Star light, star bright,
The first star I see tonight;
I wish I may, I wish I might,
Have the wish I wish tonight.
There are some spoilers in this post. And some swearing.
Help me out here, please. What on earth is it about this film that I don't like? I found these screen caps languishing in a folder in a folder in a folder on my computer's hard drive. That's not like me, especially as in the early part of the film especially, Gabriel just looks superb.
That thumb thing. I love it when he does that thumb thing.
I'm so shallow, I know. *sigh*
For the record: The film is a real original. It has a compelling storyline, excellent characters, a clever script and a great many sensitive acting performances. So why, when it became apparent Gabriel's character wasn't coming back, did I switch off and mail the DVD to a friend of mine who hadn't yet seen it?
I wonder if she might just consent to boff me now?
Ahh no, maybe not.
I could try my best Peter O'Toole look, I guess -
There is every single reason why I should adore this film. The director is Michael Lindsay-Hogg, who directed one of my favourite films of all time - "Guy", starring Vincent D'Onofrio. (Oh! Trivia fans ... the other actor in "Guy" was Hope Davis!) ... er, excuse me, not to mention "Let It Be", with the Beatles, in 1970. Bloody hell.
Critics, like me, are neatly divided. The New York Times hated the film, but countless others loved it and call it an undiscovered gem. Obviously I no longer have the DVD so I cannot re-watch it in order to try and figure out what my objections are, but I can get a reasonable idea, I guess, from looking at the pictures.
The film left me feeling empty and slightly confused, mainly I suppose because I had been concentrating almost completely on Gabriel's character Jack Kelly, and there were things about him I simply didn't get. I understand that he and the young woman, Bernadette, become lovers. But for some reason this part of the story wasn't handled quite right, and it just didn't ring true for me.
I find this very hard to explain. Perhaps Gabriel Byrne runs up against the boundaries of his acting talents when he tries to play a lying, manipulative, cynical adulterer - one who is still an incredibly nice man, who loves his wife and children; who is sensitive, generous and considerate.
Ahhh! Would ya look at him! Butter wouldn't melt in his mouth, Missus!
It all reminds me of "Spider". Gabriel himself said that he found it incredibly difficult to play the part of Bill Cleg, because of his having to be both the bad guy and ultimately the good guy of the tale, all at the same time.
Do you not simply LOVE how no amount of Brylcreem can ever completely control Gabriel's hair? How even with a good slathering like he's got here, there's always one little bit making a bid for freedom across his brow?
Perhaps I needed a more solid explanation of how the two characters became lovers. One moment Jack Kelly is being like a platonic father-figure to her, a good Samaritan, a charitable benefactor. The next, they are shagging each other's brains out in a shabby little scene that somehow fails to fit in with the rest of the film's inherent romance and beauty - the whole scene is as dissolute and scruffy as the interior of the room they are in. It doesn't work for me, the idea that the whole relationship - Kelly's kindness, his altruism, his sensitivity, are all because he needs to have a sordid little fuck in a crappy little dive.
What's this? Crippled by guilt? Dogged by remorse? Or .. or, what?
There's no indication of it being out of love. If they were in love, then by Jimminey they should have been seen to be in love - there should have been some agonised, longing glances - come on! Gabriel Byrne is the undoubted King of Agonised, Longing Glances and Anne Parillaud - the original Nikita! - has been seen to do similarly stalwart work, ploughing through the muddy field of her love for Byrne's D'Artagnan in "The Man In The Iron Mask." So there's no excuse, there really isn't.
I'm all like, 'What's going on in this picture?'
But no. There are no desperate, lips-slightly-parted looks, no languid embraces, no secretly stolen kisses. Instead it goes from coffee shop to knocking shop. And then his daughter goes nuts.
And his wife takes him back anyhow. THAT wasn't done very realistically, either - the Italian in me craved some ranting, crying, screaming and maybe a bit of frying-pan-being-chucked-at-his-head. Gabriel plays the entire scene with his back to the camera.
Perhaps the film irritates me because it makes me feel like I am foolish; like I have missed some much broader and deftly painted point somehow. I suppose a film that makes one feel ANYTHING, even irritation, is a good thing these days, but I don't enjoy the sensation. Am I simply a lazy film viewer? Do I need everything on a plate for me? I don't think so. "Let It Be" and "Guy" both certainly had me thinking about them for days and days afterwards. But neither film made me feel like I was missing The Point.
Sorry, Gabriel. NO amount of this is gonna fix this fillum for me.
Don't sulk now mate, you'll get over it.
Nope! Nope! Too little, too late. I needed to see the love in this relationship earlier in the film.
Now I want to go and watch "Guy", "Let It Be", "Into The West" and "The Man In The Iron Mask" again, to restore my faith in the film industry.
(Anyone who is curious about the film "Guy" - and you should be, really - here is a selection of snippets done by my friend Eliza, over on YouTube. You don't see Hope Davis in it though. She's the one holding the camera ...)
