Vigilant

Philip Brocklehurst seems to be a rather prolific creative voice in the world of both short films and literature; a director whose style – if his latest picture is anything to go by – is defined by its maximalist visuals. Despite its short runtime of four minutes Vigilant is not particularly watchable, nor is it pleasant. That’s fine. Clearly, we’re to view the film more as a piece of visual art over anything meant for ‘entertainment’. This immediate realisation on the part of the viewer gets to the heart of the filmmaker as a provocateur. However – even with artistic intent in mind – the audience may very well be left wondering what, if anything, we're meant to take away from the experience. It’s an angry-feeling movie, meant to disturb and provoke. But then again, one questions whether the loud noises and upsetting images are really worth it; and does this film have anything to say beyond the surface-level Taxi Driver pastiche?

The movie depicts a series of criminals committing terrible acts within isolated vignettes, leading to our protagonist (portrayed by the film’s director) then committing the terrible act of murdering all of those people. It’s a lot of misery and chaos. Stylistically fragmentary, the film was shot during Covid lockdown – meaning that different actors shot their own scenes with the resources they had available. This is, in fact, one of the more endearing aspects of the movie. One enjoys the feeling that the collaborative aspect of the filmmaking process has been maintained, even despite the clear limitations. And then, additionally, the fact that Brocklehurst has edited it together to give the impression of an ensemble, lends the short a pleasing hand-made quality. Of course, the negative side of this is the filmic inconsistencies, yet I’m far more inclined to admire the ambition than to criticise the results.

From an editorial standpoint, this is incredibly experimental work. To their credit, the filmmaker demonstrates a clear and aggressively expressive authorial voice through the formal techniques in play – with the quick, psychologically disruptive cutting being the primary example of the film expressing its ambition through the technical over the thematic. It’s really exciting to see someone use the fluidity, and inherent unpleasantness, of digital cinema to make a truly assaultive viewing experience. The camerawork, while sort of muddy and occasionally flat-looking, is dynamic enough in its movement and energy to impress the eye. And the digitalness of the cinematography also complements the icky, underground atmosphere which the film manages to manifest.

The trouble comes with the intentionality of the work; many will find its messaging to be reductive, and not all that nuanced. While the filmmaking is delving into fabulously audacious territory, the narrative – that of a tortured, misguided man going out and murdering criminals – frankly doesn’t hold the same intrigue as it did in 1976. And if you’re trying to explore that sort of territory today, even discounting the distressing reminders of real-life crimes being committed in the world, I’d still like the movie to give me more of a reason as to why we’re witnessing this. It should be thematically thought-provoking; but instead, it remains only aesthetically stimulating – yet this is still in itself an achievement.