Dani Prados | The Date (2015)

without a voice

by Douglas Messerli

 

Christopher Birk (screenplay), Dani Prados (director) The Date (2015) [15 minutes]

 

Dani Prado’s 2015 short film The Date begins just as we might imagine a work with that title would, with a young man, simply named A (Troy Iwata), busily dressing for a date as he keeps in contact with the man he’s soon going to meet via cellphone.

    From the number of outfit changes A goes through, it appears that he has not had a “date” for some while and is particularly self-conscious about how he might present himself, exacerbated by his friend’s message: “Hope you’re going to look your very best! Hehe.” After five or six more complete changes of clothing, our anxious dater seems to be ready, standing by the subway to message that he’s on his way.

     Our cute friend looks perfectly fine to us, as he does apparently also to a fellow subway hunk (Emeka Nwafor) who keeps eyeing him throughout the voyage.

     He arrives first in the small restaurant where several other individuals sit alone, checking out their cellphones. When after a few moments, his date has not yet arrived, he himself checks his phone again, noting “I’m here…inside,” which receives the response, “There in a few moments.”

      When finally B (Timothy Kava) does arrive, we’re immediately struck with the fact that he’s not nearly as good looking as our over-anxious friend A. They briefly hug and he sits, we now expecting to listen in to their attempts to get to know one another. But instead of speaking, the other immediately pulls out his cellphone to type out—in all cases with super speed—“You’re a cutie.” A types back a half-smiling emoji with a “Thanks. You too.” A totally smiling emoji added.

     I have to say that at first, for a few seconds, I thought perhaps that both men were deaf and had chosen, rather inexplicably, to communicate with cellphones instead through sign-language. But we rather quickly realize that the trope of this short film is that people no longer speak to one another but merely communicate through their cellphones even while they sit a few inches from one another, face to face.

      This leads to a great deal of difficult, particularly when almost immediately B asks the question that general is asked later in such first gay meetings, “So, how come you’re still single?” answered predictably with the stock response, “I just haven’t found anyone who will commit I guess,” emoji of barred teeth. Clearly not culturally alert to the pacing of a date, B’s next question is the dreaded, “What do you like?....”

      Ignoring the meaning of the question, A responds with a statement about the food: “It all looks good. What are you doing?”

       They both agree on a small salad. But then B reiterates the true meaning of his question, “So? What are you into?”

       We observe the slightly distraught look that passes over A’s face, as he clicks back the word, “Into?”

        “You know…sexually?” followed by a smiling emoji with a red tongue hanging out.

        In a real conversation, the pauses, the interjections of the voice would make it clear this is not a conversation which dater A is yet ready to pursue. But here he proffers a vague answer, “I like normal stuff I guess…”

        B's immediate demand, “Details?” demonstrates the failure of the written word over the intonations of the spoken. And perhaps he has his eyes too intently trained on his cellphone monitor to see the look of discomfort that has washed over A’s face. But B has been oblivious and sits facing A with a slightly smug smile of his face suggesting, “I’m waiting.” When A does not respond, he taps out a sentence of challenge: “Well. Guess you’re just a big tease, aren’t you?”

       A tentatively smiles, answering “It’s just a liiiiitle soon for that kind of talk I think!” Sheepish smile emjoi.

       “Whatever! I gotta know these things so I know if I’m wasting my time,” he pushes back, clearly not having mastered the art of the written word as an expression of the human voice. All patience, A attempts yet another questioning of B’s language, “Wasting your time!!?”

       But B is not only clumsy, we realize, but outright rude and selfish, writing a sentence that would perhaps never have been spoken between to individuals face-to-face, “Yeah I’m not gonna just settle for anybody! But if you’re going to be all drama about it….”

     A look at A’s distraught face should reveal just how far B has now gone in alienating his table companion. But A attempts to rectify the situation once more, “I guess I’m just old fashioned,” our incapable interlocutor rudely reacting, “That’s another word for prude you know!! Anyway…you can just show me later. What you like, in bed!”

       After a few pauses, A tries one last time, “Yeah, maybe, but let’s eat first.”

     But even then B cannot cease expressing his lack of subtle communicating skills: “LOL. Typical!! Everytime I meet a cute guy. He’s all prude and weird about sexuality!!! Could have told me this you know?!”

      From there the conversation turns to an outright hostile interchange of B challenging A on every sentence he has already expressed and generally accusing him of deluding him about their meet-up! It’s hilarious to watch their fingers flipping through accusations and the more refrained responses of A who attempts to make it clear he is seeking a “connection.”

      Of course “connection” is not an internet experience, but something that happens through the use of the voice, its intonations, its interjections, its ability to express a wide range of contrary or even simultaneous possibilities. With the written word the meaning only comes with how the other reads it, interprets language, something with which culture has long been having increasing difficulties over the last many decades. When B suggests he’s really a good guy and A reacts that he didn’t say he wasn’t, he just hoped they could talk, we realize that neither of the two men have a clue what “talking” actually means.

      In anger A rises and leaves the restaurant, B still starring deeply into his cellphone typing out the words, “Hello? You there?” And the final sad excuse for his behavior, “OMG I was kidding.” As the camera pulls back we see the restaurant filled with such frustrated individuals busy fiddling with their cellphones.

    That last half-utterance perhaps suggests just how inexperienced B and others like him are with the lack of nuance of the written word. One wonders, obviously, why both A and B both didn’t just stay home and have their date through the cellphone. It might have saved them a great deal of frustration. And, of course, we feel saddened that A could not simply have taken his eyes off his cellphone long enough to notice the truly cute guy on the subway, maybe the man he was really looking for?

      While no one speaks in this movie, it is far from a silent film, as we hear all the noises of the subway, the tinkle of silverware and plates in the restaurant, and, of course, the clack of the cellphone keys. But we miss the sound of the human voice which gives so very much more meaning to cinema, and obviously to life itself.

      Finally, what in 2015 may have seemed like a sort of futurist nightmare has by 2022 become a kind of reality for some individuals who spend their lives tapping out written computerized messages without comprehending how they might be interpreted by others. Perhaps even this writer may sadly be among them.

 

Los Angeles, January 5, 2023

Reprinted from World Cinema Review (January 2023).