In a film about a grieving family and what it means to love and rebuild through pain, it seems strange to me that the direction it takes is recklessness and irresponsibility. Clive Owen plays a young man named Joe, who is the father of two boys and is a recent widower. As many of these films go he is a man who is devoted to his work as a sports writer and must now contend with being both mother and father when he has never had to be either.
Set in the deserts of Australia, he at first only takes care of his younger boy, Artie, who possibly has to navigate through the most difficult acting of the lot. The boy is probably no older than eight, but the sorrow of losing his mother is difficult and skillfully tackled. The two of them, who have never been close, must now learn to live with each other and only each other in order to forge some sort of family unit. Think of "Kramer vs. Kramer" and the first scene in which Dustin Hoffman tries to prepare french toast for his son. This film takes on something of a similar approach, but instead of the father figure trying to accept his new responsibilities he instead creates what he calls his "hog heaven".
I would be surprised at nothing less, but then I have deep-seeded prejudices towards Aussies. Presumably though, this sort of behavior is not customary for these...people. After their initial troubled period, Joe begins to take on more of the characteristics of his boy. He pouts, is easily insulted and is lazy. We feel for him though as he is presented as a good guy, and Owen's performance is likable as usual. However, if he is now supposed to the father do we accept the almost dangerous way that he raises his child?
This first third of the film is almost scarily melodramatic and predictable, with its somber music, picture perfect montages, and the hint of new romance (though his wife has only been dead for a couple of months). The performances are good, but did not seem like they would be enough to contend with the unbreakable formula.
Fortunately for them and us a third character is presented. This is Harry, a young teenager and Joe's eldest son from his first wife. He has been at school in England and has come to Australia for the first time in order to see his father and meet his half brother. Of course he is sullen and distant initially--he has just been thrown into a family which he never sees and a household that has no rules. Harry is played by George MacKay who I think gives the most believable performance of them all. But then he does not have to worry about dealing with grief as it wasn't his mother who died. What he does reveal, and quite expertly, is abandonment and the pain that comes with parent's separation.
Together the three work very well and feel as if they actually were a family. Many issues are glossed over to pave the way for the unavoidable happy ending. Conflicts are thrown in to keep us interested, but the all-too-familiar story comes barreling down upon us without any means of escaping it. Knowing this, I must say that I was not too displeased when it did hit me simply because I had found that the characters resonated with me.
It takes a while for the script to warm up, but then how can they expect us to care about a relationship gone when the mother dies within minutes of the film starting? It is only when less emphasis is placed on the mother and more about the restructuring of the family that I was finally able to relax and enjoy the story. Alexander Payne new how to avoid a lot of these obstacles in last year's "The Descendants", but director Scott Hicks was a little more blunt with his story telling.
When the film finally settles and the childish nonsense dissipates we are left with a rather touching story of man doing his best. There is love, but fear needs to be overcome first. So if you can slug through the first 25 minutes--and I applaud your fortitude if you can--you might find that the last third is something of a rewarding experience.
2.5/4
No comments:
Post a Comment