Guy and Madeline on a Park Bench (2010)

The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

The movie's not perfect, but it sticks the landing of its message. It was engaging - thrilling at times - and I personally thought it was a great time.

I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Damien Chazelle's first feature length film isn't an easy one to dissect. Filmed like an early John Cassavetes' movie and told with little to no dialogue at all, Guy and Madeline on a Park Bench is much more so an exploration into how difficult it is to maintain love than it is a musical like Chazelle's latest feature, La La Land. But it's Chazelle's grasp on the ups and down's of relationships that make this yet another interesting directorial effort from him. All 3 of his films to this point have involved Jazz, and all 3 of them have also dealt with characters trying to balance their love life with pursuing their Jazz related dreams. 'Guy and Madeline' isn't as intense as Whiplash nor as viscerally memorable as La La Land, but for a first- time feature, it definitely impresses. An occasional dance number, unique camera movement, and long unedited takes make for quite the viewing experience. Again, there's little dialogue, so I can't say I was as invested in the characters as I should have been, but sometimes scenes are more powerful when less is said (see: the final scene). If anything, this was an interesting watch considering all we know about Chazelle's career up to this point.6.7/10

It seems unfair to review this film for the simple reason that it didn't start as a work that was looking for theatrical distribution; like Scorsese before him with Who's That Knocking at my Door, Damien Chazelle made Guy and Madeline on a Park Bench as a student film, and probably due to some encouragement submitted it to some festivals and got in, most notably to Tribeca and AFI.I have to wonder if he was surprised by that since, frankly, this movie is a mess. However this is also the kind of mess that is filled with passion, and a few truly wonderful scenes, so it's hard to really evaluate it unless not even so much if I put on my critics hat but if I put on my film professor hat; writing a review of this is akin to writing down marks on a paper and submitting a letter grade (in this case it would be near a B- or C+).The movie doesn't lack heart and a somewhat unique way of taking a genre film, for Chazelle the musical in his first three outings is all (I feel like there's sort of a career trajectory with Tarantino, whether unintentional or not, and one can see this in a more forgiving light as like Chazelle's My Best Friend's Birthday - clearly enough elements here will work there way into La La Land as that film had parts that would be retrofitted for True Romance).This is shot in 16mm at a time when digital movie-making is at least seemingly much simpler. He goes back into the realm of super-duper cinema verite, as he operates the camera himself and so much of the film feels improvised that I'm nearly surprised there's a script credit. Moments just happen here, like when Madeline (or is it the other woman, Elena) gets asked by a stranger to buy some flowers, or another stranger, some old cop, keeps pestering here like a borderline (or just) cat-caller and she comes up to his place for no reason AT ALL.There is barely a story here. We don't know why Guy and Madeline are together, and often they're seen apart in this story. As with everything else here, things just happen without much concern for any development or character arcs or things that go into the *story* of the film. We do see them sort of argue at one point - she is woken up early one morning as he's practicing, he asks her to hear something he's written, she's walked out of the room back into bed, he annoys her with playing right up to her ear, and... why is this happening? What did they do to grow apart? It's basically like in Guy and Madeline on a Park Bench Chazelle got so much right, or at least was daring in experimenting in a blend of Cassavetes-Shadows-era improvisational filmmaking with his un-abiding love of musicals (credit must also be due to Justin Hurwitz as composer and lyricist, damn is he good), that he either forgot or intentionally neglected the things that keep us (or at least could keep me) engaged past the various shots of characters walking around a city or playing alone in a room or at a party, like giving us likable people or anything that relates back to a start and end for these people. Compared to this, Shadows is chock-full of incident.So it it does fail or at least falter when it comes to basic storytelling and giving us interesting characters, I do appreciate and love when it breaks out into its musical numbers; if this had been a short film with Madeline singing "Boy in the Park" and doing a dance number, I would say it's great, and you can check that one section on Youtube currently and see what I mean. This is overall so tedious and at the same time fascinating, and, again, I almost feel bad giving it the rating and review I am. Artists like Chazelle need to be encouraged when they're starting out, and clearly the festival run and (small) release by Film Movement did just that. So as a start to what now seems to be one of the strongest careers for a young filmmaker in this industry, more power to him. But there IS a reason we don't return to watch most student films, you know?

I thought the conceit of the film was to juxtapose a micro budget with a lush symphonic score and Godardish realism with tap dance numbers, but that never really happens. The musical numbers are few and far between, and the only real one (Boy in the Park) doesn't come until 3/4 of the way into the film.If you establish a premise in a film (characters break into song to express their feelings), you must be true to it, not afraid of it. It felt like the filmmaker couldn't decide whether to go all the way - I wish he had. It would've made for a far more watchable film. What we get is a film that is unsatisfying for those watching for the fantasy and for those watching for the realism.

Damien Chazelle, the director of this film, was clearly influenced by some of the French New Wave directors, particularly, Jean-Luc Godard, as well as others, but it is obvious he likes that period. His style gives the viewer a feeling of being somewhat improvisational as he takes his camera into the Boston streets to illustrate the story he wanted to tell. The film shot in black and white takes the viewer to another era when movies were perhaps more spontaneous and without a rigid story line."Guy and Madeline on a Park Bench" is easy to take, but after a while, one wonders what did Mr. Chazelle had in mind. It is clear the director is more concerned on the style and look he wanted to give the finished product rather than the substance of the story. It is a simple tale about love between two young people. He is a black trumpet player and she is a waitress. Their romance does not last long. Guy goes after other women and Madeline wanders aimlessly through the streets of the city. Eventually, as if fated, the lovers will come back together.It is easy to see Damian Chazelle has talent and it would be interesting to hope he will do better next time. He succeeds in the choice of music one hears in the background. Jason Palmer's Guy is a pleasant young man who probably expected more of his involvement with Madeline. Desiree Garcia, on the other hand, makes a wonderful introspective case of her Madeline.