Let's be realistic.

It's fun, it's light, [but] it has a hard time when its tries to get heavy.

It's a mild crowd pleaser for people who are exhausted by blockbusters.

Easily the biggest piece of Right wing non sense propaganda I ever saw.

Some commentators seem to find the fact that John Harrigan wears so many hats in this production problematic. Because of the particulars of this film I find this critique problematic. The film's mysterious 'Stronheim' is undoubtedly a hat tip to the auteur Erich von Stroheim. The way von Stroheim's idiosyncratic creative process dominated his films is a hallmark of his brilliance even if at times it was arguably gratuitous.Strange Factories is a film about the process of creation, these moments of faux-gratuitousness are deliberate stylistic choices important to the theme of the film and not things that should have been left out. The initial introduction to the Society Of Vandals serves to underscore this point early on. To be clear I'm not calling anybody a philistine, when I was a young man there were books, paintings and films which I did not appreciate because of my lack of exposure to and experience with those art forms. It's no sin to be ignorant, only to be willfully so. What I do find troubling in two of these reviews is that while acknowledging they were attending an immersive (read participatory) event, each in their own refused to participate. I was reminded of Foolish People's 2007 production of Dead Language, where some in the audience thought it was terribly clever to point out a fictional drug in that story handed out to the audience in the form of a sugar pill was a "sham". These tangible invitations into the narrative are not part of a Vegas illusionists act where part of the fun is figuring out the con. When you don't get something out of an experience because you refuse to engage it you are the problem, not the film. There's nothing wrong with enjoying a film like Teen wolf (as one reviewer seems to) but not every film is meant to be consumed in that way. Disliking a film because it's not the film you wanted to watch is not only irrelevant as a piece of criticism, it's the intellectual equivalent of a tantrum.I screened Strange Factories in my home for an audience chosen specifically because they were not as immersed in the arts as I am, and who were also unfamiliar with Foolish People's work, because I was interested in seeing how this film would be received by an audience that wasn't primed for the experience Strange Factories advertised. I must confess I was skeptical that FP could achieve with film what they do with live theater. The only thing my audience was told about the film was that they should not be expecting the kind of film they are used to experiencing, and that they should feel free to focus on those things in the film that grabbed them and to not worry about "getting it" on their first viewing. I was correct in thinking the bias I brought would dramatically impact my experience. For example my body started mimicking ticks I have experienced when experimenting with amanita muscaria in my younger days: excessive salivation, compulsive rubbing of the gums, and twitching. I also experienced mild auditory and visual hallucinations. The rest of the group did not experience these things. They all had a very unique experience of the film never the less. Some were very focused on The Society Of Vandals, others on Punch or some other character. There was confusion on their part, and on mine, I don't pretend to have instantly understood everything, it is after all a very dense film. I've watched it five times now and am still finding new experiences. That density however is necessary not an example of pretension or slavishness to a single vision. Harrigan is on record as having gone through several screenplays before arriving at Strange Factories. My audience is proof of how this payed off. Each experienced the film in their own way and in talking about it afterward were delighted to see how each of them had missed something the others had not. The film's density is how immersive and audience specific experience is created.This is a monumental achievement, not a failing, considering that unlike live theater every viewer will technically witness an identical performance. Not to say the film is flawless: certain scenes are lit very darkly, the note and contract handed to Victor are difficult to read, some dialog is difficult to ascertain, etc. I must confess I found it difficult at first to ascertain whether these were flaws in the physical process of the film, or problematic style choices. In trying to suss that out I re-watched those scenes repeatedly. This forced me to engage more actively with the film, which is thematically relevant. However, rewarding as the process was, it is a high bar to set for the average viewer. I do think of Joyce's 'Finnegans Wake.' Though an unapologetically difficult read, Joyce's choices were important both to his narrative, and as a challenge to the constraints of the modern novel. Given how vast and meticulous this film is both on its own and as part of a larger transmedia experience I'd conclude, however imperfect, these aspects of Strange Factories are intentional, worth hurdling, and present important challenges to a modern cinema totally colonized by the Hollywood formula. I don't mean to draw a 1:1 comparison between Joyce and Harrigan, either. Finnegan's wake in many respects represents a pinnacle, whereas I suspect that Harrigan's best film work is yet to come.I never fault people who don't find 'Finnegans Wake' rewarding, provided they've done due diligence with the novel,likewise I wouldn't automatically fault those who, take similar issue with Strange Factories. This conflict between experimentation, and accessibility is one many artists struggle with. Even so, Strange Factories is impressive and important. A difficult piece of cinema, to be sure, but as Victor notes in the film, some stories are the product of difficult births.

I was not in a theater so I can't write about the "immersive" experience: this lines are just about the film itself. I think that a clear narrative structure was not a goal, here. Keeping straight to the meaning is the main duty of a director. Strange Factories is a surreal film so, in my opinion, the purpose was driving the audience to a given feeling and, more or less, a given state of mind. For me, being a very low budget (first) feature film, the final result has been achieved. A few notes on the product. Acting: yes, many actors and sometimes actresses wear a mask but I found their acting effective for the surreal mission. Cinematography: in my humble opinion, even though they shot in digital, black&white was mandatory for the purpose of this feature... there are a few out of focus or dark scenes but, overall, it works. Editing: it flows and that counts, of course. The "surrealism" is almost reached with acting, directing and music, just a little using editing. Music/Sound: yes, they are essential to reach a given state of mind and they get it. Do they really need a huge name like Mozart? I don't think so: it does not need extra power from a giant, it could work by itself.

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.

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...