Hanky Panky (2023)/Dir. Nick Roth — Film Review

I started film school two years ago at California State University, Northridge. I didn’t know what to expect coming here all the way across the world from my home in New Delhi. In the time I have spent in film school, I have come to realise that the ‘education’, a course prescribed by the college and the industry plays a minor role in comparison to the people you meet and what you make out of your college experience in finding your voice as an artist and filmmaker. This semester, I had the privilege of learning from a professor, who was not merely an academic or a theorist who preached ‘rules of cinema and the right way to go about it’, but a brave filmmaker who actually followed his passion and spent almost half a decade in establishing that one can make a film outside of the norms and demands of the film industry, run by executives who prioritise commerce, statistics and numeric algorithms over art and entertainment. Professor Nick Roth had an exclusive screening of his film ‘Hanky Panky’ on October 24th, 2023 and I am honored to have been amongst the first viewers of this movie.

This is not a conventional review, for I am not a film critic or scholar, and do not plan on ever viewing cinema from a lens of demystification. Hanky Panky is not a film I would normally watch. Its sense of humour is an acquired taste for the non-American viewer, and the plot is beyond bizarre. It’s about a man and his puppet handkerchief saving the world from a transdimensional evil in a snowy cabin in the woods. But that’s exactly what made the film so much fun to watch. Amongst the corporate release slate of Marvel Monotony and Franchise Fatigue, I would any day watch a film that is bold and unique than a formulaic product, manufactured for monetary gains.

Independent cinema preserves the artistic voice of the medium, preventing it from succumbing to mere commerce, and plays a huge role in forwarding and redefining the art form that has only existed for 150 years. Aspiring filmmakers, especially in the day and age of a highly technologically democratised society, should realise that all it takes is a mobile phone/camera, laptop, some light and sound equipment, and a couple of friends to facilitate the cinema they see in their heads. One does not need validation from a studio head or industrial oligarchy to greenlight their film. The artists behind the screen should enjoy the process of creation rather than worry about being overworked and underpaid and the authority should be the creative collaborators, not the patrons of quarterly bonuses.

Professor Roth’s story of making Hanky Panky was so inspiring. He and his friends set out to make a film with no production budget, using available resources at their disposal. Barring gas money and expenses to feed the crew, hardly any money was spent. The location was a cabin in Utah owned by a crew member; the visual effects were done mostly practically, using puppetry, and some CGI, done without any outsourcing. Technically and structurally the film was apt, and the camera work and editing were great. The humour was very parodical, but gave it a unique flavour, and one of my favorite parts of the film was the shrooms sequences, which was the most creative bit that employed some crazy filmmaking. Again, I re-emphasise this. This film was made with no budget. It’s a full-length feature. The 12-minute student thesis films that my college produces are made with at least 5 times the budget of the film. Yet Hanky Panky pulls it off with its 86-minute runtime.

Professor Roth’s film is a testament to the fact that creativity lies beyond dogma and that all it requires is making the most of what you have. Logistics and pragmatic concerns should be secondary when it comes to making art and it’s about enjoying the doing of the work and being in service of it rather than anticipating the fruits of the work. More than the film itself, the story behind it and the work that went into its creation is what stimulated my thoughts and worldview and taught me that as a filmmaker, I only serve the film and its creation, not the conglomerate that boils down to a construct.