The Australian recently dug into debut filmmaker Murali Thalluri’s marketing claims and found a lot of the details seemed fishy. The 22-year-old Aussie’s teen suicide drama 2:37 was well-received at Cannes, is being screened at Toronto, and has started an Australian commercial run:

Which student at an Australian high school committed suicide at 2:37 p.m.? Was it the youth with the hygiene problem? The girl contemplating a pregnancy test? The young gay being bullied? Aussie filmmaker Murali K. Thalluri, in a debut based on a real-life situation, begins with the tragic outcome before backtracking to suggest candidates and reasons. A strong cast of unknowns recalls Gus Van Sant’s Elephant, but this film delves far deeper. [Link]

The first unsupported detail is the suicide which inspired the film:

Thalluri says the inspiration for 2.37 was his own suicide attempt and a video “farewell note” a school friend, “Kelly”, sent him before she killed herself. Yet he and Matthews steadfastly refuse to divulge Kelly’s real name nor provide details that could confirm her existence…

… he said the death took place on September 3, 2003. But checks of funeral and death notices from that date do not confirm his story. Neither Rostrevor College nor University Senior College, where Thalluri was a student, have records or recollections of any student committing suicide in those years…

Another director, Daniel Krige - whose brother committed suicide two years ago - has told The Weekend Australian he heard 2.37’s producer, Nick Matthews, boast in a Sydney bar two months ago that they fabricated the story of Thalluri’s friend’s suicide, the dedication of the film and Thalluri’s own depression and suicide attempt, to give Thalluri and the film more credibility… [Link]

“Basically (Matthews) said they had concocted it for a marketing campaign, both ‘Kelly’ and (Thalluri’s) own bouts of depression and suicide.”

… an Adelaide acting agent who dealt with Thalluri in the early stages of producing his controversial film said… neither the suicide video nor Thalluri’s own suicide attempt… were part of the early concept. “Right back in the very early stages when no one was listening to him there was no talk of a suicide video…” [Link]

Thalluri refuses to verify the existence of the friend who allegedly committed suicide: His bastardry is trivial compared to Hollywood

… after inquiries by The Australian found no trace of such a death, Thalluri admitted yesterday he had made up the date to protect the family of his friend who in fact died in September 2003.

“Kelly is not the name and the dates aren’t the right dates but the event actually did happen… Obviously for confidential reasons I’m keeping her (name) private for the family. I’m not giving a name and especially in the last week when everyone decided I’m a fake.” [Link]

A man who viewed the alleged suicide video didn’t think it matched up to the story:

Film distributor Roadshow released a statement yesterday signed by Justice of the Peace Henry Cox, declaring he had viewed a tape of the alleged teen suicide message, provided by Thalluri.

But Mr Cox told The Australian yesterday the woman in the recording “appeared to be a woman in her early 20s”, not a schoolgirl younger than 18 as Thalluri claimed. [Link]

The second is how the filmmaker lost vision in his right eye. Thalluri claimed $50,000 in victim’s compensation for the attack, which he applied to financing the film:

Thalluri has been widely quoted as saying he lost an eye in an April 2000 stabbing by 15 youths as he stood in a telephone booth outside an Adelaide cinema…. in August 2001 Thalluri reported being struck around the right eye by one person at a city phone booth… Only then did he claim he was attacked in 2000… A police source described Thalluri’s [one-year delay in reporting the crime] as “quite unusual”. [Link]

Some are tut-tutting about the hustling he did to get the film made:

Thalluri does admit he faked his way into teaching an acting class by inventing qualifications. The class helped him find 2:37’s young cast.

“We schemed our way to get this film made? We kept on hassling people to get money. And when we were in Cannes, we had to fake our way into certain events so we could meet people. But I didn’t see anything immoral about that.” [Link]

Thalluri’s also been criticized for the film’s structural similarity to Elephant, a Gus Van Sant flick about the Columbine shootings: He has taken entire shots from Elephant. It’s plagiarism, pure and simple

… it so shamelessly rips off Gus Van Sant’s Elephant that it is tough to believe so few critics have had the guts to call it on its plagiarism… He has taken entire shots from the film. Entire extended sequences. Not in a “Brian de Palma does the Odessa Steps” tribute way, either. It’s plagiarism, pure and simple. He’s even hired van Sant’s sound designer from Elephant to make it just exactly, precisely identical. It amazes me that it was screened at Cannes so soon after Elephant took the Palmes D’Or. [Link]

I asked him to comment on the similarities between the two films, noting that Gus Van Sant was thanked in the credits. He responded that he has seen ‘Elephant’ after writing the script and he has copied the structure but felt that there was a big difference between the two films. [Link]

“I think it is a manipulative film. I think it’s also an exploitative film, and of course the similarities to Elephant are so striking I think they go beyond just being influenced by Gus van Sant. I think they tip over a line in that respect…

… but I do think, for a 19-year-old… to go out and actually do it and to get such a fine cast of young actors… I think he deserves a lot of credit for that.” [Link]

The film itself is stirring up worry about copycat suicides, somewhat mitigated by its R rating:

… the suicide depiction is perhaps the most irresponsible, immature aspect of the film, showing in lurid, fascinated detail the precise method to slash one’s wrists. Most teen wrist-slash suicides fail because they don’t know how to do it… the film is a cynical, almost dangerous exercise in exploitation… [Link]

The film shows a graphic and realistic scene, that goes for several minutes, of a suicide… “We do know that when there is reporting of suicide or portrayal of suicide through movies such as this, that often the suicide rates increase and it can have a significant impact on vulnerable people who might be at risk of suicide.” [Link]

Thalluri certainly has a talent for promotion:

“Murali’s best asset was getting people involved… He’s a complex character. At 19, just being able to get something off the ground like that is incredible. He’s a very intelligent guy, very calculative and he’s mature beyond his years.” [Link]

[Thalluri] told me an anecdote, about a book that provided inspiration in getting ahead. Catch Me If You Can. The autobiography of Frank W. Abagnale. You know the guy — possibly the greatest conman of the last fifty years. [Link]

Somehow, Murali’s debut film… was duped and express posted to every A-grade talent agent in Tinseltown. “It was some kind of pirated copy - I hadn’t even finished the film, and it didn’t even have a full soundtrack - that got around to all the agents”, says the filmmaker, on the line from his native Adelaide. “Someone must have leaked it - one of our sales agents, or something. Suddenly, all the agents wanted to meet. People were just calling us, and sending bottles of wine up to our rooms - we were just having a blast. You see stuff like that happening on shows like Entourage, but you never imagine it actually happens.” [Link]

He says he’s been able to raise money for his next film:

… he hopes to follow up an attention-getting low-budget debut with a Hollywood studio-funded project based on a best-selling book… Thalluri told The Age on Monday night that he was working on the adaptation of a book that he could not name but that it was a big production involving Hollywood-studio money. The book was one of his favourites, he said, had been top of the New York bestsellers list for 38 weeks and the film would be shot in New York next year.

“I’m dying to say (what it is), it’s frustrating,” he said of the project, which he expected to be announced after a meeting in Los Angeles next month. [Link]

One blogger sees a victimless crime:

His personal morality does not intrude on the cinematic experience. No one has said he ripped anyone off, or cheated his investors. His young performers have come out of this well, with exposure and contracts on new projects… his bastardry is trivial compared to the average Hollywood production office…

[But] he may have a character flaw which will ruin a talented career. Ya gotta have some connection with the real world. [Link]