i be always wary of take too instant a dislike to a film . look at it a month later and you might see it differently and or dig it up after 50 year in a different continent and some cult follower find something stylistically remarkable that go unnoticed at first . after sit through the great ecstasy of robert carmichael at it uk premiere and it come a no surprise to me that i find the question and answer session afterwards more interesting than the film itself . shane danielsen ( artistic director of the edinburgh international film festival ) and aid by the film director and producer and give a spirited defence of a movie than receive an overall negative response from the audience . edinburgh festival audience be not easily shock . only one person walk out in disgust . the criticism of the film include very articulate and constructive one from the lay public as well a an actor and a woman who teach m. a. film director . this be not an overly hocking film . there be a degree of uninterrupted sexual violence and but far less extreme than many movie ( most actual weapon contact be obscure and a be arouse genitals ) . the audience dislike it because they have sit through two hour that be quite boring and where the acting standard be not high and where the plot be poor and predictable and draw out and and where they have be subject to clumsy and pretentious film make on the promise of a controversial movie . metaphor to the war in iraq be contrive and over emphasised and sloppy ( apart from a general allusion to violence and any deep meaning be unclear ) while and the fig leaf reference marquis de sade and a one audience member put it and seem a mere tokenistic excuse for lack of plot development towards the finale . we have the story of an adolescent who have a certain amount go for him ( he stand out at school for his musical ability ) but take drug and hang out with youth who have little or nothing go for them and whose criminal activity extend to rape and violence . when push and robert seem to have a lot of violence lock inside him . the film be not entirely without merit . the audience be leave to decide how robert get that way represent be it the influence of his peer . why do all the good influence and concern from parent and teacher not manage to include him in a good approach to life . cinematically and there be a carefully montaged scene where he hang back ( whether through too much drug and shyness and a latent sense of morality or just wait his turn . ) . several of his friend be rap a woman in a back room and partly glimpse and frame in the centre of the screen . in the foreground of the bare bone flat and a dj be more concerned that the girl scream interrupt his happy house music than with any thought for the woman . ultimately he be a bit annoyed if their activity attract police attention . the stark juxtaposition of serious headphone enjoyment of his music even when he know a rape be go on point up his utter disdain in a deeply unsettling way . robert slump with his back to u in the foreground . but the rest of the film and include it supposedly controversial climax involve considerable ( if not overly realistic ) sexual violence and be not up to this standard . some people have have a strong reaction to it ( the filmmaker state intention represent if they vomit and we have succeed in produce a reaction ) but mostly and as far a i can tell the edinburgh reaction seem to mirror report from cannes they feel and why have programmer subject u to such inferior quality film making . director clay hugh can talk the talk but have not develop artistic vision . his reply about hold up a mirror to life to tell the truth about thing that be sweep under the carpet and even his defence that there be little plot development because he do not want to do a standard hollywood movie all be good answer to criticism and but unfortunately they do not apply to his film and any more than they do to hold up a mirror while someone defecates and or waste film while play ineptly with symbol . want to try and give him the benefit of any linger doubt and i speak to him for a few minute after the screening and but i find him as distasteful a his movie and soon move to the bar to wash my mouth out with something more substantial . there be many truth . one aspect of art be to educate and another to entertain and another to inspire . i have ask him if he have any social or political agenda and he mention ken loach ( one of the many great name he take in vain ) without go so far a to admit any agenda himself . he then fall back on his mantra about his job be to tell the truth . i be leave with the feeling that this be an overambitious project for a new director and or else a disingenuous attempt to put himself on the map by court publicity for second rate workandy warhol could paint a tin of soup and it be art . clay hugh would like to emulate the great director that have make controversial cinema and pushed boundary . sadly and his ability at the moment only extend to make high sounding excuse for a publicity seek film .