'Charlie Countryman': A Review

Also known as The Necessary Death of Charlie Countryman, this semi-psychological romdramedy follows Charlie (Shia LaBeouf) through the streets of Bucharest as he chases Gabi (Evan Rachel Wood) around for the majority of the film. This may seem romantic at first, but this would be a bit creepy if it were real life.

Charlie, a twenty-something from Chicago, flies to Bucharest after his recently deceased mother (Melissa Leo) appears to him and suggests he fly there. What's the significance of the capital of Romania? I'm still unsure, but he goes anyway. He meets Victor, Gabi's father, on the flight and promises to deliver a hat to her on his behalf. In cliche fashion, he falls in love with beautiful and mysterious Gabi instantly.

Of course a girl like Gabi has to come with baggage, which appears in the form of her unstable and quite older ex Nigel (Mads Mikkelsen). Of course he's involved with organized crime and has violent outbursts because why date an older guy if he isn't a criminal that makes hundreds of thousands of dollars? Of course Charlie has to get himself involved in a complex situation that he doesn't fully understand because he has to be the American hero.

There is a short while where Charlie isn't looking for Gabi, and that's when he meets his roommates Carl (Rupert Grint) and Luke (James Buckley) at a hostel, takes acid with the guys, and goes to a club with them. Of course they get into trouble at the club and find themselves on the bad side of Darko (Til Schweiger), a friend of Nigel. Of course.

Charlie wants to be a savior and essentially has a death wish. While this sort of behavior is welcome in many circumstances, he causes more problems for the girl he loves as a result. Let's explore a few of many flaws of this film without giving away too much:

• The main issue here is the script. It is clear the actors are working with what they were given, and I question if revisions were made at all. It had the potential at the base, but failed to have stronger dialogue and plot points. In fact, the film became predictable after the first twenty minutes, and there were far too many instances of cliche dialogue.
• The film tries too hard to be more than it is. It's a pretty film, that's for sure. The lighting and tone is excellent throughout, but even that can't save it. Charlie has hallucinations a few times in the film, so there are hints at this trying to be part psychological adventure when really you just question if Charlie has some sort of mental illness (not trying to stigmatize mental illness, fyi). He has one drug-induced trip with hallucinations, but you're curious as to why the others occur. Trauma perhaps? 
• Besides the flat psychological parts, this film also dabbles in comedy in the midst of much dark drama. I'm not talking about moments of comic relief, which is expected in a drama. We're talking about scenes that are supposed to be funny in a way that changes the tone of the film, and you momentarily forget that this is mostly a dark drama and not like Transformers.
• Plot issue: Charlie has never been to Bucharest before. He doesn't speak Romanian. But he ends up driving a car roughly 30 minutes after exiting the airport and initially riding with a cab driver he barely understands. We see him pull out a map for a short while (and where did that come from?) as he is driving. Realistically, you don't drive in a foreign country if you have no idea where you're going and haven't planned ahead. 
• Possible plot and character issue: Charlie can't take "no" for an answer because he loves Gabi, no matter how many times she tells him to go away because he doesn't need to get involved with her dark past. This is where we question Charlie's common sense and whether or not he has an illness of sorts. Is he far enough removed from reality that he can't see how he's putting both of them in unnecessary danger? He even puts Carl and Luke in danger, and he barely knows them either! He tries to blackmail Nigel after being threatened and assaulted by the guy on more than one occasion, and you can predict how that turns out. We get it, Gabi needs to be protected (though she never says she can't take care of herself or wants his help...), but her life would be less complicated without you.

Overall, the film is shot well, and all of the actors do their best with the characters they're given (unfortunately not much for Grint and Buckley). The soundtrack is legit, including M83 and The xx. Charlie Countryman was set up for indie greatness but falls so flat it's frustrating. What's the point of having so many talented actors if you're barely going to utilize them? This is the LaBeouf, Woods, and Mikkelsen show; the rest of the cast don't do enough to get the "supporting" label in all honesty. Apparently this film was Black Listed some time ago, and I think it should've stayed that way.

Also, I'm over the story line of "love at first sight that's initially one-way but becomes mutual if the person forces him- or herself into the other's life at any moment possible." Can we please stop romanticizing stalkerish behavior?

If anything, give the film a chance for aesthetic purposes only. It's currently streaming on Netflix.

"But it was just a joke"- the Line We've Heard Far Too Many Times

Musicians and fans are starting to speak up more often against inappropriate behavior in the "scene", which makes me very happy. Unfortunately, not all involved are taking this type of behavior as serious, or rather they aren't responding in the most supportive manner for victims.

Most recently, female members of Tigers Jaw and Pity Sex were kissed on stage by an unruly male fan a few nights ago. Some days later at Warped Tour, Ryan Rockwell, frontman of Mixtapes (a band I've never heard of, for the record), made a "joke" on stage in an attempt to interrupt the current conversation taking place between songs. He said something on the lines of "No, no fuck Tigers Jaw. Just kiss whoever you want." After they played their song, he said that his previous comment was stupid and obviously you shouldn't kiss someone without their consent. Of course, initial reports of his comment failed to mention his retraction of statement, one of Rockwell's biggest issues with this sudden backlash. He made an official statement about the incident on a podcast he has with friend Justin Schafer called "Big Snackers". 

I listened to the first 30 minutes of the podcast because that's about how long it took to cover the incident, mainly because Justin continued to add on and on (I'd call him an instigator of sorts). I metaphorically walked into the discussion about this incident unbiased, even though I'd heard about the Tigers Jaw/Pity Sex incident. My first reaction to rumors of Rockwell's comment was "wow, that's very rude and inappropriate to say," but I wanted to hear this guy's side of the story before immediately judging him as a misogynist and whatnot- maybe someone misheard him, etc, etc. 

After listening, I've come to some conclusions. Ryan Rockwell didn't really apologize during this podcast. He was more defensive than anything because no one mentioned his pseudo apology two minutes after the comment was made, which makes sense in order for him to protect his image and reputation. Everyone ganged up on him on the internet (as usual), but those directly affected didn't contact him personally to discuss the matter (besides a single tweet from Tigers Jaw in response to confirmations of his comment). He did advocate for not kissing/touching someone without consent, especially after saying that member(s) of his band have had the same experience as Tigers Jaw/Pity Sex. Yes, it was unfair for people to automatically hate him for comments they weren't witnesses to, and it was/is wrong for people to throw hateful speech at him since that's not going to get us anywhere in changing things like this. He made a mistake and hopefully he's learned from it.

Justin Schafer, on the other hand, should have kept many of his comments to himself while Rockwell made his statement. I know it's their shared podcast, but Rockwell was using this platform to make a personal statement that got lost at times with Schafer's input. If he didn't officially victim-blame, he got pretty darn close to it at points: Why did they wait until after playing a second time to address the guy? Why wasn't he thrown out of the venue the first time it happened?- these were essentially two questions he asked. Sure, they're valid questions, but he was not at that show. Do we know where that guy went after the first attempted kiss? How do we know that security didn't attempt to find him the first time? Fans in the audience may not have instinctively thought that what he did was wrong, so when he returned to the crowd (by whatever means) he probably blended in with everyone else. Also, many times you're in a state of shock that something like that even happened, especially the survivors (I don't really want to use "victim" now, as both females have spoken up and against this nonsense). 

Schafer's responses stemmed from a need to defend his friend, but he could have said things more tastefully instead of turning on everyone else. Why aren't people going after the guy who kissed them, the guy who actually did something? Who's to say someone hasn't? If people can't put a name to the face (or really have a clear view of the face to begin with), it makes it bit harder to go after him, but that doesn't mean that everyone has just let that guy go without consequences. Schafer also calls out all of these people as cowards basically, saying that most of them are hiding behind their computers and wouldn't confront Rockwell personally if they had the chance. He mentions that this is part of what's wrong with the scene and how people aren't going after the real perpetrators. One of the simplest ways to help prevent inappropriate behavior is to call people out for the inappropriate comments and language that precede such behavior. The best advice of all is to not say or do inappropriate/hateful/etc things to begin with.