Review: The Danish Girl - Tender and Luminous

The Danish Girl

Starring: Eddie Redmayne, Alicia Vikander, Amber Heard, Ben Whishaw, Marcus So

Directed by: Tom Hooper

Written by: Lucinda Coxon

120 minutes   Rated M

I have to confess that there is a lot about transgender that I don’t understand. It strikes me that going through reassignment is heroic but fraught. I am learning a lot about the subject because of the current interest and discussion generated by people such as Caitlyn Jenner, Catherine McGregor and Chas Bono. I have known two people who were trans and they were both stunningly beautiful women. I remember reading about Christine Jorgensen when I was young and saw the rather hideous and sensationalist movie of her ‘change’. More recently I read April Ashley’s rather rambling and pretentious memoir which gave some insight into one woman’s transition. After Caitlyn Jenner’s candid and informative interview last year comes the Tom Hooper directed ‘The Danish Girl’ based on the novel by David Ebershoff.

Einar Wegener shares a studio with his wife Gerda in Copenhagen, he the successful landscapist and she the unrecognised portraitist. Just as a painting emerges on a canvas so too does Einar’s true identity as Lili with the encouragement and support of Gerda. This film is about Lili’s emergence and the evolution of the marriage at a time when gender reassignment surgery (not to mention discussion of transgender issues or acceptance of the existence of gender dysmorphia)was barely in conception let alone infancy.

Eddie Redmayne again achieves what he did in ‘The Theory of Everything’, disappears completely into his character and gives us both Einar and Lili and we see where he exists within her at the same time as making her different to him. She is beautiful and slight, refined but demur, not confident and yet the audience has no doubt her path though difficult and emotional is the right one. It is a perfect balance and masterful. Similarly Alicia Viklander as Gerda is assured and shows us the various levels suiting the range of situations she lives through while experiencing Lili’s journey as a supporter and a painter. She wants what’s best for her husband and Lili but where does that leave her as a wife who loves her husband when he is no longer ‘there’? What will fill that space, is the turnaround in her artistic endeavours fill the void, where will her emotional nourishment come from? Vikander’s first class acting lets us in enough to wonder with her.

There are a few times where I thought the script was a bit stilted, primarily early on. Also the sex scenes didn’t ring true of a long term marriage but perhaps there was a point there, not subtle maybe but perhaps deliberate. Also the early scenes of Henrik (Ben Whishaw) trying to seduce Lili were ill conceived and a bit naff. This was all early on in the film and there is no fluff or dead air as the story moves along.  

I thought this was a gorgeous film visually, some startling framing, angles and a beautiful palette. I would have loved to have seen it in widescreen ratio. I liked that everything was slightly muted (not soft focus, just a sense of it all being behind a very thin muslin), nothing was vivid, a crayon rather than oils perhaps? A painting rather than a digital photograph?  Beautiful. Copenhagen was stunning, Paris was mouth-watering and Dresden breathtaking.

There are some historical and factual errors apparently and the truly surprising ending was not quite reflective of what actually happened. That is a concern when one is making a movie of a ‘true’ story. Hooper says he put back some of the ‘truth’ that had been fictionalised in his novel but some critics have used this as a reason for bagging the film overall. Okay if that is how you base a review but I didn’t know that until after I saw the film. I write reviews based on what I know and what I respond to at the time I see a film. 

I don’t know I learnt more about transgender issues from this fine movie apart from pondering the question ‘who am I in my dreams – Lili or Gerda’. But I now know the story of two fine artists who lived in an interesting time in a beautiful city and went on an extraordinary (the perfect adjective in this case) adventure that involved gender, relationship, societal norms and art. That’s a story worth knowing about and this is a film definitely worth seeing.

3 ½ out of 5

Review: 'The Big Short' - Telling Like it Was

The Big Short

Starring: Christian Bale, Steve Carell, Ryan Gosling, Finn Wittrock, John Magaro

Directed by: Adam McKay

Written by: Adam McKay and Charles Randolph

130 minutes   Rated M

I studied economics for a while at school and have a basic grasp on the topic given the change in direction and terminology over the couple of decades since I tried to comprehend it all. I even have a sense of what caused the Global Financial Crisis and the concept of subprime, short selling and hedge fund traders.  After two and a bit hours watching ‘The Big Short’ I am now aware that my retention of the fundamentals and my competency in the complexities are far too removed from each other and possibly dramatically lacking in both arenas for me to grasp a movie that encompasses such themes. 

This is a very good film that tries to skirt around the complexities by presenting much of it in a humorous vein sprinkled with witty asides, sarcastic observations and frankly ludicrous scenarios (or is that scenaria?). I understand that while the bankers and 'experts' either ignored or were too caught up in formulaic thinking to see that home loans were becoming delinquent in huge numbers and would soon default, a number of other observers were smelling an opportunity to make a lot of easy money from it happening. That I got. The mechanics of it all...subtitles or an explanatory guide please.

Ryan Gosling's character tells us early in the film that normal people aren't really meant to fully understand the financial world - thank the Lord I'm normal for once! The beauty of this film is in using this as a pivot point, showing us how the incomprehensible language, jargon and tricks (they'd probably call them strategies and programs) and adding complexity upon complexity to what is probably a simple equation (the curse of our age - making the simple complex)you confuse the masses - your target - and you have control to do what you will. In this case, as all too many were to discover, that's exactly what happened. 

A well written movie based on Michael Lewis' best seller, giving the excellent ensemble of actors and characters myriad chances to strut their acting chops and none fail. The characters never actually interact for the most part and yet they slot in to form the collective beautifully. And for me not one character had an ounce of integrity about them in the end (Steve Carell's character gave us hope for a while but in the end we knew he was pissing in our pockets; Brad Pitt also nearly had us but he turned out to be a vain, paranoid creep as well). we find out just enough about each figure to want to see them in action but never enough to get to 'know' them (or need to wash in disinfectant to get their vileness off later).

I very much enjoyed the awkward and socially inept brilliance of Dr Michael Burry (Christian Bale), the man on the edge of 'going postal' Mark Baum (Steve Carell making his part almost the anchor for the whole story), the almost repulsive ego driven Jared Vennett (Ryan Gosling - never wear black hair again) and, for me the stand out performances of the new boys on the block Jamie Shipley and Charlie Geller (Finn Witrock and John Magaro respectively). Brad Pitt turns in a nice cameo as the former insider turned outsider who can't quite miss the fuel for his conspiracy theories and paranoia (or is it?) and helps  the two young guns uncover what's going on - this is a very believable and natural small role. But apart from an entertaining cameo from Margot Robbie and a nice turn from Marissa Tomei as Carell's wife there are almost no women...surely there were some crook females involved?

Director Adam McKay, who also co-wrote the script with Charles Randolph, gives us a film that could have been dry and uninteresting but it delights and entertains at nearly every turn. Some of this comes from the aforementioned humour but also by the deftly placed turns to camera/breaking the fourth wall moments. McKay entrusts us to make what we will of what is presented to us, there is no absolutely no judgement in this movie, facts are presented as simply what happened and what we make of that is our call. Maybe that's why the final moments, the end stats and information brought me to tears - of rage I'm sure. Surely this is McKay's gift to us...if this enrages you, if this makes you even a little pissed off, if this strikes you as simply wrong, perhaps you'll open your eyes and make sure it doesn't happen or can't happen again or at least to you.

Frankly I wouldn't mind if a few more of the people involved (well actually a helluva lot more, maybe even the majority) ended up in jail or made to pay back in some way. I'd be even happier if some of the worst offending companies weren't now back to making huge profits, paying big bonuses and enjoying the favour of leading politicians and signing contracts for government projects.

And while we're at it, I'd like to see more films of the quality and creativity of this one. 

4 out of 5

Review: 'Joy' - Getting it Done and Getting On With It

Joy

Starring: Jennifer Lawrence, Dianne Ladd, Robert DeNiro, Isabella Rosselini, Bradley Cooper
Directed and Written by: David O. Russell
124 minutes  M

Do you ever wonder why some people manage to plough on in life against all difficulties while others crumble, give up and just find another way to get through life? Sometimes the barriers we are up against are self-imposed, some are the ‘noisy detractors’ around us who we listen to far too eagerly and we believe their negativity and then other barriers can be simply what life throws us that we can’t do much about.

‘Joy’ tells us the story of one woman who had a fair bit going against her who eventually finds a way through an out of despair and staying ‘stuck’. She is a single mum although her ex-husband still lives in the basement of the house she also shares with her mother (bed bound and TV Soap Opera obsessed) and her grandmother. As if that isn’t hectic enough in moves dad (Robert De Niro) after being off loaded by his latest wife.

Joy has an inventive and imaginative mind and eventually comes up with the concept of what we now know as the ‘miracle mop’. The thrust of the movie is how she gets to make it a product that people will buy. This won’t be an easy journey as you might expect – where would be the movie in that after all. A house full of underminers is enough to contend with but lack of ready money, no concept of business and a lifetime of knockbacks is a lot to overcome.

David O Russell is a director who makes quirky and memorable movies and this is no exception. He also wrote this film based on Joy Mangano’s real life story. It is told with great humour and with just the right amount of pathos. Jennifer Lawrence again turns in a convincing performance in the lead role and more than holds her own against veterans such as DeNiro, Dianne Ladd, Bradley Cooper and the mesmerising Isabella Rossellini. JLaw is comfortable and competent with comedy and drama, she is one of the talents of our time and hopefully we have many years of entertainment and ‘wow’ ahead of us through seeing her movies.

Finding out a little about how TV shopping networks and the evolution of infomercials came about was a fascinating addition to the story. Bradley Cooper gives a finely focussed performance as the QVC exec who believes in Joy when all his business acumen tells him not to. Oh sure he takes some convincing but he is won over by her determination and plain logic. Also a cameo featuring Melissa Rivers as her mother (and shopping channel ‘star’) Joan Rivers was a sheer delight.

This is an uplifting film that reassures all of us that a belief in yourself and a ‘knowing’ that you are right are the best advocates awe can have for changing dreams into reality. I think the final scenes are a tad clichéd and too much but that’s a minor quibble in a lovely, inspiring, well made and bloody good film.
3 ½ out of 5

Review: Suffragette - A Powerful Reminder

Suffragette

Starring: Carey Mulligan, Helena Bonham-Carter, Brendan Gleeson, Ben Whishaw

Written by:  Abi Morgan

Directed by: Sarah Gavron

106 minutes   M

At last a ‘Meryl Streep film’ that isn’t a star turn for the most talented American film actor of our time. In fact her appearance in this film is only a featured cameo that maybe lasts five minutes. She gets to address the crowd, make a stirring speech and leave muttering some encouraging words. Nice little earner Miss Streep, well done you (could I get your agent’s name by any chance?)

So many of us who see this fine film will have no idea of the heroism involved in the story it tells. We will be baffled by how hard it was for women to be recognised as ‘worthy’ of the vote, to even be seen as valuable enough to be considered in every way a part of society and polity as a man. It is dreadful to reflect on, it is embarrassing to know it was ever thus and it is shameful to consider that the blood that ran through all those generations up to the point of change ran through our relatives whether they were British, French, Italian, and Chinese or whatever. The women descendants of the Bounty Mutineers on Pitcairn Island (and subsequently Norfolk Island) had the vote in 1856 which meant they were indeed a superior species to all other women in the world when viewed through the prism of that time. Extraordinary and shocking. From Kings to candlemakers, politicians and policemen to pot makers it continued without question until someone woke up one day and said ‘um, hang on a minute…does this seem to wrong to anyone else?’

In ‘Suffragette’ we find ourselves at the moment when the ‘Panks’, the followers of Emeline Pankhurst and the growing suffragette movement are hiding their stride. They have Lloyd George apparently on their side to force changes to legislation that will at least allow the consideration of votes for women (the suffrage). Women who had been denied a voice in practically anything except childbearing (and usually that was conditional, sometimes forced and almost always just a mechanism to continue the male line in a family or the income flow to a household), were now hearing about a different way of seeing their place in society. To be sure it was presented at times in a drastic and criminal manner but that came from a belief that extreme measures were required to knock down the male barriers and to maximise the impact of the message. Not my style in any way but contextually it is one way of approaching the issues.

Carey Mulligan beautifully plays the laundry worker Maude who becomes a foot soldier for the movement and the hero of the movie. Up against the lack of understanding husband Sonny (delightfully played by Ben Whishaw) and the ghastly working conditions overseen by the horrid boss there really is only one way for her to go – out and onto the streets with purpose and vigour. Delivered effectively. Brendan Gleeson as Steed, a different sort of foot soldier – on a mission from Parliament indeed is his usual masterful self nothing less than convincing and nothing short of detestable. Mustering forces is Helena Bonham-Carter completely convincing and on message as Edith. For me the outstanding performance came from Ann Marie Duff as the inspiring Violet Miller, just pitch perfect and captivating.

The close ups and hand held camera work was the only drawback in this fine film beautifully directed by Sarah Gavron (she also directed another terrific film Brick Lane) and assuredly written by Abi Morgan.

We, all of us, have many heroes in history to thank for the way we get to live today, the freedoms we enjoy and the rights we take for granted. It’s hard to imagine the world that was sometimes. Films such as ‘Suffragette’ remind us of how far we’ve come and why.

4 out of 5

Review: Youth - Painful Truth

Youth

Starring: Michael Caine, Harvey Keitel, Rachel Weisz
Written and directed by Paolo Sorrentino
124 minutes   MA15+

How often do you have an idea of what a film will be when you go to see it only to leave at the end of it saying ‘wow that wasn’t what I was expecting?’ For me it happens pretty rarely and often it’s disappointment expecting more.

I thought Paolo Sorrentino’s ‘Youth’ was going to be a rather cosy (in the British film tradition)story about two senior blokes looking back on their lives through reminiscence or a pivot point and either yearning for their youth or being thankful it was behind them. Added to this it would be set in a beautiful Swiss setting to add to the ‘gosh gee’ warm and fuzziness. I was up for all that.

It doesn’t take too long before you realise ‘Youth’ is quite different from my expectations. It certainly is set in the most divine setting in the foot of the Swiss Alps and a luxury hotel/health resort. There are numerous nude bodies, languid visual ‘breaths’ which are tender and sublime reminding us that we sometimes do just sit or walk or step out of water and those moments are nothing more (or less) than taking a breath between the next moment (or life stage). Sex is alluded to and talked about as are prostate problems. Ah life lived.

Michael Caine brings a real honesty to his role of Fred a composer and conductor who is still grieving for his ailing, institutionalised muse and wife. Caine (not unlike Helen Mirren) can often impose himself on a character rather than inhabit it, can often be ‘bigger’ than the role but in this one he nails it. He is natural, a perfect fit, believable and as I said truthful. He is matched nicely by Harvey Keitel (can he really be 80?)as Mick,a film director working on what he sees as his ‘testament’ movie with young acolytes hovering around. He works well in the role and is believable as the character plus a great foil in the sparring matches with Caine. Rachel Weisz completes the leads as Caine’s feisty, conflicted and somewhat tiresome daughter. Whilst her character is a bit whiny Weisz shows once again she is one of the best of her generation.

Jane Fonda drops in for a cameo as the Diva Mick wants for his film. Her characterisation as the over made up, testy and demanding actress is terrific and mesmeric. Sadly the interaction in the key scene between her and Keitel is almost awful. There is zero chemistry between the two. Yet it is beautifully shot, the close ups are fantastic in what they portray and both actors do a good job with their lines (Keitel somewhat less than Fonda, he seems to be stagey and effected against her naturalism and bite. Out of whack with what he does in the rest of the film), but overall that scene is marred by the mismatch.

In the end we have a film about the two men making decisions about the rest of their limited days whilst reflecting on where they have been and how they got to ‘today’. All around them there are reminders of youth and what that means, the pitfalls, the pain and the joys. The pointless frustrations and the meaningless upsets, the exaggerated dramas and the energy wasting paybacks. It reminds us that the important thing is often to just get on with it and never forget the music in the air, the beauty in the smallest things and the glory of friendship and shared experience.

It did surprise me but it did not disappoint me. It made me laugh at times, gasp at others and ponder much. I loved it.

4 out of 5

Review: Truth - Keeping it Honest

Truth

Starring: Cate Blanchett, Robert Redford, David Lyons, Dennis Quaid, Elizabeth Moss

Written and Directed By:  James Vanderbilt

121 minutes     Rated M

It’s a curious thing truth isn’t it? Often it’s confused with facts, regularly it’s determined to be infallible and rarely is one person’s truth the same as another’s.  Perception versus reality, memory coloring actuality, even moral judgement introduced into a damned good story, all can be present in the quest for truth, the search for what happened, what ‘is’ or ‘was’.  Add to all that a media needing to report news, communicating information, questioning assumptions and, yes, grabbing a headline, and you have a fine of pot of shipping to deal with.

Mary Mepes (Blanchett) and Dan Rather (Redford) were two bastions at CBS News particularly its flagship investigative programme ’60 Minutes’ (a long running 48 minute weekly magazine show). Mary had broken the horror story about Abu Ghraib and was much respected in the news community. Rather had been in the business since dinosaurs walked to earth. They both had runs on the board.

A story comes their way which suggests George W Bush may have stretched the truth about his military record and the National Guard. Compelling documentary evidence and information from ‘reliable’ sources convince them it’s a story worth telling and putting to air in 2004. Bush is in a close race with John Kerry for the presidency (his second term), has his stewardship of the country during the trauma of September 11^th to bolster his patriotism and resolve as points deserving of another term. If he was found to have lied about his past (especially in anything military or public service) it could significantly impact on his chances.

But what is the truth, how solid is the evidence, is politics the driver behind the story (let alone the allegations) and what are the what ifs?

This is a fascinating story well told in a tight and lively script by Vanderbilt  (based on Mary Mepes’ book ‘Truth and Duty: The Press, the President and the Privilege of Power ‘)and deftly directed by him  . Blanchett is practically flawless as Mepes, she seems to be caught in a scene for the first time rather than filmed ‘performing’ a well-rehearsed scene which has gone through many takes. Redford is convincing and strong as Rather (although I suspect the veteran newsman is rather more brittle than Redford portrays). David Lyons and Elizabeth Moss bring real assurance and insight into their roles as Josh and Lucy. Dennis Quaid as Col Roger Charles is good too although his part seems underwritten. Other memorable performances come from Bruce Greenwood and Stacey Keach but really there is barely a weak link in any performance. There are some beautiful cameos from Aussies Noni Hazelhurst (has a lovely monologue which she delivers expertly and movingly), Phillip Quast, Rachel Blake (amazing) and Andrew MacFarlane.

Filmed almost entirely in Sydney at Cate’s request (how’s that for star power?) this is a wonderful piece of movie making and storytelling. It may have a didactic moment here and there but there is so much to ponder on and themes to consider – journalism, politics, truth, accountability, respect, support, fallibility, evidence, who’s dispensable etc etc  - it is worth every viewing minute (but far from a ‘worthy’ exercise).

It is a shame the film tanked in the States and so will be overlooked in the awards season. Blanchett deserves some sort of nod for her performance as does the film itself. CBS even banned any advertising for the film and some media outlets indulged in some pretty tasteless (and arguably dodgy) negative stories about the movie and maybe even published some slanted negative reviews. To deliberately publish a negative review which has no basis in reality for the sole reason of destroying or besmirching a movie is questionable at best and unethical at worst. Somewhat ironic given the subject matter of the film they are trying to bury don’t you think?

This is a film deserving of your attention, you will remember it for a long time and you will be thankful you saw it. Plus you’ll take a moment to be thankful for Rather and Mepes, their courage and their integrity.

4 ½ out of 5

Review: Spectre - Not So Shaken and Hardly Stirred

Director: Sam Mendes

Starring: Daniel Craig, Christoph Waltz, Lea Seydoux, Ralph Fiennes, Andrew Scott

2h 30 mins Rated M

I didn’t like the James Bond films over the years. I think I enjoyed Goldfinger and then it was all pretty much ho hum after that until Daniel Craig ‘emerged’ from the ocean in ‘Casino Royale’. There was a significant slip again with the ghastly ‘Quantum of Solace’ which was more than made up for in ‘Skyfall’. And now we find ourselves on holiday with Jim down Mexico way on the day of the dead for the exciting opening sequence of Bond 24 known as ‘Spectre’.

The title of the film is the name of a global terrorist organisation known (apparently) to Bond fans as the warehouse central for most of the Bond villains. For an organisation so well known to Bond and MIwhatever they seem pretty amazing survivors and even better at hiding out and staging surprises that leave Bond, M et al flat footed.

So we have the usual compliment of baddies being beaten up, stunning set pieces in equally stunning settings and a complement of snazzy gadgets per favor the delightful Q (played delightfully by Ben Whishaw). There’s of course the female reduced to object of desire (played in this one by Monica Belucci and Lea Seydoux) but apart from a bit of dry humping on a mirror the sex is non-existent.

To lift the somewhat dull (and I have to say shockingly clichéd at times) narrative, the new head of a committee that has taken over the running of the MI6, now merged with MI5, Max or ‘C’ (Andrew Scott) keeps telling M (Ralph Fiennes) that the 00 programme is now obsolete - indeed “the digital ghost of the world”, (or another type of Spectre surely).

I enjoyed the hopping around on roofs and in basements, the highly unbelievable spinning in helicopters, a bit of a car chase, a plane pursuit, a boat spurt and even a nice train excursion. They’re well staged and Bondesque, if unlikely and ridiculous but fun.

We don’t get much of the more deep and reflective, emotionally challenged Blond from Daniel and director Sam Mendes this time. It felt a bit like filling in a bit of time until a better idea comes along or maybe even ‘if we never make another Bond this would be a good one to finish on’, I think the ship sailed on that with ‘Skyfall’. Daniel still does well with the role, pouting and staring away but perhaps not quite fitting into the suits as finely as in the past. Maybe a metaphor for the role and actor?

Christoph Waltz plays the villain Bloomfeld with all the depth of the stereotype as written. He vamps a bit too much for my liking and we all know his attempts to finish James of will fail so that cliché falls pretty quickly. I wonder if we’ll ever get a whitebread, anglo villain in a Bond film? Maybe rope Donald Trump in as a megalomaniac businessman wanting to get world dominance? Shouldn’t be too much of a stretch…

So for its collection of faults and clichés this is still an enjoyable couple of hours of cinema, well shot, well-staged, underwritten and perhaps not all that well thought out. I did enjoy it but I might not be as ready to rush off to the next one.

3 out of 5

Review: The Dressmaker - Finely tailored

Director: Jocelyn Moorhouse

Screenplay: Jocelyn Moorhouse

Starring: Kate Winslet, Liam Hemsworth, Hugo Weaving, Judy Davis, Sarah Snook, Gyton Grantley, Darcey Wilson, Barry Otto

118 minutes    Rated: M 

The return of the Prodigal is one of those enduring themes in fiction, books particularly but also in film. Some might consider it a trope (a now very commonly used insult which I have to admit I only became aware of in the last year or so), but I find it compelling when done well. In the vaguely gothic farce ‘The Dressmaker’ the device works more than well.

It’s 1951 - come the night come the prodigal as Tilly Dunnage (the divine Kate Winslet)returns to her childhood hometown Dungatar in country Victoria. Soon we learn her Singer sewing machine is not the only ‘baggage’ she brings with her. She believes she carries a curse from an inconclusive and ambiguous incident as a schoolchild related to her implication in the death of a fellow schoolmate. Far from being welcomed home the townsfolk rather see her as a ‘murderess’ back to stir up divisions and skeletons from the past.  Her bridge to gaining some respectability is her dressmaking/haute couture abilities (she has been working in Paris for years learning the trade)and don’t the locals flock to be frocked up. But there's more things going on in this story than, well in a country town on a summer's Tuesday.

Sentiment doesn’t get much of a go in this ever so slightly exaggerated and cartoonish feature beautifully crafted by Jocelyn Moorhouse (and second unit by none other than PJ Hogan) but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t have heart or charm and even skirts some dark and tough matters. I don’t think the town’s name is some mere whimsy; this is a smelly hell hole where the kooky and snippy characters are trapped by or in their own limited world view. Also surely the allegorical names of characters (Harridiene and Pettyman for two) are deliberately invented.

The cast is almost all without equal as you would expect when you have an Academy Award winner (Winslet) and a company of Australia’s most familiar actors. The only bum note for me was Rebecca Gibney, who I usually admire, who was just not right. Judy Davis was perfect as the stroppy Mad Molly, pure cartoon but Davis still managed to give her nuance and totally engages the audience, man she’s good. Barry Otto, Sarah Snook, Gyton Grantley, Shane Bourne, Julia Blake and Sacha Horler were absolutely bloody sensational. Hugo Weaving was pretty good too but maybe a little too ‘wink, wink ,nudge, nudge’ for my liking. In the beautifully done flashback scenes I particularly enjoyed Darcey Wilson as the young Tilly, wonderful. Liam of the Hemsworth cult made the most of his role (and body) and was a perfect (if somewhat age match disconnect) romantic foil for Tilly. And it was great to see Kate Winslet and Kerry Fox back on screen again after a long break.

This was an entertaining, polished and engaging movie filmed in lovely locations in country Victoria. The flashback scenes (and the opening credits) had a stunning palate and look to them which contrasted beautifully with the golden, dry and colourful scenes of 1951.

From the popular novel by Melbourne’s own Rosalie Ham (who wrote the original ‘treatment’ a few years back), this is a gorgeous entertainment that I encourage everyone to see. Lush, tasteful, a little out of kilter and a lot accomplished because of precise writing, masterly direction and the best that good actors can deliver.

4 out of 5  

Review: The Martian - Take Off For Movie Magic

The Martian

Starring: Matt Damon, Jessica Chastain, Chiwetel Ejofor, Jeff Daniels, Kristen Wiig

Directed by: Ridley Scott

Written by: Drew Goddard

141 Minutes    Rated: M

We dream of the day human lands on the surface of Mars and has an Armstrongian wander around. For yonks we’ve had books and stories in one form or another about ‘life’ on Mars; those who believe in UFOs generally imagine it’s the Martians inside and who come among us. I wonder where the fascination for that planet and the possibilities we assign to came from, maybe it’s to do with the idea of heaven and the heavens, perhaps a refuge for atheists who poo poo the heaven concept but can’t quite throw off some tribal need for humans to connect or seek the ‘other worlds’?

Ridley Scott has brought us another chapter in the mission to Mars story and it’s one of the best. A NASA team led by commander Melissa Lewis (Jessica Chastain)needs to flee Mars before they’re wiped out by a destructive storm. She rallies the crew and they escape through (an extremely convincing and visually magic moment)the building storm of wind, sand and debris onto the launch module and head off. Bit of an oops though, one of the astronauts, Mark Watney (Matt Damon) gets himself rather brutally injured and all signs indicate, well, there are no signs of life. Bye Mark we’ve got places to be…

Of course he’s not dead, just a bit battered and bewildered but patches himself up and sets about life on his own in the base working out how to survive on minimal supplies and little hope of rescue. He talks through his progress via a video diary and some very well paced and constructed snapshot scenes with the requisite amount of drama, nice comedy and a bit of pathos. Beautifully done.

Lest you worry this is a film only about a Martian castaway and the same desperation presented in twenty different ways to fill out the 141 minutes, there is a steady, convincing and assured cutting between Watney and the guys back at NASA (and China – oh yes). Jeff Daniels as NASA director Teddy Sanders (although I did think it was just Will McAvoy finding a new career after The Newsroom)was a steady hand steering through the advice and conflicting thoughts of mission controller Chiwetel Ejiofor and PR whiz Kristen Wiig. The scenes of the administrators and controllers were often as compelling and tense as those up on Mars. This showed Scott’s skills, he is a master when he’s in form.

So I loved this movie, it looked good, it was well written, it was well acted and it was almost faultlessly directed. And importantly for a science fiction movie it was totally believable; I never thought for a moment that this could not have actually been happening right now. There’s an achievement.

I’m no science or aeronautic expert but I ponder on the following:

·         You have the technology to colonise or land and live on Mars BUT not to accurately determine if someone is dead or simply comatose/unconscious?
·         No one thought to include seeds/snap frozen seedlings in case other food was inedible or ran out for some reason?
·         Why couldn’t the ‘mother ship’ be turned around as soon as they found Watney was alive?
·         No back up comms system that would have received his video diary? Really?

Just askin’…

4 ½ out of 5

Review: 13 Minutes - A Great Time

13 Minutes

Starring: Christian Friedel, Katharina Schuttler

Directed by: Oliver Hirschbiegel

Written by: Fred Breinersdorfer, Léonie-Claire Breinersdorfer

114 Minutes      Rated MA 15+ 

I reckon Adolf Hitler was the luckiest despot ever to live. If we believe what we are told he narrowly escaped death in assassination attempts more times than anyone else. Were all the would be assassins unfortunate, unlikely or incompetent or did Adolf just have a whole lot of inexplicable luck? Surely his redoubtable badness ought to have wrought the worst Karma upon him. And yet…

The film 13 Minutes is about Georg Elser a resistance fighter from a small town in the Swabian Alps who builds a bomb which he plants in Munich’s Bürgerbräukeller. The plan is for the bomb to explode as Hitler is speaking on November 8 1939 and tear him apart. If this had happened history could have been changed and maybe Nazism and the war might have been stuffed. But…Hitler left the scene early, 13 minutes early and thus Elser failed.  He is found, arrested and imprisoned. Thus we find ourselves in a suspenseful and fascinating story of an intriguing man who saw what was developing in his homeland and wanted it to stop.

We see Elser in his hometown, in Munich, in prison and eventually in Dachau where his timing is not as fortunate as Hitler’s; in fact it is poignantly awful.

Christian Friedel is brilliant as Elser, calm and slight but also seething anger underneath it all. He sparkles and convinces and delivers a spot on riveting and touching performance. He is more than matched by Katharina Schuttler, Burghart Klaussner and Johann Von Bulow.

In the hands of director Oliver Hirschbiegel (also responsible for the masterpiece ‘Downfall’) this is a stunning and accomplished movie about a moment in history that is fascinating. Here’s the man who tried to kill Hitler and faced his torturers prepared to tell them to their faces that he wanted to prevent the bloodshed of what was to come, to save his fellow citizens and his homeland from them. How extraordinary is that?

I loved this film, found the story incredible and was riveted by the acting.

Make some space in your diary and see this movie.

4 ½ out of 5  

Review: Women He's Undressed Where A Lot Is Revealed

The Women He Undressed

Starring: Darren Gilshenan, Deborah Kennedy, Nathaniel Middleton

Directed by: Gillian Armstrong

Written by: Katherine Thomson 

100 minutes   Rated M

Hollywood can be thankful to our great wide land for stunt men, writers, directors, actors, soundtrack composers, directors of photography and more. They’ve had our best and recognised them through myriad awards, rightly so. Sometimes back home though they have not always been as well known.

You’d think a man from Kiama who had designed costumes in 282 movies for actors such as Bette Davis, Rosalind Russell, Marilyn Monroe, Jane Fonda, Tony Curtis and Natalie Wood, won three Oscars and been the favorite of Jack Warner (and the go to guy for anyone at Warner Brothers) would be a hero in his homeland. Surely there’d be a building or two, a street, a scholarship or a fashion design college named after him. At least his name would be as prominent and recognisable as Nicole Kidman, Errol Flynn, Peter Finch or Heath Ledger surely? Um actually no.

Orry George Kelly was born in December 1897 in the coastal town of Kiama NSW looking up at the

stars on those clear skies every night. Only a couple of decades later he would be dressing stars of a different kind in the Hollywood studio lots of Warners, MGM and Universal.  He was a gay man who didn’t hide that fact at a time when the man he loved had to hide his predilection lest his career be doomed. That man was a struggling Brit looking for a housemate Archibald Leach. Archy and Orry lived together for many years as Leach’s career steadily grew and exploded under the name Cary Grant. Orry’s status grew also as he worked on films which became classics - Casablanca, Some Like it Hot, 42nd Street, The Maltese Falcon, Gypsy, Mame and Oklahoma.

This finely crafted and extremely entertaining (as well as educational) documentary is told through minimal archival footage, comment pieces from Jane Fonda, fellow costumiers Ann Roth (a protégé of Kelly’s) and Catherine Martin, Angela Lansbury and others and dramatic monologues reconstructing Orry’s story performed by  Darren Gilshenan  sitting mostly in a red rowboat (don’t ask)- Deborah Kennedy plays his mother Florence, who gets to offer her input while hanging up the washing on a grassy hill in front of a lighthouse (again don’t ask).

I did find this monologue enactment a bit naff, theatrical and jarring. I think a bit more reliance on archival footage or simple reconstruction dramatically without the cheesy stuff would have been better. I like my documentaries to be ‘real’ and tell the story as is. As always though that is the device the filmmakers chose and it is what it is. There is surprisingly little footage of Orry Kelly himself (although his Oscar acceptances are quite available on YouTube) and frankly I don’t know if it simply does not exist, was too expensive to use or too hard to find.

Let me assure you though there is still a lot in the film and it does work well and I loved it. There is even a bit of a mystery to end the film off with. His memoirs are discussed throughout the movie, the knowledge of his relationships, particularly with Mr Leach are pondered upon especially what the memoirs might have revealed. But most of all, what happened to the memoir manuscript itself? Well stay tuned viewer, the movie has news!

This is a film for all Australian filmgoers, especially lovers of the days of Hollywood as it was. It is a great resource for students of filmmaking and film history. It is ultimately a choice piece of documentary making by a skilled film-maker.

I learnt a lot from ‘Women He’s Undressed’ but most of all I was entertained and delighted by a worthy homage of an Australian we all ought to have known about, celebrated and taken pride in.

Good on you Orry Kelly.

4 out of 5

Orry-Kelly: Dressing Hollywood  an exhibition will be at ACMI, Federation Square Melbourne from August 18th - Jan 17th (admission free)

Review: Mr Holmes - What's It All About Sherlock?

Mr Holmes

Starring: Ian McKellen, Laura Linney, Milo Parker, Frances De la Tout, Hiroyuki Sanada

Written by:  Jeffrey Hatcher (from the novel by Mitch Cullin)

Directed by: Bill Condon

Rated M   105 minutes

I wonder what it is that makes Sherlock Holmes so endearing as a character in film, theatre and TV (even radio in the past)? So many dramas with him as either the central character or part of an ensemble. Why the name ‘Sherlock’ is even part of the vernacular (‘No Sh*t Sherlock’ is one of my sarcastic favorites). I would venture that very few people today who love the character or know the name at least have never read any of the books. I have managed halfway through ‘Hound of the Baskervilles’ but bailed.

The latest incarnation of Holmes is in this Ian McKellen star turn.  We see a 93 yr old Sherlock at the end of his life, getting his last story down in his own words – we learn John Watson has been the author of all previous Sherlock stories.  His memory is a bit skewed so he needs to get the story done soonest. He revisits a case that came late in his career. He is helped with the encouragement and possible hero worship given by the son of his housekeeper in the delightful seaside cottage in Sussex he spends his days in, writing and tending his bees. I guess if I read the books I’d know if that enterprise was something I’d have known (or not).

The plot is actually quite convoluted but terribly intriguing and entertaining. I’m not sure why it’s a story about Holmes rather than Conan-Doyle. This might have given the story a different edge or perspective that could have overcome some of the ‘oh dear’ moments but nevertheless we have this film and not another. I know the Holmes’ estate made an attempt to stop or at least edit the film but I don’t know the full objections or where that all ended up.

I very much admire the Sir of McKellen but I think he was a bit over the top in this and perhaps given too much free rein to roll out some acting ‘tricks’. His highly pronounced speech patterns, the somewhat mannered gestures and the arch pauses or delivery of lines was a bit much frankly. That’s not to say it was unbearable or awful just a tad grating and I did have a few ‘oh come on luvvy’ thoughts. Of course the character of Holmes is a bit OTT but the trick is to make him seem eccentric or skilful but human rather than caricature I think.  We need to be engaged by him not want to move away.

Laura Linney as the housekeeper Mrs Munro is baffling frankly, very good but baffling. I’m not sure if something is missing in the final edit or it’s simply a ‘let’s not spend time on that part of the story’ but she waivers from surly and sulky to sad and angry. We know she’s grieving her husband but she just seems a bit too pissed off with something and on the verge of exploding either in rage or tears and I don’t know why. Is it something Holmes represents, something he’s done or just that she’s a dreary, sad old thing? Let’s not be mistaken, Laura Linney is one of this generation’s great actors but her characterisation in this was a mystery to me and it bothered me – a lot.

On the other hand as the young boy Roger, maybe protégé Milo Parker was sensational. I’m soooo tired of these perfect child actors that crop up continually, it’s a disgrace that they are so convincing and so spot on and so watchable at such a young age. Maybe we’re just wrong to think they would be anything but what they are, maybe that’s the gift of being young, not the surprise. Whichever, I thought he was a-mazing.

The cleverness of the script is testament to the skills of. It is beautifully directed (apart perhaps from the loose grip on the Linney character and the excesses of McKellan)and shot, the locations are wonderful and the period is brought to life and nicely realised.

This is a delightful film, odd to be sure but worth a visit.

3 ½ out of 5

Review: Madame Bovary - Suds and Studs a Real Dud

Madame Bovary

Starring: Mia Wasikowska, Ezra Miller, Rhys ifans, Paul Giamatti, Lloyd Marshall Green

Written by: Felipe Marino (as Rose Barreneche)

Directed by: Sophie Barthes

118 minutes       Rated M

I’m fond of the story of Madame Bovary. Gustave Flaubert’s 1856 novel is a spicy and moral tale of one woman in a world where it’s a little bit more difficult to exist in than for most around her, she’s simply not content to conform or to be told how to live. She is a woman with needs and her attempts to satisfy them transcends the precepts of the time and the expectations of her ‘class’. She’s a woman who likes men and what men and women ‘do’ for each other. If she were a bloke it would have all been fine but she was a woman, a chattel and married to a very dull but decent man. It wasn’t enough, it didn’t nourish the part of her that made up a yearn, the primal in her. That yearning provides a good yarn (see what I did there?). It’s a good book, nicely structured, dense but readable and it gives the reader much food for thought. You will not turn the last page of this once scandalous novel and have nothing to ponder on.

All the more disappointing then when a film version is dull and lifeless, hollow and almost formulaic. A visually stunning work that belies the emptiness elsewhere. It’s as though Constable or Monet did their best works only for them to be hung in a laundry without lights. Perhaps the emotional detachment and childish lead is giving us Madame Bovary at the National Gallery rather than that great story, that huge sweeping novel that has such life and spice and great characters…oh where did it all go?

Australian Mia Wasikowski rather bafflingly uses an American accent as Emily Bovary and portrays her as petulant, pouty, sooky and I would not have been shocked if she’d come out with a ‘whatev-ah’. Maybe she was meant to be a woman of today somehow but that would be simply ridiculous.

Somewhat more compelling is Henry Lloyd Hughes as the dull (or unsatisfying) Doctor Charles Bovary. His bewilderment and emotional incapacity is convincing but necessarily dull. The tempters are played well enough with the boyish Ezra Miller as the smitten law clerk Leon and then the hunky Marquis is played strongly and (go for it girl) appealingly by Logan Marshall Green.  Knocking everyone out of the park is the terrific Rhys Ifans as the con man dry-goods dealer Monsieur Lheureux. Thank heavens for him.

So I’m not sure what the director Sophie Barthes was trying to bring us with this re-telling of the classic. It was pretty, the costumes were a-mazing and it was all very ordinary. It was not a great film and it was not terribly entertaining.

Wait for the DVD and watch it either on fast forward (stopping at the pretty scenery) or in stages. Unless you’ve had trouble sleeping when it could just help you nod off for a missed doze.

Dull and disappointing

2 out of 5

Review: All Noise and No Fizz in Mad Max

MAD MAX: Fury Road

Starring: Tom Hardy, Charlize Theron, Nicholas Hoult

Directed by: George Miller

Screenplay: George Miller, Brendan McCarthy, Nico Lathouris

Rated MA  120mins.

Over 35 years ago Dr George Miller and a band of clever young things made a cult classic road movie along the Geelong Road near Lara called ‘Mad Max’ (aka ‘The Road Warrior’). It was crude and rough, very Australian and very out there. I watched it again recently and well time hasn’t been all that kind to it. It was pretty ordinary really albeit exciting. Ah the curse of time. I loved the third in the series ‘Beyond the Thunderdome’, camp and thrilling insured by the presence of Frank Thring and Tina Turner and the line “it’s dyin’ time”.

George Miller has been trying for a decade or three to get another instalment of the franchise produced. Maybe that length of time lends itself to a pile of Over the Top tosh passing for entertainment in 2015 because frankly that’s what this mush is. Mush Max more than Mad Max. Miller has more money than in 1979, he has more vehicles (mostly, oddly very old trucks) and a helluva lot more noise –dumbly so. Just to make sure the slow learner is looking the other way we even have vehicles with drummers, speakers and axers wielding guitar flame thrower implements. I was a bit amused by the number of war boys scrambling around the rigs and using the exhaust pipes to leverage from, must have been insensitive to burning flesh...And the costumiers have obviously taken a break from dressing heavy metal contestants in Eurovision to dress the cast and extras. Dear lord there must be a medication that helps one sit through this drivel. Or maybe that’s what was used to conceive it.

Okay let’s be clear I DO like some action films. I loooove Superman and Batman, I saw all the Harry Potters and Lord of the Rings/Hobbit movies. I just don’t like noise and meaningless grunting mixed with ‘oh look how clever we are to make these big, a-mazing scenes…what you have no idea what they are?’ I like some plot and some a bit of understandable dialogue. There was no danger of actors forgetting their lines in this, they virtually had none.

I have a huge man crush on both Tom Hardy and Charlize Theron. Tom did his broody, intense and surly best and Charlize struck a blow for the ‘cause’ and was good enough. Maybe get a new agent guys! Meanwhile Nicholas Hoult plays Nux, the misguided martyr tumour-ridden foot soldier suicide-bomber – I kid you not. He is actually terrific and his role has the most meat on it in many ways.

There is no doubt this is a beautifully shot movie, at times it is simply breathtaking but under all that

is…nothing. The land of the War Boys and the post-apocalyptic ground/citadel is spectacular but gee it borders on bad taste to me. It felt all too much like freak show rather than survivor land. Were there really little people and various disabled amongst all the creepiness? Oh dear me, really? I rarely am tempted to walk out of a film but I was so bored by this tedious rubbish I was ready to get out of there after an hour, desperate for something to lift it and introduce some zing.

Then along comes ‘The Wives’, suddenly some script, some meat on the skeleton and even some simple sense. The film has purpose and drama with bite for the remaining third. Maybe if someone dares to make another instalment in this madness we could have it about these interesting clansters.

Well there it is. A mess and a bore. A lot of noise and clunkers. A waste of a couple of looooong hours and admission price. You might end up with your own battle fatigue and burnt out and it just ain’t worth it.

2 out of 5

Review: Jurassic World - A Contradictory Creature

Jurassic World

Starring: Chris Pratt, Bryce Dallas Howard, Jake Johnson, Omar Sy

Director: Colin Trevorrow

Written By: Amanda Silver, Colin Trevorrow, Derek Connolly, Rick Jaffa

Rated M   109 minutes 

I’m old enough to remember seeing the original ‘Jurassic Park’ twenty plus years ago. I’m old enough to remember the wonder of seeing Steven Spielberg’s creatures seem so real most of us wanted to believe they were. Many, like me wished there was a Jurassic Park and how fun it would be to go there.  It was a stunning piece of film making and a fantastical start to computer generated images that would set the way for what we almost take for granted now. Looking back it was probably quite primitive and kids today might be unconvinced but gee it was great stuff back in the day. Looking forward the danger with familiarity is it can be the breeding ground for blandness.

‘Jurassic World’ takes us to the park now establish as John Hammond’s legacy and what a park it is. The creatures roam, there are rides galore and if having the actual creatures isn’t enough you can also get up close with a hologram or two (I don’t know why either). I must say park and the island look gorgeous and inviting. Not so sure about the rather extensive Shopping Mall but I guess it was ideal for the ubiquitous product placement of which there is much; Samsung gets a good run as does Mercedes, Trader Joe’s and Verizon. My teeth were clenched often with this as I sipped my also mentioned Pepsi.

The thing about theme parks though is that you can never have the thrill of visiting the first time again. We humans always need something ‘more’ to go back and this is the problem this little fun park is facing which worries the owner and the marketing manager. The raptors and T-Rexes no longer a draw-well let’s get us some new creatures; oh look they’ve been working on just that, nifty. The very engaging Chris Pratt (a favorite since ‘Parks and Recreation’) plays Owen adding believability and humour to the archetypal hero role. He’s just going to win the day for us and we’ll go along for the ride. But we need the archetypal heroine and sure ‘nuff we have her in Bryce Dallas Howard as Claire . Why she even gets to wear the white outfit with slit skirt and gosh darn it even gets to sprawl out on the ground at one point with left leg exposed through the slit. In cast they weren’t enough we have the baddie played by Vincent D’Onofrio who was only missing an accent to really gives us an archetype and the traditional child dynamic of the cluey, slightly annoying older sibling constantly clashing with the younger, smarter and endearing younger bro. Ah, we can improve CGI but we can’t quite get away from movie archetypes.

There’s drama aplenty and we know there’ll be victims, humans and animals alike but good will win over bad. There’s a lot of noise and ‘oh wow’ moments which I frankly loved.  I was a bit concerned that the current owners of the Jurassic Park complex had obviously learnt nothing from their predecessors and the tragedy that had befallen them, not the least that the creatures will eat people when crossed. Seriously wouldn’t the last thing be to have a park where the humans get up close with the creatures?

In the end though the story was a bit thin and relied on the gee whiz moments to carry it through. The dramatic moments, the jumps and heart starters made the humans even more two dimensional and if you’re looking for an emotional arc don’t hold your breath. As mind blowing as the effects are they are symptomatic of the ordinariness of the amazing these days, not a lot really blows our mind. So the patrons of Jurassic World aren’t satisfied anymore by the wonder of Jurassic creatures walking among them centuries beyond their existence. Similarly the patrons of cinemas today don’t get enough from the masters of creation who have put together this perfectly entertaining but ultimately empty film, an unwieldy beast in itself. That’s a shame but the beast is hungry now and if you build and feed the beast well you just better have the right ingredients, diet and magic. When you think about what the premise of this film is one might almost call that thought a bitter irony or a sad dichotomy.

This film looks like it will end up being the most successful movie EVER and that’s ok. If the role of movie making is primarily to entertain and give value for the dollar then it ticks the boxes. Some of us like a bit more than a tick the box effort.

3 out of 5

Book Review: Fourth of July Creek. Masterful and Readable

Fourth of July Creek

Smith Henderson

Windmill Books 

Last year I had the sublime pleasure to read John Williams’ masterpiece ‘Stoner’ and have been waiting to read another book that so inhabited me again. The stunning debut novel of Smith Henderson ‘Fourth of July Creek’ has done just that. Just as Williams wrote rich characters and sadly beautiful language Henderson also crafts his characters beautifully and uses language perfectly and appropriately, rarely a misstep and often muscular yet spare – a true craftsman. 

Mainly set in rural Montana in the years 1979 – 1981 as Jimmy Carter was trampled by Reagan, the hostages in Iran, Opec’s artificial oil shortages, economic reviews and the thawing out of the cold war, even the Mt St. Helen’s eruption. A perfect breeding ground for suspicion of government and fellow citizens as well as a time for giving up some things and tightening our grip on others. All being nourishment and ingredients for this fine novel. 

The main character is Pete Snow, a social worker who is living in the shadow of a failed marriage and his desperation to be reunited with his daughter Rachel while rescuing kids of dysfunction. Pete’s own brother is a parole breaker and his sister’s death has left questions and scars. The connections to his own life are tenuous at best as he tries to face (or run from) these various challenges, loss, danger, grief, loss of control and uncertainty. A social worker has to have answers, has to be able to anticipate but Pete’s world doesn’t want to go along with the position description it seems. 

Along comes Jeremiah Pearl, destined to be one of the great creations of fiction, and his son Ben. Poor old Jeremiah is a conspiracy theorist with an Old Testament fascination and absolute influence over young Ben. He faces the power of his paranoia somewhat counterfactually by hiding out in the woods and waiting for the arrival of the Feds to pounce on them and presumably take them out. While he’s waiting Pearl distributes ‘broken money’ coins out into the community, holes bored into coins defacing them with symbols reflecting his ‘story’ of doom and endtimes. Quaintly the coins become collectors’ items and curiosity pieces perhaps shining a brighter spotlight on Pearl as a fascination although we might fear it will make him a figurehead for other whackos or malcontents. 

As with much of the story Pearl has us wondering or sensing a seam of violence waiting to erupt and often it does. It’s not always punch ups or shoot outs but there is violence in the way Pete lives and in the way some of his clients face the world. When Pete gets on the grog (as he often does) he ends up with physical bruises to match his psychic ones, his brother encourages violence while on the lam and his parole officer just feeds that, Pete’s daughter faces violence in the way her life plays out. 

Of course what we want to know is how Pearl got to the point he is at, what fed the paranoia, who was he before this and why is Ben here but not the wife and several other kids in the family. Pete is not at all welcome in Pearl’s life but he ends up being tolerated. Thankfully Pete takes up the reader’s curiosity and investigates Pearl’s story through former friends etc. Fantastic stuff. 

The richness of the writing makes the characters come alive, they are believable and interesting. There is so much going on in this book but it is so deftly and handled and so accomplished. We have shifts in tense to accentuate sections and give immediacy when needed and distance to dramatise. Sometimes we have third person perspective and others are second person. Throw into the mix Rachel’s story being told as a series of vignettes in the style of social worker file notes, you start to crave these little bon mots and they are placed perfectly throughout the book even though they cut into the flow, never distracting but rather an extra ingredient in the mix.  The transitions are seamless and not at all disorienting such is the skill of Henderson.  

I do think the opening chapter or two are a bit hesitant and maybe uneven but I wonder if that’s because we are at a point in the main character’s life that is also hesitant and uneven.  That is pretty neat and astonishing but there is a danger that people who bail from books after the first chapter if they are not ‘into’ it might give up and that would be a huge mistake. 

There are so many beautiful scenes in this novel that I can’t single them all out. When we finally get to the horror of Pearl’s story it is devastating. What happens to Pete’s daughter will make you want to sit quietly and weep or hug someone. Pete’s journey either looking for his daughter or tracing Pearl’s story is so rhythmic and real. How one of his other ‘clients’, Cecil, fares in a home or in foster care is startling and oddly satisfying.  The end of the novel gives us much to think about and isn’t a great ‘ta-da’ but a ‘what will happen when I wake up tomorrow’, just like life really – not a plot requirement but a point at which we have the answers and the characters can now be left alone. So, so much to make this a great read. 

All of us carry scars through life and often they are made from unreliable memories which inform us and our way of seeing the world and the people we relate to and with. Maybe this book gives us pause to review that and see how that’s working out for us. 

This is an intense book that is not a difficult read (in fact it’s quite a page tuner), the people are mostly unhappy even somewhat unstable and Henderson has no problem in showing us them. At times it is bleak to be sure but the quest that all these people are on it seems to me is seeking their truth and that is a beautiful piece of compassion isn’t it? We can live wretched lives or have a troubled mind or skewed world view but deep down all any of us wants/needs is truth and to be ‘known’ and understood. That doesn’t mean being agreed with but it does mean being recognised as valid, valuable and equal to the rest of us. I think that’s what Smith Henderson would want for the wondrous people he created. 

This is a novel that will reward any real reader, any true book lover, anyone yearning for the perfect possibilities of fiction. Do read this magnificent book.