Short Film Review “Choosing Separation” Justice is on trial, the arguments presented, and the verdict is…
WATCH THE FILM BELOW:
First, the Recap:
Chasing what’s right, digging for the real truths we seek, and wishing for answers that will satisfy the inner turmoil we feel sometimes feel about things. Life overall is never a constant exercise in smooth sailing, we all know this. How the world around us conducts itself so often dictates our attitudes, actions, and outlooks on the state of affairs we then try to ascertain, understand, and apply. But when we will in the dark, or that the figurative wool is being pulled over our eyes by powers that be, that quest for satisfaction becomes even more imperative.
As such, The People (Hannah Hollyman) want these elusive realities to be revealed. To do so, she places a LegalEagle (Sandip Ghattaora) on trial. In a quiet, isolated room where only the two of them occupy, The People and LegalEagle try to civilly argue the entire concept of the law, the justice system, what it means, and how it impacts both sides. The only question then remains….can two seemingly diametrically opposed forces actually discover harmony? Or is this even possible at all?
Next, my Mind:
Slow burn is a concept many a mainstream audience, in my opinion, doesn’t always wish to embrace. More so, I feel this is the burden placed on those within the indie filmmaking community whose focus is so much centered on story and character as opposed to eye candy and visual bombast. The importance of those former elements is what makes independent film the gem it actually is, and why this critic will always be compelled to support it in the manner I do. We come to this newest short film project from writer/director/producer Nick Fuller, which does present itself with a fully apparent execution that unfolds with certainty, the aforementioned style, and a definitively impactful, character-driven approach that makes the message about our concepts of personal freedoms, the questions about what true justice is, the realities of it all that both sides of what’s showcased must consider, and everything else in between that the discussion warrants valid, noteworthy, and relevant for contemplation.
Utilizing a purposefully ambiguous foundational duo to represent the greater wholes being explored, the narrative finds both the legal and societal side of ourselves coming together in a nondescript room on a journey to discover the verity of the system, its practices, its mindset, its perspectives in order for the rest of us to understand what we either perceive or recognize as the flaws it carries. Effectively, this takes courtroom drama and narrows it down to these sole individuals who emphatically symbolize, support and fight for the path and station they believe via this “trial” setting. It’s quite clever, intelligently crafted, and not just surface fluff being depicted. It’s an intentionally revealing, candid, unapologetic deep dive into so much of what we DO actually question when it comes to those situations when it seems the “justice” we see doesn’t serve anything else but itself, when it should be mindful that it should be serving US. BUT, don’t let THAT fool you either, as “the other side” gets their time to argue certain equally valid points as well.
Notions of legal guilt vs. factual guilt, punishment vs. rehabilitation, the price of winning vs. what might be seen as lack of actually seeking the truth, whether said system is truly for everyone, acknowledgement that the system doesn’t always get it right, times when it feels like the guilty escape while innocence suffers, the law being genuinely balanced and fair, morality’s play in it all, defending the guilty, and a wealth of other concepts are addressed here, and in solidly legitimate order. Honestly, I could see this film stirring the pot a bit, because whenever there’s specific facets to our world LIKE the legal system and the myriad of its aspects we watch unfold daily even, there’s going to be conflicting opinion. And that is OK. THAT I almost feel is REALLY what is burning under the surface here. YES, there are PLENTY of things that DO need adjusting within the realms we are talking here. Yet, there is also the actuality that opinions vary, real life is sadly NOT often so cut and dry as much as we’d like it to be, and that there are ways to have differing sentiment without it having to be so overtly polarizing and hate filled.
I guess this is to say I feel like even WITH “the System” being the one on trial here, there’s still an even-handed atmosphere presented and so many evocatively stimulating levels to take in. Because of this, I felt it makes where it is all left at by the finale convincing and persuasive. But, I leave that for you to decide when watching the film. A cast to two tackles the weight of the issues conveyed, and the duo in question do a splendid job. Hollyman is an exercise in the seriousness, discontentment, doggedly persistent, and steadfast voice crying for answers through her role as The People. Only desiring to have the absolute answers the grander masses want when it comes to the procedures, attitudes, outcomes, and morality of the legal system, The People doesn’t let up on their opponent in any form, refusing to just cave to what could be construed as “pat” justifications LegalEagle puts forth. However, there is still a sense of lashing out and badgering that The People also convey that causes us to pause. It’s a really great performance that Hollyman provides, filled with the fervency and credibility befitting those the characters is representing.
Likewise, Ghattaora shines brightly here as well, exuding the kind of cold detachment and haughtiness that most wish to ascribe to lawyers yet also illustrating there IS a heart and soul behind it, just muted and concerned with doing what is seen as best for their chosen expectations the job brings via his role as LegalEagle. The matter-of-fact way in which he addresses The People’s questions and critical jabs, maintaining a calm, controlled, and intense tone while doing his level best to try and also bring cooler heads to the table is conspicuous and filled with a lot more principles, reasoning, and logical convictions than The People might want to admit. He speaks to winning, admits the system is by no means perfect, yet set up to be what it is in order that, ideally, real justice IS served, though the ramifications that occur when it doesn’t are not avoided or brushed off. It’s an excellent performance, like Hollyman, worth recognizing and lauding, because when there’s a format like this that’s nothing BUT “talking heads” and slow burn storytelling, you NEED the actors to be on point to maintain attention spans, and Ghattaora accomplishes this.
So, in total, “Choosing Separation” does beg that precise idea its title suggests. Are we able to separate ourselves from the outcomes coming about that both do and do not directly impact us, to see a grander whole, to comprehend why the system works the way it does, and manage to see anything mutually beneficial in it all? Or, will be constantly be at odds, finding any and all excuses to believe one side is right and the other is utterly wrong? Plus, for all its protestations, would the public actually be READY to pass judgment and sentence in what its own eyes see AS justice? Could we handle that responsibility in a way that would be any better? Some might think so, others might not. The ONE thing we SHOULD desire, even in disagreement, is a better unification of us ALL as people, that TOGETHER we might see the BEST truths manifest FOR us all. Otherwise, we will keep doing what this film’s moniker suggests. And, your honor, that may not be good for anyone.
STAR RATING (out of 5):
As always, this is all for your consideration and comment. Until next time, thank you for reading!
