|
|
|
|
When
Burgundy
is Fine it is Very Fine |
|
| |
|
The new film from Garth Jennings (which he also wrote) is an
often amusing and likeable tale of “growing up.”
It is a theme that has been mined endlessly on film, from the
bleakness of Les Quatre Cents Coups (400 Blows) and the poignancy
of River’s Edge, to the fantasy of Hook (or any of the
Peter Pan variants) and the shameless gag-mongering of Superbad.
But originality isn’t the key to effectively re-telling
this archetypal human story, conviction is, and that is what
makes Jennings’s version work.
It doesn’t work perfectly, by any means. Some of the situations
and relationships — particularly that between Lee and
his brother — are shortchanged, reducing them to little
more than cliché — a jarring lapse when that relationship
becomes a pivot for part of the resolution of the plot. Some
of the dialogue is stiff and artificial, and the “third
act” conclusion is so neat and complete as to seem manipulative.
But, happily, all these faults can be fairly elided over because
of the wonderful central performances by Bill Milner and Will
Poulter as the two friends, Will Proudfoot and Lee Carter, whose
relationship transforms them both — not to mention a scene-stealing
supporting presence by Jules Sitruk as French exchange student
Didier Revol. It’s not that one fails to notice that the
landmarks on the journey are awfully familiar, but rather that
the company is so charming that one is less conscious of the
familiarity and to an extent sees the landscape freshly through
new eyes.
Of course, as always when working with very young actors like
these, it is the director who must guide them through the emotional
voyage, evoke convincing performances and oversee the stitching
together of the scenes and shots into a unified whole. That
is where Son of Rambow — despite its shortcomings —
really shines.
The central character is Will. He lives with his widowed mother
and young sister in a home overshadowed by the rigorous discipline
of a sect known as “The Bretheren,” which has overtones
of a number of Anabaptist denominations. This fictional version
is characterized by archaic clothing, an exaggerated “modesty”
of dress, especially for women; the “church family”
as the center of a life in which the social and the Religious
are inseparably intertwined; and selective rejection of modern
technology.
But Will is “main-streamed” in a public school and
although he is allowed to leave the classroom when lessons include
video presentations, he is inevitably exposed to “the
World.” It is, ironically, his exemption from having to
view videos — for his ostensible “protection”
— that brings him into contact with incorrigible “bad
boy” Lee, as both — for very different reasons —
are sent out of class to sit in the corridor.
Lee’s bumptious self-confidence and rebellious daring
both frighten and fascinate Will. At the same time, Lee sees
something — imagination, admiration and malleability —
in Will that he finds appealing. The two begin a sort of “odd
couple” friendship, based on Lee’s dream of submitting
a film to a national amateur video contest. He recruits Will
as his stuntman and star.
Through Lee, Will is exposed to the movie Rambo, and his vivid
imagination internalizes and re-processes it as an action-adventure
story of the quest for the lost father that speaks to something
in both of these fatherless boys. As they struggle to make the
film, the involvement of the fascinatingly “exotic”
French exchange student Didier adds a new dynamic to the movie-making
process and to the budding relationship between Lee and Will.
The effects of this relationship ripple outward, affecting Will’s
mother and her life-choices, and Lee’s brother’s
sense of family and his place in the world, as well as altering
perceptions within the boys’ school and giving their fellow
students an opportunity to see themselves, and each other. in
new ways.
It’s this transformative effect of the opening-up of consciousness
— an integral part of everyone’s life experience
— that is the central subject of the film. It is the universality
of this identification and the sincerity with which it is put
across here that makes the film work in spite of its problems.
The key to that is the performances of the cast, and here, as
I said above, is where Jennings shines. There’s no doubt
that much of the credit must go to his young actors, who all
do very good work, avoiding the pitfall of self-consciousness
and coming across (with a very few exceptions) as natural and
relaxed. But certainly Jennings’s ability to reassure
and support his actors (necessary even with experienced adults)
has to be part of evoking such strong characterizations.
Bill Milner actually carries the film. It is his awakening,
his negotiation of the relationships he is forming — away
from his family and as an independent actor in the world —
that drives the film. Wilner inhabits his character with such
reckless conviction, such fearless enthusiasm that he overcomes
any reservations that might be raised by the script or plot.
His Will is an engaging, earnest, good-hearted innocent —
the very model of “the Fool” from myth and fairy
tale. Like that character, he undergoes ordeals and trials and
emerges a better person.
Likewise the skeptical, street-smart, wounded Lee is embodied
by Will Poulter with an effective mix of defensive anger and
vulnerability. His bravado is an obvious attraction to the timid
Will, and his neediness and gradual recognition of Will’s
unexpected strengths allows them to transcend the initially
exploitative nature of the relationship. He serves as a portal
to the outer world for Will, as Will serves as a portal to the
inner one for him, in ways that change them both.
The rest of the cast — almost all under the age of 18
— also acquit themselves with aplomb. Most notable is
Jules Sitruk, whose Didier is a wonderful embodiment of adolescent
over-reaching, a young person trapped inside his own self-generated
mythology. The magnetic effect such myth-making can have on
children of this age and the tender reality that lies behind
it which Didier reveals in his desire to “become a movie
star,” are another sub-text which illuminates and textures
the struggles of Will and Lee.
The production design is accomplished. From the impersonal meeting
room where The Bretheren come together, to the shed where Will’s
father’s cluttered workshop has become a sort of shrine,
to the eerie formality of the superficially-luxurious elder-care
facility Lee calls home, the backgrounds provide useful and
meaningful information that adds depth to the story. Camerawork
by Jess Hall is effective — especially the “movie-within-a-movie”
scenes, that mostly look like things kids really would have
produced, but still manage to carry the story efficiently and
convincingly. The music is a mix of amiable pop (from the likes
of The Cure, Duran Duran and Blondie) and original compositions
in the same vein that provide impetus and connection for the
action.
Jennings — whose only previous feature credit was the
big-budget disappointment The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy
— takes on a much more delicate, personal story here,
and scores with his sophomore effort in a way he didn’t
with his debut. His work with his young cast is admirable. He
and his collaborators take a timeworn theme and manage to imbue
it with specificity, imagination and vitality that largely overcome
superficial weaknesses to create what emerges as a delightful
and engaging film.
The Son of Rambow is playing, has played or may soon play at
many Multi-plexes and independent cinemas in our region. For
full schedules of showings of this and other films, you can
call them. They include the Spectrum 8 Theaters, 290 Delaware
Avenue, Albany. For Spectrum showtimes, you can call 518-449-8995,
or visit their web-site at www.Spectrum8.com. Images Cinema
in Williamstown (MA) is at www.imagescinema.org, phone: 413-458-5612.
The Tri-Plex Theater in Great Barrington (MA) is at www.thetriplex.com,
or dial 413-528-8885. Upstate Films in Rhinebeck (NY) is at
www.upstatefilms.org or Toll-free: 866-345-6688) (yes that does
spell Filmnut!) ¶
|
|
