Q&A

Jack McLoughlin’s acidic new comedy Q&A is a force to be reckoned with. Shot with a multi-camera setup to replicate the scenario of, perhaps, a live broadcast, the audience bears witness to a question-and-answer presentation with a celebrated actor which will soon take a disastrous turn. When one aspiring actor wishes to ask the famous attendee a question, this aspiring performer reveals – rather dramatically, though slightly predictably based on the size of his coat – a bomb strapped to his chest. He proceeds to break down and confront the casting director about his lack of success in the industry despite seemingly empty promises. It’s tense stuff, well observed and, through its ridiculousness, occasionally quite amusing in a perceptive, uncomfortable sort of way. But the piece is made not only watchable but engaging through its execution (over its base concept). It may have a provocative screenplay, but the film’s ideas and conflicts are held together completely by the superb performances across the board.

To its strength, this very much feels like a piece of drama made through collaboration, despite only having a single writer/director credit. I commend director McLoughlin on making it feel as creatively multifaceted as it does, since they clearly constructed a space in which each and every performer can bring a lot of individuality to the dialogue and acting styles. And yet it all remains utterly consistent and never goes off the rails. Every individual featured in this film knows precisely where to pitch their performance at – how big or small to go; how absurd or grounded. Much of the joy of this film comes from focusing in on the nuances of their behaviour since there's strong realism to it all. Quite an unusual quality for a short film.

The fact that Q&A is shot as if simply to document this live event really lends this one extended scene a unique feel. One advantage of this is that we get to view the actors’ unbroken interactions. It’s much more like theatre in that manner – reliant less on aesthetic or cinematic devices and more on our engagement with character. However, if you don’t find this scenario engaging, one can imagine critics going to blame the form for any shortcomings. After all, without conventional visual storytelling, we’re not given emotional cues by the camerawork. Decidedly, this is meant to be a much more Brechtian exercise – and even if it is a comedy of sorts, it’s a smartly objective one.

Q&A strikes the perfect balance of tone. Were the tone to be completely outrageous and satirical in its comedy, the audience wouldn’t buy into the threat, intensity and quite scathing indictment of both the entertainment industry as well as the fragile, shallow egos of many who attempt to break into it. And on the flip side, if the piece were completely self-serious, audiences may risk finding the narrative to be more unpleasant than it is conceptually interesting. Overall, you can expect both enrapturing drama and subtle humour from this well-observed deconstruction of stardom.