Oh, this is going to be a tough one to talk about. What
makes that statement weird though, considering I’ve reviewed a wide spectrum of
releases on this blog before, is that it isn’t even for any of the obvious
reasons. I’ve mentioned how old-timey costume dramas really aren’t my thing for
some reason, and writing about them isn’t something I find easy, but that’s not
it. I’ve shown a certain verging-on-dickishness when discussing
feminist-centric notions, something that makes those topics not exactly my
favourite thing to talk about, but that’s not it either.
Today’s film is a
story involving incest between cousins, and to cut a potentially long and
aggravating story short, I found out rather recently that apparently people
still need to be convinced that incest isn’t exactly the most ideal thing to be
doing with one's time. And yet, even that
isn’t why this is going to be a tough review to get out there. Rather, it’s
because when all three of these areas intersect with this film’s approach to
framing its story, it results in a very all-over-the-place kind of production.
Let’s get started and, hopefully, I’ll be able to explain why.
The plot: After the death of his surrogate father, Philip
(Sam Claflin) seeks revenge against his and his father’s cousin Rachel (Rachel
Weisz), whom signs point to being responsible for the death. However, once the
two actually meet, sparks start to fly between them and Philip brings Rachel
into his life with open arms. As their relationship progresses, and onlookers
like Nick (Iain Glen) and his daughter Louise (Holliday Grainger) start to
notice some troubling things going on with Rachel, it seems that Philip may be
too love-struck to register them before it may be too late. Or, at least, I think that’s what the film was going for
here.
The cast here is honestly rather impressive, if held back
somewhat by the story that they’re playing parts in. Sam Claflin is good, even
in his weird double-casting, although I would watch a documentary about paint
drying if it had his charismatic voice over it. Weisz is also good and makes a
nice fit for the character she’s been given, but she ends up held back by how
her character seem to stay in flux for the entire film. Glen is incredibly
one-note and the fact that his character has so much untapped potential within
the story makes his performance feel even more wasteful. However, in his more
confrontational moments, he certainly delivers as a potential voice of reason.
Honestly,
the best performance here comes from Holliday Grainger, who is incredibly
bubbly and her banter with Claflin is incredibly warm and natural. When I last
complained about costume dramas not being my thing with Love & Friendship,
this is the kind of acting and dialogue I’d rather be seeing in these
productions. Of course, the fact that the chemistry between Grainger and
Claflin is good to the point of being better than the core romance could be
argued as being a negative.
So, this film is billing itself as a romance. Fair enough,
but that means that the film will have to rely on its romantic entanglements
and tension, so they better be good. Not the case, unfortunately. While the
main conceit of the romance is a little squicky, given the whole cousin incest
angle combined with Claflin portraying both himself and his cousin-turned-stepfather, that isn’t even what makes it
fall short.
Instead, it’s because despite the evidence of real emotional
connection between characters with Philip and Louise, it’s not so evident with
Philip and Rachel. From the rather aggressive “let’s judge at face value”
approach that Philip goes into the relationship with, it constantly feels like
there’s a glass screen between the two that stops them from actually showing
that a relationship between them even exists. Whether a straight-forward
romance was even the ‘official’ intent of the production can be debated, but no
matter what kind of romance they were aiming for, the wobbly chemistry between
the characters and their actors means that it doesn’t have the impact that it probably
should.
More so than any kind of romance, the way this film presents
its story comes across more like a thriller than anything else. Between the
flirtations with murder and financial exploitation in Rachel’s actions and the
head-trippy moments that Philip goes through as the result of possible
poisoning, this story could have gone in some rather intriguing directions.
Unfortunately, for as potentially psychological as the plot can get, it is
embarrassingly cut-and-dry in its progression.
The film starts on the
assumption that Rachel killed Philip’s (and her) cousin and doesn’t really
deviate from that. Or, at least, it doesn’t deviate to the point of creating
reasonable doubt. Making the audience, through Philip, question just how
malevolent Rachel’s actions are would be perfectly fine and add a nice texture
to the film’s sexual politics, but through the acting, it played so straight
that it cuts any of the murky tension it could have had. I mean, when the film
foreshadows Rachel using poison with the same subtlety as A Cure For Wellness
did with water, it feels less like clever misdirection and more like the film
just pulling the rug out from under you; there’s little to show for it, save
for a mild headache.
What makes the not-so-ambiguous writing hurt even more is
that there are instances of progressive sexual politics involved; possibly
anachronistically progressive, but quite frankly, I’m trying to give this film
as much credit as I am capable of delivering at this point. Rachel asserts
herself on-screen as a woman who wants to exist beyond a connection to a man and having control over her own affairs,
up to and including financially. To add to this, any scene where people
(particularly men) are shown eating food is done as animalistically as possible,
while Rachel just nibbles. Between them, there’s a thematic vein of consumption
and using living things for personal gain, something that could have easily
given clarity to Rachel’s actions and even gained her some sympathy in her
goals.
Of course, that vague musing is about as far as it goes and, even with
the exterior add-ons, Rachel’s actions could just as easily be argued as part
of an act to secure wealth and property for its own sake. Sure, debate over
character intentions and subtext can make for very entertaining post-film
discussions, but it’s a little trickier to talk about when the film’s framing
makes certain arguments a lot easier to make than others. It’s at once really
obvious and yet weakly trying not to be at the same time, and considering I’m
even able to read any form of subtext into something this ultimately basic, I
genuinely don’t know how to take all of this.
All in all, despite having no real expectations going into
this, I can’t help but be pretty damn disappointed by this. While the acting is
very good and the story occasionally nudges some nuanced ideas, it ends up
being drowned out by a general inability to figure out either the tone or the
intent of the story. It’s probably not something that’s meant to be taken at
face value, but then again, its face value itself is so plain that it’s
difficult not to, making for a rather dull and terribly predictable viewing
experience. I may have a pre-existing disinterest in costume dramas, but if
this film’s potential was properly realized, I might actually like this thing.
No comments:
Post a Comment