First thing: try not to bring a lot of hang-ups and prejudices when you see this. I've noticed that those who do so can end up disappointed. If you're even slightly open-minded you will see the beauty of this film- as many have, including the nominating committee for the Independent Spirit Awards. Because of the Tolstoy writing credit, I was expecting a historical or period piece. What Ivansxtc does, as does the Paul Thomas Anderson neo-classic Boogie Nights, is to show human beings being very naughty and very nice. Ivans, however, leaves us in darker territory. I suggest reading little about this film before you see it. Check out the comments afterward and you'll see what I mean. Suffice it to say that this is risk-taking, well-acted, under-$500,000(shot on DV) filmmaking with gorgeous photography.

This film is amazing. It begins by introducing a whole bunch of characters, including Danny Huston, none of whom have any redeeming features - scenes are frequently uncomfortable to the point of being cringe-inducing. It's when you realise that what everyone in the film is talking about is absolutely nothing or incredibly superficial to say the least is when you realise that what you're feeling is that there ARE no characters as such - they may as well be dead. They have nothing to say and when they do it's absolute worthless tosh. They are essentially characterless "characters". It's therefore impossible to feel any affinity, compassion or even empathy with anyone in the film - hence one's discomfort during viewing. And it's from this point of utter lifelessness that the film grows into one the most truly and deeply ALIVE films I've ever seen. Like one of those moments when you realise what you are when the clouds around your soul have been stripped off and you get a glimpse of your self. And it's pretty hard to put into words, but just like the guy from London who wrote the first review, my girlfriend and I were so stunned and emotionally moved into silence we didn't speak or rather just couldn't find WORDS that could justify what we'd just seen. I came out, sat in the foyer, said "what the f**k happened there?" and proceeded to smoke a cigarette knowing fine well I couldn't smoke there. (In light of the film, I think I just thought that stupid little humans' rules were often so pathetically insignificant they were laughable!) We were both absolutely amazed. But my advice is, of course, to see it yourself. Because after all, these are just words too.

The film begins with Ivan Beckman's death. He says, in a phone call heard as we see various hazy images of Los Angeles, that the pain was so great that he took every pill in the house. He also says that he tried to think of one image that could help him get through it.He does *not* get through it. So next we see his funeral, at which a fight breaks out between a screenwriter, who has recently been fired from his film, and the star of the film. We also hear people questioning the cause of death. They have been told that Ivan died of lung cancer, but they all assume that it was really drugs that brought him down.And then suddenly we have jumped back in time, to the last part of Ivan's life. Ivan (played by Danny Huston, son of John Huston) is a Hollywood agent. He's trying to make a movie happen and to land the star, Don West (Peter Weller), as a client. The actual content of the script isn't important to Ivan, but the deal is. Other significant characters include the screenwriter Danny McTeague (played by James Merendino, who really is a writer) and Ivan's girlfriend Charlotte White (Lisa Enos, who also helped write and produce the film).This is not a Hollywood film. It was shot on high definition video and doesn't look as good as some other high definition films I've seen. This plus the so-so acting of some of the minor character actors made the film feel amateurish at first, but after a while I was able to forget about the mechanics and get inside the story.It is also clearly not a Hollywood film because of its very negative portrayal of the people in show business. Ivan is seen as a heavy drug user who doesn't really care about the film, and Don West (the star) is even less likable.But while the characters may not be likable, they are all quite interesting. And the lessons about life and death and what happens in between also make this a film I was glad to have seen.Credits: There's a new trend these days of saving all of the credits for the end, including the names of the stars and even the title. This film is the complete opposite - all of the credits are at the beginning of the film, leaving only the soundtrack credits for the end. I don't think this means anything, unless the filmmakers thought people would be walking out early, but it seemed worth mentioning. The credits do affect the feel of a film.Seen on 8/21/2002.

Knowing nothing about the techy side of things, the impact of the DV was to create an uneven viewing spectacle that worked very well at the intimate and personal moments. In the group and open scenes it seemed somehow shallow and amateurish. It did not capture the documentary feel for me properly. Was "Dog Show" done this way? It did feel like a documentary.I watched the film on a rainy Monday night in Bradford's wonderful Pictureville and the audience barely spoke on leaving the auditorium. This film had a powerful ending with the score working well. Certainly not a film to see if you are feeling fragile or in poor health.The lead performance was just that, conveying the innocence,joy, optimism, charm and sleazy hedonism with great conviction. The remainder of the cast and characters were far less substantial giving it an uneven quality.A film with flaws and not one of my favourites but one that I would not have wished to miss.