forms through the mud along with you.

I caught this movie during the London Film Festival, part of my few random bookings to avoid only watching the higher profile flicks. Lucky for me. Rarely will I ever comment on a film, personally I like to experience films without intro or clue or expectation. So I wont be mentioning specifics. But what I will say is that as I saw all it's filmic influences and it's many original flourishes converge, as I experienced it's tone, its audacious style, as it stole big laughs from the strangest of places, as I thought of the joy that must've been had making it, as it surprised me at every turn, I was left in no doubt that this is a serious piece of art, and to me, a masterpiece. I hope this gets the audience it deserves. I urge you to track this down. An instant classic.

Trailer—L for Leisure

source: L for Leisure

Part documentary, part music video, part amateur theatre… zero percent cinema. It doesn't intend to be the former three but it does hope to be the latter. Lev Kalman and Whitney Horn's L for Leisure is a rather bizarre experiment but not necessarily an outlandish one. It's formed of episodic vignettes set across the globe during particular American holidays in late 1992 and early 1993. They follow college kids relaxing and partying alone or together while they muse upon their studies. However, it's a deliberately stilted film. If it were to be taken purely at face value – this would be abysmal. You have to assume that the performances are intentionally caricaturesque and it's operating on a desert-dry sense of irony. Taken on that level, the film is hilarious. While there are miniscule fragments of stories that don't lead or need to lead anywhere, the film's dialogue is comprised of pseudo-intellectual conversations and thought processes. It wants to be a study of the relationship between leisure and profession (in this case, potential profession) but it doesn't quite succeed. Sometimes it is relatable and thought provoking – particularly a brief poignant anxiety about not being good enough to execute your own artistic ideas – but other philosophies breach absurdist levels with how many straws they grasp. This is mostly due to how they're delivered unemotionally and insincerely. Frankly, non-actor cast or not, it's * grade acting. Not even a poor student film quality. It's actually kind of better for it, because the script would feel much more obnoxious taken more seriously, instead opting for this odd bewildering atmosphere. It results in quite a dreamy mood, perhaps reflecting the uncertainty of the ideas. That wistful aspect is certainly bolstered by its astounding original electronic soundtrack composed by John Atkinson. Part contemporary, part 90s nostalgic, it's simply too good for the film and not just in its production value. It doesn't gel with the image nor reflect a character's perspective. While the creative choice to shoot on 16mm film does have its homemade charm, it sacrifices a lot of the cinematic atmosphere and it feels as cheap as the film itself was to make. This is a melting pot of a lot of different things that just won't mix – but it's not necessarily an example of trying and failing, it's just an unusual direction that will click with very few. Even though I was initially repelled by the clumsiness, vagueness and blatant superficiality of its style and script, I couldn't help but be drawn in, even if just out of morbid curiosity. At the very least, if your sense of humour can fit in sync with its satirical nature, then it's entertaining enough on that level to pull you through. It's just really difficult to tell whether it's in on the joke or not. L for Leisure is the type of film where you can't decide whether it's dumb or brilliant. This is a bit of both, and its genuine awfulness and ironic awfulness balance out to an interesting and average quality movie, with certain compliments and reservations. It's worth watching for its short length (just shy of 70 minutes) if you're a fan of college films such as Harmony Korine's Spring Breakers or Richard Linklater's Dazed and Confused and films of their thematic ilk. Though perhaps this is too light of a portion for what it could have served. 6/10 Read more @ The Awards Circuit (http://www.awardscircuit.com/)

While slightly less atrocious than the team's first 'film' "Blondes in the Jungle", L for Leisure is the type of vapid cesspool that fills the void when talented, thoughtful filmmakers either lack the means of making films or simply promoting/distributing them. Centered around a group of smug, completely uninteresting, privileged "grad school students" who sit around smoking drugs and flaunting their privilege, this witless bore clocks in around 74 minutes, but feels at least twice as long. What's even worse, is that it's clearly not a commentary against these people, but presented as if they were lovable, relatable "characters" worth watching because they were able to film them. As with their first excretion (Blondes in the Jungle), the dialog is unbearable, the acting non- existent. (save, perhaps for one montage of a singe "character" out exploring the world on his own.) If it weren't for a handful (say 2-3) bad ideas, L for Leisure wouldn't contain any at all. Nobody should encourage or pay attention to anything these two do until they actually have something to say, a story to tell, some level of commentary or just plain anything. The fact that this has been screened as widely as it has it a crime against film and art. My only advice for the "directors" would be to find a new way to spend your trust fund, preferably one that doesn't drag audiences and entire cultural art forms through the mud along with you.

I caught this movie during the London Film Festival, part of my few random bookings to avoid only watching the higher profile flicks. Lucky for me. Rarely will I ever comment on a film, personally I like to experience films without intro or clue or expectation. So I wont be mentioning specifics. But what I will say is that as I saw all it's filmic influences and it's many original flourishes converge, as I experienced it's tone, its audacious style, as it stole big laughs from the strangest of places, as I thought of the joy that must've been had making it, as it surprised me at every turn, I was left in no doubt that this is a serious piece of art, and to me, a masterpiece. I hope this gets the audience it deserves. I urge you to track this down. An instant classic.