THE FILM

OFFICIAL SELECTION — TORONTO INDEPENDENT FILM FESTIVAL
(read more)

WINNER — BEST FEATURE FILM (read more)

A psychologist and his patient argue about the plausibility of getting away with murder.
Then they come up with a plan.

HOW TO GET AWAY WITH IT @

Synopsis

Reese is a man suffering from a slew of personality disorders. After a troubling week at work he is forced to seek professional help. On the evening he meets his court-mandated psychologist, he does everything he can to keep the Doctor out of his head. When Reese jokingly states that he can get away with killing someone, the Doctor insists that there is no such thing as a perfect murder. The next two hours will change their lives forever.

This polarizing disagreement begins to steer their evening in a very different direction. The Doctor only allows them evaluate and discuss the plausibility of getting away with it as a means to peel through Reese’s stubborn, outer layer. So they come up with a plan. And as their plan spirals out of control, Reese and the Doctor must weigh just how far one will go to prove a point.

 

Read more about How to Get Away with It at IMDb.com.

Director’s Statement

I’ve always been fascinated by films that are driven by complex characters and compelling dialogue – which was my goal when writing “How to Get Away with it”. I want the audience to lose themselves in the story.

To achieve this, I had to create an immersive, progressive situation which will invariably hold their attention until the very last frame. As the story takes you along the build-up of a bad idea getting worse – the snowball effect – the situation our characters find themselves in spins out of control and their idea can no longer be restricted to the hypothetical. Reese and the Doctor’s arguments about how to get away with it are escalated by their individual stubbornness to prove and disprove one another throughout the
evening.

“How to Get Away with it” holds a mirror up to some of the darker aspects of society, realizing that people are complicated – they don’t easily fall into categories such as heroes or villains. I want the audience to laugh along with “the bad guy” and find him charismatic – a sympathy for the devil – until his actions become so grotesque that we suddenly remember why he is and always has been the “the bad guy”. I want his ideas to be so compelling and convincing that we are willing to go along for the ride regardless of the
cost.

Murder is an ugly topic and human beings can be inherently cruel towards one another. A career working in news and media have made me acutely aware of this. By discussing a macabre topic through the lens of a comedy I want to make the audience examine their own feelings on homicide and violence – especially when thinking of other films where killing might be easily dismissed or trivialized.

By setting the film in a single location I have given further credence to “the bad guy’s” ideas as the interactions between the two main actors becomes the driving force, advancing the plot. The actors are convincing and genuine – conveying a sense of urgency and kinetic energy which builds up over the course of the story through captivating dialogue and growing tension.

— Andrew Dunlop