You Can Count on Me (2000) - 7/10

I'm going to give this indie gem a 7 out of 10 and it honestly may just be out of laziness. This is a very trimmed down character piece that requires a decent amount out of its audience. It is very elusive, understated, and frankly, a bit boring. Yet, at the same time, there is something about this movie that is drawing you in the entire time until it hits your with an emotional conclusion you were starting to think you didn't even care about. I guess in the end I am as impressed with the film as I am unenthused by it. Anyway, let's jump into the rubric and see if we can make sense of it. 

1. Acting

An undeniable strength to this film is the performances of its two leads: Laura Linney and Mark Ruffalo. 

In regards to Ruffalo, I really enjoyed getting to see some of his early work. He has become such a household name at this point that it's fun to see him still figuring things out. For YCCOM, the young talent shows a great deal of the trademarks that would later make him such a sought after casting. Playing Terry requires Ruffalo to (sometimes wildly) pivot between a wide range of personalities. In some scenes Terry is charming, open and charasmatic, which Ruffalo can easily pull off. But as we come to learn, he is also petulant, immature and closed off. This ping pong act asks a lot of an actor and to his credit, the still raw actor handles it all with a great bit of confidence and poise. 

Unlike Ruffalo, Linney was already an established actor at this point in time. Apart for her natural talent, Linney brings her years or experience to Sammy and her performance makes the entire endeavor work. Sammy, like Terry, is a complicated character that requires an even more deft approach than her brother. For instance, the most important aspect about Sammy is how cheerful and bright she can be on the outside, all while barely holding on to the edge of a cliff on the inside. She is clearly deeply caring and warm, but also self-destructive and terrified all the time. The fact that Linney is capable of bringing all of these emotions to the audience through guarded smiles and projected composure is really impressive. It was unsurprising to learn that the role earned her a Best Actress nomination at the 73rd Oscars. 

As for the rest of the cast, there are some decent performances from the likes of Matthew Broderick, Jon Tenney and a young Rory Culkin. However, their purpose in the film is mostly to pawns for the two leads so they don't get much to do. 

2. Cinematography 

I will always give grace to independent films made on shoe string budgets when it comes to filming limitations. With that said, there is not much in the way of visual flair for this film. The setups and style are very straightforward and plain, and the color palette is basic. Luckily, this film is mostly concerned with its ability to tell the character stories of the two leads and therefore doesn't really require anything flashy or overly artistic. 

One thing I think the film does capture quite well from a visual aspect is the duality of its setting. The film takes place in a small town in the Catskill Mountains. For Sammy, the location is her home and a place of comfort and familiarity. As such it often feels like a comfort for Sammy. For Terry, the town is suffocating and small. He yearns to get out and go back to Alaska. The challenge then is establishing the visuals to feel like both of those realities are true. The film pulls this off by mostly using wide and beautiful landscape shots buried in the B-roll, while keeping the more dramatic scenes in tight and restrictive hallways and small rooms. It is both smart, communicative, and cost effective. 

3. Production/Costume Design 

Much like the cinematography, the production is obviously trying to make things work on a very restrictive budget. Nevertheless, I think the scouting teams did a good job picking the filming locations and definitely achieve a look that matches the story quite well. All of the costumes, props and sets feel organic and 'small town-y', which sells the setting for the audience. 

4. Writing 

Unsurprisingly, while this film may be Ken Lonergan's directorial debut, his career started much earlier as a playwright. In fact, YCCOM is an adaptation of his own one-act play that he expanded on for the film. It make perfect sense then, that the screenplay here feels very much like a play. It is extremely character based and has a penchant for great dialogue. However, the also means that it tends to be lacking in terms of plot and, for lack of a better term, action. 

Now, when it comes to the dialogue, I really can't put it better than reviewer David Edelstein did after the film was released: 

"[w]hat the film is 'about' can't be summed up in a line: Its themes remain just out of reach, its major conflicts sadly unresolved. But Lonergan writes bottomless dialogue. When his people open their mouths, what comes out is never a definitive expression of character: It's an awkward compromise between how they feel and what they're able to say; or how they feel and what they think they should say; or how they feel and what will best conceal how they feel.

I may not be able to top the succinctness and accuracy of that observation, but to appreciate the writing I think we have to consider all of the aspects that Edelstein mentions. 

In terms of dialogue, he really nails it. Every word that comes out of the characters mouth feel authentic because they don't ever seem to say what they really want to. And this matches quite well with who the characters are. They feel everything immensely because of their childhood trauma, but are incapable of expressing it in any sort of productive way. It's even frustrating to watch sometimes because as and audience member I think it tends to feel all too familiar and real. And in an industry where most screenwriters have their characters just blurt out exactly what they feel, it's refreshing to have to dig a little to get into the characters heads. That may not be appealing for broad audiences, but it is compelling writing. 

As for 'conflicts going unresolved', I think that is where I find myself disliking the plot of the movie. I can see how all the various story lines are there to reveal the characters to us, but the characters themselves don't really change at all during the story. This film is more like a glimpse into the life of these two main characters, vice an actual tale of them being challenged by something and overcoming it. Movies don't have to go that typical 'character goes on a journey' path, but it is a more difficult ask for the audience to be entertained or compelled by obtuse character examination. 

Lastly, Edelstein mentions the 'themes remaining just out of reach', and once again I find myself agreeing. Similar to the conflicts, I think the themes for the film are mostly secondary to the characters. So, instead of having a specific agenda or point to the film, Lonergan is mostly concerned with more esoteric thoughts about grief and trauma. More specifically, if the film does have a central theme or question, it would be 'what effects does losing your parents at a young age do to a everyday person?'. So for those who might watch this movie and have trouble relating or caring about the characters because Terry acts like such an asshole all the time, or because Sammy keeps making shitty decisions in her life, I get it. They are frustrating people. But what Lonergan seems to be trying to do is play out what it looks like when your models for being a good adult are ripped away from you before you're ready. 

One last quick mention on the writing- I really can't think of many other films that are focused on a brother/sister relationship like this one. There are countless films about two people in love, people becoming friends, relationships between parents and kids; yet I have trouble thinking of many that are so focused on this particular sibling dynamic. It was a refreshing spin on family relationships.  

5. Sound Design 

Again, the budget constraints mostly force the film to focus on cheap to license or public domain songs. I don't have anything bad to say about the sound design, but it's not adding much to the film either. 

6. Editing

It's a fairly straight forward affair in terms of style. Mostly, the edit here is important because it keeps a fairly brisk pace over the 111 minute run time and avoids the film from becoming an overly indulgent emotional exploration that would've further alienated the audience. 

7. Visual Effects

Nothing to note here.  

8. Originality or Strength of Adaptation 

I already mentioned the source material and familial dynamics in the writing section. I guess for here I will just say that, while this is a more 'thinking piece' type of cinema, it may not fully distinguish itself from other 90's era indie films that have a similar feel and plot aloofness to them.   

9. Stunt Coordination 

I actually thought the fight scene looked pretty good all things considered. But this is not a stunt heavy movie by any means. Well done for what needed to happen.  

10. Direction

 YCCOM serves as Lonergan's film directorial debut and shows that his playwright talents definitely had a place in film as well. He may not be a director with a lot of skills specific to filming a movie, but he does have a deep understanding of characters and acting. I feel like his limited turns in the director's chair, including this movie, are really just a way to ensure the integrity of his scripts vice any particular affinity to film making. 

 Legacy/Final Thoughts

In researching the movie I kept seeing that YCCOM was mentioned as a bright spot in an otherwise 'down' year for American movies. This is very likely why it seems to have a bunch of high scores on various review platforms. Don't get me wrong, it is a good movie. However, having watched it, I don't think it fully lives up to the hype. It is a strong debut for a talented writer/director, a launch platform for Ruffalo, and a worthy award nomination for Linney - but it is also a more difficult watch that I probably won't revisit again anytime soon. Nevertheless, I find aspects of the film to be refreshing and the screenplay doesn't treat me like an idiot; so if you're interested, it is worth giving it a shot.