Wrong (2013) :: SimplyScripts Screenwriting Discussion Board

Yep. Another review. Writer's block's a bitch so I'm gonna keep 'em coming lest I find myself not writing anything whatsoever.

Man, what a surprisingly tasty March this has been for film. I've yet to see The Place Beyond The Pines but in the mean time, I think this is a good one to end with.

Wrong is the new film from Quentin Dupieux aka Mr. Oizo (Rubber) about a guy named Dolph Springer (Jack Plotnick) searching for his lost dog, occasionally aided by the mysterious Master Chang (William Fichtner)... like you couldn't have figured that out from the trailer. Anyway, let's see if I can't get through this review without writing Tarantino by accident.

I suppose Rubber is as good a place to start as any. If you liked Rubber, chances are you'll like Wrong. Expect more of the same. If you didn't like it, Wrong may still be worth a look. It's a little easier going down and you're certainly not going to come across another film like it in a good while. That's for damn sure.

Personally, Rubber sorta rubbed me the wrong way (see what I did there?). It was very meta, to the point of including an actual movie audience in the movie itself. I wasn't sure what to make of it at all. Was it truly the "no reason" cinema that the intro presents it as or was that bit merely bait to get the wheels turning in viewers' heads? Was the whole thing a joke on the audience or was there some commentary on audience participation to be found in it somewhere? These questions left me very anxiety-ridden, for fear that I, as an audience member, might be the butt of a joke and to this day. Regardless, I didn't find the film enjoyable for whatever it might've been trying to be.

Wrong on the other hand has no meta angle but it did sorta reveal the canvas that both it and Rubber are laid on.

That is to say... absurdist cinema in its purest form. Indeed, Quentin Dupieux is the closest you're gonna get to a modern day Luis Bunuel. That certainly deserves some kudos.

Indeed, Wrong, as the title would suggest, is chock full of stuff that makes no sense... for the sake of not making any sense. Indeed, "no reason." Why is there rain inside Dolph's office all the time? Why does Dolph even go to work if he was fired months ago? Why does he call for pizza when he has no intentions of actually ordering pizza? Why does his palm tree turn into a pine tree? Honestly, I think the most logical thing that happens in the film is the fact that the characters even think it's strange a tree would just transform into a different kind of tree.

What you basically have here is a very simple story (man loses dog) where a bunch of random surreal shit happens along the way. The credit sequence basically sets the stage for the absurdity to come. It's epic and never explained. While Wrong doesn't have a character break down the film's supposed point like Rubber did, it doesn't take long to figure this out at all. The film is very light, straightforward, and is low on subtlety. and you never feel like there's some hidden point or arthouse agenda going on. It basically seems like Dupieux wrote down every idea that popped into his head and shot it... just because he enjoyed it.

So does it work? Yes and no. I think the film starts off really strong and some moments even had me cracking up. Strangely, it's when the film sobers up and focuses on developing the plot that it starts to get tedious. I mean, I guess it never stops being absurd but some elements aren't as extreme as others. A girl falling in love with a guy she's only had one totally irrelevant conversation with and trying to move in with him isn't as absurd as a guy painting people's cars for no reason. I mean, they're both totally whacked scenarios but when you set the bar so high, you kinda gotta stick to a "go hard or go home" mentality.

Don't get me wrong. The story is the hook that everything else has to hang off. A vignettes version of Wrong would probably have been excruciating. The juxtaposition of it all is what makes it work. But I think the balance might be hard to find. After a stellar setup, the film becomes more and more story-centric and actually feels a little boring. I felt the same in Rubber. I guess Dupieux might just have less interest in plot development then he does WTF moments.

Still, there's a lot of fun to be had. I think Plotnick is perfect as the lead. His everyman persona is well suited to bounce the wackiness off and yet he doesn't freak out every time something weird happens. He's part of the world too after all. Plotnick's reactions are usually on point and do seem to strike a balance between sense and nonsense.

Fichtner is brilliant as Master Chang. My respect for the guy has definitely gone up after Wrong. I never in a million years thought he would do something like this nor own it the way he does. His accent is beyond bizarre and totally brilliant.

The cinematography's actually pretty decent for a film that's basically a comedy. The film was shot on the Canon 5D by Dupieux himself. Everything looks crisp and colorful but the fact that it's a stills camera gives the film a looseness that a genuine video camera wouldn't quite enable as well. Said looseness incorporates the film's overall style quite nicely as well.

And of course, the soundtrack is superb. Mr. Oizo is a musician, first and foremost. It's only natural it'd be good. Tahiti Boy and other guests fill out the work.

So overall, I thought Wrong was a decent film that could've been better but isn't without flairs of sheer genius. Dupieux has style, no doubt about it, and with such a massive leap in quality from Rubber, I think he's going to continue to get better and better. Definitely a guy to keep an eye out for in the future. I don't think he's here to stay.

It you demand all your films make sense, this isn't for you but if you can relax and just go with it, I think you'll be in for a good spot of fun.