KERBEROS Meets the People in a Red Banned Trailer

The "red banned" trailer for Kely McClung's latest feature Kerberos (http://www.kerberosbites.com/) dropped last week and -DAMN!!-the film forums on the interwebs are blowing up with the talk about the edgier, more violent cut of the trailer. Fellas to the left and to the right are piping up about how gratuitous the film is or how the film is a cliché re-hash of late 80s to early 90s action flicks. The knuckleheads haven't seen the film, so how can they know what is Kerberos? Now, while Kely may be a bit more keen on letting the misdirection stand, I am not so forgiving. (He's the world champion fighter, but I'm the nuclear hothead.)

Point one: A film of action, not an action film

While Kerberos may contain an impressive amount of gunshots, bone breaks, fist fights and even a rape, it is not, at heart, an action film. There, I said it. Cat is out of the proverbial bag, man. What Kerberos is, more than anything else, is a beautifully shot, cogently laid out story with very realistic characters attempting to hold on to some version of humanity within themselves and some semblance of normalcy without. They are caught in a world where violent things are happening in spite of, and sometimes because of, what they do or don't do. Lesson: everything has consequences and life is not required to give full disclosure beforehand of what those consequences may be.

Point two:Violence gives you your bearings

Panicking over the level of violence you think you are seeing just makes you a punk. Sorry, boys. Truth hurts. But before you grab torches and pitchforks, let me explain. Violence is very effective as a storytelling device because it speaks to several objectives, including, but by no means limited to: a) description of a certain demographic within a given society, b) how far an individual or group of individuals will go in their efforts to achieve a given goal, c) the loss of one's humanity balanced against the need for inclusion, and myriad other ideas. To discount a project based on its level of violence, if that violence actually serves a purpose to the story, seems to be very shortsighted and closed-minded. Consider the groundbreaking, genre-changing pieces of art, literature and film which brought violence to the viewer's attention and see how these were necessary "evils." It is very easy to get across how physically "into each other" a couple is without the need for gratuitous sex scenes. It is not so easy to get across how far a human being will lose his humanity and civilized nature without showing the violence. It is a tool and, like any other, serves a very useful function. What makes the violence in Kerberos stand apart is that it is not the only tool in the storyteller's toolkit. It is used to augment character's needs and goals and to supplement the drama of the story unfolding. It is not the keystone of the film.

Point three:The art of a trailer

A trailer is not meant to tell you the entire story. It is meant to pique your interest. If you rely on a trailer to spoon feed you story, your imagination is just too lacking. Sure, you can smash the box office on opening weekend after a few weeks of a 30-second trailer that says: "This is a Martin Scorcese film starring Leonardo DiCaprio and Mark Ruffalo which may have some horror elements in its mysterious story." But the trailer isn't meant to tell you what the story is from tip to toes! Consider further the difficulties this poses for indie filmmakers. The art of an indie trailer isn't the same as a big ol' fat studio with dollars, dudes, and deals to throw around in whatever fashion they choose. To judge them by the same standard and apply those same rules of inclusion based on a preset comfort level is beyond obtuse. As the writer/director/editor himself said of the piece: "[People] don't get it, and aren't really supposed to from this one trailer, that conquering that violence and the struggle to do what's right, the themes of redemption and salvation, and the sacrifice of one man's own morality in the service and obligation of another is why the story was worth making and hopefully worth watching."

Point four:Hateration, Holleration

The director has so far, based on all this backlash, gotten top marks for achieving the goal of making art. I say this because the more vehemently opposed the voices get and the more inquisitive the minds become, the more people talk about what is happening in the project. That talking is borne of conflict, which is, in turn, the product of bold creation. If the trailer had been posted and gotten a tepid reception, the filmmaker may need to reconsider his craft. But the more you hate on it, the more it lives. And as all stories are based on conflict, this one seems to be feeding itself.

Dare yourself to throw away your preconceived ideas of what a film and what a trailer have to be and be brave enough to step outside of your comfort zone to face the world crafted by independent storytellers, violent and unorthodox as it may be. Otherwise, STFU.