Leofwine_draca STRANGE FACTORIES is a typical black and white indie arthouse movie that straddles genres. It's been made on a tiny budget and consists of a plot involving a writer journeying through a mysterious rural landscape. He encounters oddball characters en route and finds a conspiracy of sorts. This feels much like a student film with an extended, overlong running time. It might have been interesting at ten minutes but at this length it's just a bore. There's some nice imagery here but that's about it.

squidseye Strange Factories as staged at the Cinema Museum is a hybrid film/immersive theatre experience that addresses the nature of the creative process and how the artist's creation possesses an existence independently of the artist. The experience begins in the queue outside, where actors in masks instruct audience members to be silent during the performance, and inspect and tease them, priming them for what happens inside. The audience is then split into two groups which once inside are introduced to a number of characters in immersive theatre style, invited to consider their role in the performance, plied with (sham) drinks at a bar and participate in a seance-like ceremony. There was plenty of personal interaction in the viewing I attended, with an audience of nine, though I expect this will vary considerably with the size of the audience. Much of the action takes place in the dark, and the spooky atmosphere throughout is skilfully maintained.The audience is then invited to sit down to watch the film. This to me is where the serious problems I had with the production begin. The film follows Victor Stronheim and a cast of largely forgettable and interchangeable characters around as he agonises over a play he has written. Boundaries between the worlds of Stronheim, his characters, the audience in the film and the actual audience are blurred, and Stronheim is forced to stage his play to get out of a predicament whose nature is obfuscated by the frankly tedious goings-on. In some scenes the film appears to taunt the audience with dialogue such as (I'm paraphrasing, from memory) 'How much longer can this possibly go on?' and 'The audience is desperate for this to end'. The film's final scene is played out simultaneously on screen and onstage with the same actors. This is followed by a dance and final theatrical scene, after which the audience is led out of the building.I found the production as a whole unengaging, shallow and the film section overlong. My feeling is that Strange Factories could work as an immersive theatre piece, or as a ten minute art film playing in a gallery, but is too insubstantial for its near three hour running time. My immediate impression was of a company that has become insular and immersed itself too completely in a work. John Harrigan writes, directs and stars, and perhaps this singular vision needs some editorial oversight. An artist creates and has no obligation to cater for a particular, or indeed any audience. However, when the medium is film or theatre, the production is made to be witnessed. To be fair, Strange Factories doesn't appear to be widely publicised and I only heard about it as an existing fan of the Facebook page of Foolish people's previous production, the very enjoyable A Virulent Experience. Perhaps if the film had attempted to develop its characters or had adhered to a more conventional narrative style it might have engaged sufficiently for me to give a fair consideration of its themes. I am sure I was not alone in not getting it, as two other audience members walked out shortly into the film. The immersive theatre was somewhat enjoyable, but it is dragged down by the ponderous film.

Rose Weaver Strange Factories is sublimely surreal. A good film experience will skirt the surface of what 'reality' may be which provides the audience a some leeway to allow their own subjectivity and imagination ample room for playtime. An escapist film simply tells the audience what the writer/director thinks 'reality' is. Strange Factories does neither. It challenges the conventional storytelling narrative and allows each individual member of the audience to become a part of the dream-like landscape, a silent watcher drawn into the film without a choice. It allows the audience to fully participate with complete wonder, both during and after the experience. You are left, not only to play with the elements of the story created by the writer/director, but actually questioning the nature of 'reality' itself. And that is it's strength. It is bold and unrelenting. It forces the viewer to think and it does so naturally, though it may feel somewhat jarring as most dreams do. But as with dreams, Strange Factories dredges deeply within standard archetypes to discover and portray their elements in a uniquely magical way. The black and white film format suits Strange Factories perfectly, for the very name of the film format is a misnomer. Work with black and white film long enough and one learns there are no true blacks, nor true whites. This becomes an important factor as the film unfolds.Victor is a storyteller in search of an ending for his story. He encounters an odd settlement populated with people who seem to be expecting him, as well as the audience. He seems confused by this, and so do we. The dialog may also seem confusing at first, but allow your mind to settle into a deeper level, for this is where this film works best. This is nothing superficial. This is The Fool's journey and all that implies.Journey with Victor as he searches for an ending to the story he carries with him, still unfinished, and you may discover you carry within yourself the seed of something within begging to be created. Perhaps still germinating, or once destroyed and begging to be recreated once again.

Geshreeyeh I'm enthralled by the element of surprise so decided not to research any further information when offered a ticket to this "interactive film and theatre event" (the screening I attended was sandwiched between two brief participatory theatre performances). The experience was more superficial and drawn out than that previous sentence. Arriving in darkness, we were welcomed outside the venue by masked members of the cast. After waiting a few minutes for other audience members to arrive, we were each requested to hand over a possession which would be returned after the event (travel cards, conkers, buttons, pieces of string, etc.). As my friend later pointed out, this was little more than a thinly veiled attempt to prevent audience members from walking out part-way through the torturous monotony that lay ahead. The small crowd of giggling couples was split into two and I was lead through a gate to a courtyard. There, I witnessed some irrelevant balcony dancing and some brief but pointless interaction between two cast members. Soon after, we entered the venue and some of us were offered shots of what resembled (and I imagined tasted like) wallpaper paste. After a bit more hanging around/time wasting we were shown to our seats for a film screening. I was expecting this to last no more than thirty minutes... at a rough guess it lasted almost two hours. From the start, it had "hammy, poorly made student film" stamped all over it. To explain the 'plot' would be a waste of time (but it wasn't confusing as the director had probably hoped it to be) - check the official website for more information. There's dream-like sequences, badly performed sex scenes, pointless nudity and unexplained/irrelevant dialogue. It's a completely unqualified disaster. It progresses slowly (to nowhere) and there's no character development whatsoever. All but one of the female roles are indecipherable from each other... and it's shot digitally (in black and white, of course). This last point would make no difference to me, except the cinematography (if you can call it that) and grading/enhancement of the picture (if there was any) took absolutely no advantage of shooting the film this way. Nothing interesting happens (there's a few shock value pot shots - they all miss) and as an audience member I didn't care about any of the characters, or how the film would end... I just prayed that it would have ended sooner than it did.I found it sad in many ways - not the film itself, but the comprehension that this project was allowed to get off the ground in the first place. Out of all the cast and crew, why didn't anyone have the balls to confront the director/producer/lead actor (yep, it's one person) and just say "Look, this idea is really poor. I've read the script and your vision is clouded in pointless pretension. It's not dark enough, clever enough, exciting enough and there's no depth to it."? I assume to most involved it must have been a case of the Emperor's New Clothes syndrome. There is literally nothing good about this film. Even much of the acting is sub-standard; particularly that of the director's sister/wife/cousin (not sure which one) - grinning at inappropriate moments. I believe if you have the resources to make a feature film, you make the best film you can. Did the director walk away from the final edit with a sense of contentment? Surely not. Keeping the audience satisfied is essential. Justify all of your decisions - if not to the audience then to yourself. For example, why was there dancing at the end of the film? Why utilise elements of the theatre when they bring nothing (but prolonged disappointment) to the experience?I love film and I love theatre, but to categorise this 'experience' as either (or both) would be an insult to these art forms. Ignore the IMDb ratings - these are clearly the work of the cast and crew (or their friends) - as will be the probable rebuttal to this review. This is a bad film with bad theatre either side - it's a cultural turd sandwich. It's also a hugely wasted opportunity. That said, the violin tune played by that barmaid from The Glasshouse Stores was great. So, every cloud...