A few times now in my reviews, I have mentioned a few
‘sentient red flags’ that have shown up in some films; actors whose recent
track records are so consistently underwhelming that merely seeing them
attached to films is enough to make sceptical. Usually, I’ve attributed that
label to certain Aussie actors like Jai Courtney and Teresa Palmer, both of
whom have been attached to some rather troubling works over the last few years.
Well, it is my unfortunate duty to include another actor to that list: Diane
Keaton. Over the last couple years, her live-action filmography has ranged from
the bland with a touch of mean-spiritedness with And So It Goes to the casually
spiteful and rather distasteful with Love The Coopers. Will today’s film show a
change in that pattern, or will I have to see another lauded actor fall through
the cracks of modern cinema? This is Hampstead.
The plot: Widow Emily (Diane Keaton), in the middle of
trying to settle her late husband’s affairs, happens upon local hermit Donald
(Brendan Gleeson). As Donald is in the middle of settling his own affairs, on
the verge of being evicted from his shack in the woods, Emily decides to help
him fight the case. But as they grow closer to each other, Donald starts to
wonder the real intentions behind Emily’s actions.
Well, we’re off to a decent start already with the cast
list; so much for my scepticism. Keaton starts off a bit out-of-place within
the setting, but once the fact that she’s the only American in this story sinks
in, she does very well with the material and allows for a lot of quiet dignity.
Gleeson ends up playing quite a few ‘social hermit’ traits relatively straight,
but the way he portrays his character’s want for independence is very resonant.
It helps that his Irish brogue makes his dialogue sound that much warmer.
James Norton as Emily’s son is okay in the few scenes he’s in, Lesley Manville maybe does a
little too well as the nosy
socialite, and Jason Watkins is honestly pretty creepy in that real-world “unwelcome
advances” kind of way; that ukulele scene from the trailer might be one of the
better bits of awkward comedy I’ve seen in a minute, and it works even better when
put in context.
For a story that is this familiar (disaffected older person
gains a new lease on life through connecting with an ‘outsider’), it’s a
definite boon that the characters are as well-drawn as they are, starting with
Emily. Emily essentially comes across like the older iteration of Kristen
Stewart’s character from Personal Shopper: A woman who is guided through life
by everyone around her to the point of worrying passivity. Through the…
complicated relationship she has with her late husband, Emily was left with
large debts and a weird attraction from people who are more looking for
“favours” than actually helping her in any real way. Basically, she’s been
forced into a bad position by someone who she can’t even confront about the whole
mess, something shown in hilariously depressing detail when Emily goes to her
husband’s grave.
Opposite her, we have Donald, a hermit who wants nothing to do
with the larger world but isn’t exactly in a rush to call out people who are part of that larger world. He is
more than happy to stay out of people’s ways, so long as they extend him the
same courtesy. When the two collide, it echoes certain notions of personal
freedom that usually translate in romantic films as “you need a man to change
your life”. Now, there are traces of that to be found here, but it’s mainly
from what the supporting cast says. Emily is just doing what she sees as the
right thing to do and the romance that grows between her and Donald feels very
natural as a result. That, and Keaton and Gleeson make for a rather cute
couple.
Maybe it’s because certain events in the real world over the
last couple months have gotten me thinking about this a little too much, but
I’m beginning to notice a common thought pattern in some people. When Diane
first hears about Donald’s living conditions, it’s through Fiona and her social
group calling the shack an “eyesore” and campaigning to have it knocked down.
Stories involving gentrification and the people it ends up affecting, most of the
time for the worst, are hardly anything new, but the way this film depicts it
feels weirdly contemporary. Going back to that thought pattern I mentioned, the
people working against Donald here are basically trying to make him conform to
their way of living. Even though his lifestyle invariably has nothing to do
with theirs and ultimately doesn’t even affect it, they still seem to care
enough about it to want him and his shack out of the picture.
It is honestly
worrying how common this notion is; look at any social media discussion
involving what the consensus considers to be “abnormal” and see just how many
of them only find time to care about others when it gives them a chance to pass
judgement. Not that Donald himself is an exception to this either: He doesn’t
think too highly of everyone else in the same village, but he doesn’t care; he
just wants to live his own life and let others go about living theirs. It’s
sentiments like that that really made me connect with the character, as I
honestly try to exhibit similar attitudes in real life myself.
There’s also another form of obligatory intervention that
gets brought up quite a bit in this film as well: The charity case. It’s
basically the same attitude as what I’ve already mentioned but on the other
side of the spectrum: Same interference with the life of another, only being
done out of a sense of goodwill rather than judgement. Of course, nowadays we
have a more colourful and mildly sickening term for it: Virtue signalling.
In
lieu of a long-winded rant about how much plain wrong floats around that term and the people who frequently use it,
I’ll try and keep this brief. Throughout most of the film, the majority of
characters, even Donald at certain points, think that Emily is helping him out
because it’s her “latest project”; a pet cause that she can stick to until she
gets bored with it and moves on to the next worthy cause of the month. Again, a
lot of social media pundits tend to operate within the same parameters; look at
how many people think just slapping a timely overlay on their profile pictures
is going to solve the world’s problems.
However, what that way of thinking ends
up doing is providing a purely cynical view of the world, one where people only
do “the right thing” to either make others think that they are noble or to
soothe a guilty conscience. It feels weird that I need to reiterate things like
this but people are capable of doing
things because they actually believe that they are the right thing to do. When
Donald gets assaulted early on in the film, Diane steps in to help not because
of any perceived reward, karmic or otherwise, but because… not everyone likes
seeing other people get tossed around.
Hell, Donald’s other allies don’t even
seem to care about him that much; one of his biggest defenders is a guy who
seems to be on rather negative terms with him but, much like Donald himself, he
doesn’t let his emotions cloud his sense of rationality. They argued quite a
bit, and do so again in the courtroom, but they understand each other on a
level that not even Emily seems to. Not agreeing with someone else’s choices is
one thing, but it’s possible to do so without being a dick about it in the
process. I’m not saying apathy is some kind of virtue or anything; I just think
that we’d be better off if we focused on more pressing matters rather than how
someone lives their life completely removed from ours.
All in all, while a rather basic romantic drama with a lot
of hints of the familiar to it, I can’t help but show gratitude for this film’s
stance of personal interference that, honestly, a lot of other people should be
taking notes from. As a look into the idea of personal freedom, and the living
roadblocks that tend to get in the way of such things, the acting combined with
the rather warm dialogue makes for a very pleasant viewing experience. Maybe
it’s because I’ve had quite a few conversations in the past few weeks involving
people showing concern for other people’s lifestyles for all the wrong reasons,
but I get the feeling that this film’s showing of “dislike as you wish but
don’t be a dick about it” is something we could use more of nowadays.
No comments:
Post a Comment