Post by Capo on Sept 17, 2009 14:20:45 GMT
I missed out on Andrea Arnold's debut feature Red Road a few years back. It came out at a similar time to London to Brighton, and there were vague, brief comparisons being made that put me off; I hadn't liked the other film very much.
Arnold's second film is a miserable effort, steeped in misery and lacking charm or humanity. Centering on fifteen-year-old Mia, who lives with younger sister, her neglectful mother and their dog in council-estate Essex, the film shows more interest in steeping itself in bleak, foul-mouthed hopelessness than any genuine working class issues. It's a naive and self-satisfied film that wears such 'gritty social realism' on its sleeve, as a badge, with little heart, conviction or social insight.
It's telling that most of the plaudits are being thrown on Katie Jarvis, a non-actor newcomer who keeps us watching despite the shoddy, purposeless script. Jarvis is impressive, perhaps, but the fact she was spotted and considered for the role when having a row with her boyfriend, suggests she hasn't been stretched, that she was 'perfect for the role' because there's actually very little depth to it.
The most specific appraisal I've seen for the film is that most vague of all: 'gritty'. But it isn't enough, really, because everything remains a caricature, a stereotype. Every time the script hits a dead end, Arnold cuts to a more placid, 'reflective' shot of a worn-down block of flats, the inhabitants of which sit on their verandas shouting at one another and releasing vented-up aggro. The whole thing is contrived.
The film shows angry people, but shows neither an anger towards the social circumstances that might create such a desperate collective mindset, nor an uplifting observational humanity. It lacks focus, and throughout plays to the audience's emotional demands. There's a broad psychological gap left, for instance, when Mia, an otherwise angry young girl with clear issues boiling underneath, decides to persist in attempts to free a chained-up horse on a run-down lot; oh no, this girl has a heart! It's cheap and not convincing in the slightest.
Michael Fassbender plays Connor, the Wickes security guard who begins to date Mia's shell of a mother. Again, praise has been heaped on his performance (and he's certainly the hip man of the moment), but he has very little to do really. It's easy (and not cynical) to see why both Jarvis and Fassbender have been praised; two thirds through the film, after some vague, suggestive scenes that hint at an attraction between the two, a drunken Connor and Mia find themselves having sex whilst the mother sleeps, passed out from a(nother) heavy night of alcohol.
Though it might be easy to see the scene as 'brave' - fuelled no doubt by the lingering, voyeuristic, and to me very sexed-up camera - I found it a bit of an escape: here is a film heading nowhere at all, and so such a scene brings up all kinds of 'issues' and helps to propel it into its final act. The sex scene doesn't come from nowhere, but it's a silly, superficial inclusion all the same. That one can see it coming is in fact a sign of it not being brave.
The final act itself is tedious to the point of hilarity. It rolls by faster than the previous scenes, as if it suddenly has a drive and purpose and something to 'say', but it's found seriously wanting and desperate. The film finally rings empty, with its lasting focus being the relationship between Mia and Connor; the sex scene is central and brings upon the script an unavoidable emotional and moral dilemma that it cannot handle.
Arnold's second film is a miserable effort, steeped in misery and lacking charm or humanity. Centering on fifteen-year-old Mia, who lives with younger sister, her neglectful mother and their dog in council-estate Essex, the film shows more interest in steeping itself in bleak, foul-mouthed hopelessness than any genuine working class issues. It's a naive and self-satisfied film that wears such 'gritty social realism' on its sleeve, as a badge, with little heart, conviction or social insight.
It's telling that most of the plaudits are being thrown on Katie Jarvis, a non-actor newcomer who keeps us watching despite the shoddy, purposeless script. Jarvis is impressive, perhaps, but the fact she was spotted and considered for the role when having a row with her boyfriend, suggests she hasn't been stretched, that she was 'perfect for the role' because there's actually very little depth to it.
The most specific appraisal I've seen for the film is that most vague of all: 'gritty'. But it isn't enough, really, because everything remains a caricature, a stereotype. Every time the script hits a dead end, Arnold cuts to a more placid, 'reflective' shot of a worn-down block of flats, the inhabitants of which sit on their verandas shouting at one another and releasing vented-up aggro. The whole thing is contrived.
The film shows angry people, but shows neither an anger towards the social circumstances that might create such a desperate collective mindset, nor an uplifting observational humanity. It lacks focus, and throughout plays to the audience's emotional demands. There's a broad psychological gap left, for instance, when Mia, an otherwise angry young girl with clear issues boiling underneath, decides to persist in attempts to free a chained-up horse on a run-down lot; oh no, this girl has a heart! It's cheap and not convincing in the slightest.
Michael Fassbender plays Connor, the Wickes security guard who begins to date Mia's shell of a mother. Again, praise has been heaped on his performance (and he's certainly the hip man of the moment), but he has very little to do really. It's easy (and not cynical) to see why both Jarvis and Fassbender have been praised; two thirds through the film, after some vague, suggestive scenes that hint at an attraction between the two, a drunken Connor and Mia find themselves having sex whilst the mother sleeps, passed out from a(nother) heavy night of alcohol.
Though it might be easy to see the scene as 'brave' - fuelled no doubt by the lingering, voyeuristic, and to me very sexed-up camera - I found it a bit of an escape: here is a film heading nowhere at all, and so such a scene brings up all kinds of 'issues' and helps to propel it into its final act. The sex scene doesn't come from nowhere, but it's a silly, superficial inclusion all the same. That one can see it coming is in fact a sign of it not being brave.
The final act itself is tedious to the point of hilarity. It rolls by faster than the previous scenes, as if it suddenly has a drive and purpose and something to 'say', but it's found seriously wanting and desperate. The film finally rings empty, with its lasting focus being the relationship between Mia and Connor; the sex scene is central and brings upon the script an unavoidable emotional and moral dilemma that it cannot handle.