In Double Exposure, by writer-director Howard Goldberg, Peter (Alexander Calvert) is a young photographer striving to make it in the art world. In the middle of a failing marriage to Lora (Kahyun Kim), he must overcome overwhelming guilt for being unable to protect his past lover, Sara (Caylee Cowan). She is an aspiring model being preyed upon when she meets Peter out of nowhere at a fashion shoot.
This drama tackles a subgenre many of the great artists have wrestled with. Photography has repeatedly been shown to be a thrilling way for a director to conquer an array of subjects. Exposing the human condition through a viewfinder is a unique perspective. “Oops! I shouldn’t have seen that. I guess I now must save the day!” tends to be the theme. Depending on the day, my favorite movie is Michelangelo Antonioni’s masterpiece Blow-Up. It is comical, though, how cinema can turn something as filthy as voyeurism into such wonderful, complex pieces. There are also unforgettable characters, from L.B. Jeff Jeffries to Freddy Quell. Goldberg’s complex film and wonderful feature requires more than one watch to fully grasp.
Double Exposure is a drama that takes you on a wild, not always clear, journey through time. The camera is always moving in subtle tracking shots, a shaky cam, or sporadic edits that embody all the chaos. We are dropped straight into a heated phone call between Peter and his wife. With no prior context, we wait for a hint about the reason for the argument. Then, as Peter reaches for a water bottle while driving, he almost crashes his car, or does he? This is where the confusion begins after only one watch. He is seemingly fine but dazed and unable to explain what just occurred. His phone rings again. Now Sara starts to speak. We learn that Sara has been thought to be dead for four years.
“…he must overcome overwhelming guilt for being unable to protect his past lover…”
As Tarantino famously said, and this is not a direct quote, that viewers are fine being confused in a movie if they feel they are in good hands. The hands guiding us throughout this film went from hot to cold. Transitions through time were often unclear. Most points where emotional force was meant to be driven laid flat due to improper build up by performances that at times felt forced or unbelievable.
Set amongst “MeToo” scandals, it’s hard to distinguish who the victim is supposed to be. Sara, who is the actual victim of the film, has no redeeming qualities, and it almost seems aspects of what is happening to her are her own fault. Much of the film is Peter’s repetitive self-deprecation due to his lack of commercial success. Although the film does have some feminist qualities, it feels too much like a savior movie for my liking. There are repeated mentions of Peter’s inability to “save her,” implying that women are reliant on men and cannot take care of themselves. In a film where women are being assaulted and objectified, there should be some form of empowerment or justice.
The vision of Double Exposure is scattered despite an innovative idea of how to manipulate time. It does have redeeming qualities and sequences that shine. Overall, however, it leaves you unsatisfied at the end and unsure how to feel. But, I could’ve missed the whole point.
"…drama that takes you on a wild, not always clear, journey through time..."
