Daily Archives: Monday, April 4, 2016

  • Iona

    Scott Graham (2015)

    A young woman and a teenage boy aboard a car ferry approach an island.  Once they’ve disembarked and driven a little way inland, they burn their car.   They then start walking further inland.  It’s clear that the woman is leading the way but she and the lad don’t exchange a word – or see another person – until they reach and enter a cottage.  A man of around fifty welcomes them in, although he’s clearly surprised to see them.  These are the first few minutes of the writer-director Scott Graham’s new film.  The island to which the couple has come is Iona, part of the Inner Hebrides on the west coast of Scotland.  The young woman’s name is Iona too.  She’s named for the place where she was born and to which she’s returning after a long absence.  The teenager accompanying Iona is her son Billy, who likes to be known as Bull, and their host at the cottage is Danny.  He’s widowed but he and his wife Helen were virtual foster parents to Iona, who grew up in their house along with her near-contemporary Elizabeth, Danny and Helen’s biological daughter.  Elizabeth is now married, to Matthew, an Englishman who farms on Iona, and they have a teenage daughter, Sarah.  She’s unable to walk – the result of a childhood accident.  It’s soon clear there’s bad blood between Iona and Elizabeth.  What lies behind this and the reason for Iona’s return to the island remain to be seen – although repeated flashbacks in Iona’s mind, to an act of violence involving Bull, are a hefty clue to solving the latter mystery.

    For a while, Iona is intriguing.  This is thanks to what’s on the screen – people who engage our interest, the austere beauty of the Hebridean landscape – and to the very slowness of the pace and to how little is being disclosed.  The story seems to be set in the present day:  this makes the permeation of religion in the life of Iona all the more striking.  We see the people at worship together in a small, unadorned chapel; Danny prays aloud as he makes breakfast for his new guests in the cottage.  In presenting other community activities – strawberry-picking, a ceilidh – Scott Graham strikes a good balance between documentary description of social ritual and arresting conversational exchanges between the main characters.   The dynamic movement at the ceilidh is an effective contrast to the tempo of the scenes that precede it; the cinematographer, Yoliswa von Dallwitz, injects vividly blue skies and green grass into shots of the rocky, grey terrain.  There comes a point, though, when absorption in Graham’s pregnant atmosphere turns to impatience.  We become so used to the elliptical narrative and so aware there’s an unexplained history that our interest is in finding out what happened before the story began, not in what happens next to the people in it.  And once Scott Graham starts to reveal the backstory, things go badly wrong.

    The central relationship in Graham’s previous film Shell, between a father and his teenage daughter, had definite elements of incest.  In Iona, Graham works similar implications into several pairings; some of these implications are more subtle than others but their cumulative effect is to create a governing incestuous pattern to relationships between parents and children.  When we first see Iona (Ruth Negga) and Bull (Ben Gallagher), we don’t know who they are to each other.  We can see her feelings of tenderness for him, though, and we don’t assume from their age difference that they can’t be a couple; we don’t assume either that they’re mother and son, especially since Ben is white and Iona is non-white.  On their arrival at the cottage, it’s hard to tell whether Iona greets Danny (Douglas Henshall) by name or as ‘Daddy’.  That uncertainty may be unintentional (it’s often hard to make out what Ruth Negga says) but it’s prophetically apt, since Danny both raised Iona and fathered her son.  (This was when Iona left the island.)  Bull doesn’t know Danny sired him:  the boy thinks that his biological father was the man who was Iona’s partner in their life on the mainland and whom Bull killed.  (The need to escape the consequences of the crime explains Iona’s return and the burning of the car.)  Because of her disability, Sarah (Sorcha Groundsell) is carried about on the back of Matthew (Tom Brooke) – this makes for an unusual physical proximity between a teenage girl and her father.  We become more conscious of its significance to Sarah when she and Bull leave the ceilidh together and Sarah seems to experience sensual pleasure in the novelty of being carried by a different man.

    Perhaps Scott Graham doesn’t mean to imply as much as I’m inferring but the prominence he’s given to sexual feelings between parents and their children in both the features he’s now made makes it difficult for anyone who saw Shell to avoid seeing incestuous possibilities – or, at least, Oedipus and Electra complexes in bloom – throughout Iona, even though the pieces of evidence aren’t individually conclusive.  In the flashbacks to the killing, Iona is on the floor beside the corpse of the father figure Bull has killed; her son stands over them.   Since the motive of the killing is never clarified, this positioning remains suggestive.  At Danny’s cottage, Iona and Bull share the bedroom that Iona and Elizabeth once shared.  The accident which caused irreparable nerve damage to Sarah’s legs occurred when she was riding in her father’s tractor and ‘I was telling him to go faster’.   And the sexual relationship between Iona and Danny definitely resumes.  When Elizabeth (Michelle Duncan) eventually tells Iona how hurt and betrayed she felt by that relationship – in its earlier phase, when the girls were teenagers – she sobs, ‘We were sisters!’   I took this to mean ‘we lived like sisters’ rather than that Danny is Iona’s biological father too – I hope I wasn’t wrong on that point, at least!

    The description of the life shared by the two main characters was the outstanding strength of Shell.  The story became increasingly less convincing when things happened outside the heroine’s relationship with her father – and you have to wonder from Iona whether Scott Graham, if he’s going to progress as a film-maker, may need to involve someone else in writing his screenplays in future.   Something clearly went wrong with the construction of Iona:  when it closed last year’s Edinburgh International Film Festival, it ran 110 minutes; the version now released (and which I saw on Curzon Home Cinema) is twenty-five minutes shorter.   Some of the plotting, especially around the character of Danny, is evasive.  It’s convenient that his wife has died some time ago (during Iona’s absence); there’s never any suggestion of what effect his sexual relationship with the teenage Iona had on the marriage.  Two thirds of the way through, Danny dies of an unexplained seizure.  The moment of his collapse is startlingly believable (even if it echoes too clearly the epileptic fits to which the father in Shell was prone).  Once you’ve recovered from the shock, you immediately miss Douglas Henshall (who’s particularly expressive showing Danny going about simple domestic routines in the kitchen).  You also realise that Danny has been disposed of because Scott Graham doesn’t know what else to do with the character.

    The social strand of Iona disintegrates in the closing stages.  It’s curious, in view of the community Graham presents early on, that Danny’s death registers so little outside the immediate family circle.  The religious theme isn’t abandoned but it’s used, in a disappointingly obvious and unconvincing way, to engineer dramatic conflict.   Iona lost her faith as a teenager:  it’s not made clear whether this was related to her becoming pregnant but she’s now implacably anti-religious.  Bull, on the other hand, although Iona has kept him away from religion throughout his urban upbringing, takes to the island’s Christianity like a duck to water – this is supposed to be because it offers Bull the possibility of forgiveness for his crime but it’s really so that he and his mother can have arguments.  Danny dies too suddenly for us to get any sense of whether he feels there’s a contradiction between his professed beliefs and his sexual behaviour – or whether we’re meant to assume that, because Danny‘s pious, he’s bound to be a hypocrite too.  There’s a further and an unfortunate metaphysical element.  Sarah’s combination of sexual feeling and lower-limbs paralysis doesn’t bode well from an early stage; by the time Bull has intercourse with her, you’re almost praying that it won’t result in a Brimstone and Treacle­-type miracle.  It seems for a few moments your prayers have been in vain but Scott Graham then seems to suggest Sarah has only imagined that she can move her legs.  This ambiguity feels like adding insult to injury, for the character and the audience.

    That said, Sorcha Groundsell as Sarah is one of the best things in Iona.  Her beatific prettiness has a childlike quality; at the same time, she’s very good at suggesting that Sarah both resents her condition and knows how to subdue the resentment.  The reliable Tom Brooke gives another strong performance as her father.  Matthew is well aware of the tensions between those closest to him but Brooke also gets across a sense that there’ve been happier experiences for Matthew and his family during Iona’s absence:  this suggestion of a settled life disrupted by Iona’s reappearance is a welcome counterpoint to the increasingly tortured and melodramatic events of the story.  The shadings Tom Brooke brings to his role are what’s lacking in Ruth Negga’s portrait of Iona.  Negga is a sadly lovely and magnetic image in the early scenes but, as the film goes on, she switches from quick-tempered defensiveness to tortured yelling and back, with not much characterisation in between.  Later this year, Ruth Negga will be seen in Jeff Nichols’s Loving, the story of a real-life interracial marriage in 1950s America.  Her character’s ethnicity will be a crucial part of Loving; in Scott Graham’s film, it’s never spoken of – even though Iona is the only person of colour in a community which, in various ways, seems to be living in the past.  We don’t even get the sense it’s something that everyone on the island notices but that no one mentions.

    25 March 2016

  • Like Father, Like Son

    Soshite Chichi ni Naru

    Hirokazu Kore-eda (2013)

    The separation of members of the same family.  The effect on parents of the loss of a child.  The tensions between sons and their biological fathers or stepfathers.  These are persistent themes in Hirokazu Kore-eda’s cinema – familiar from Still Walking (2008) and I Wish (2011) and, as its title suggests, central to his latest film.  This time Kore-eda has a scenario which, although not original, brings his preoccupations into sharp focus.  The key event in Like Father, Like Son – early in the movie – is the discovery that two babies were mixed up in a maternity ward six years previously and returned home to live with each other’s biological parents.  However successful or otherwise they’ve been as mothers and fathers in the intervening years, this news is bound to turn the four parents’ worlds upside down.  The set-up seems to present Kore-eda with the opportunity to explore the similarities and differences between the reactions to a family crisis of all concerned, which he did so successfully in Still Walking.   He chooses, though, to concentrate mainly on one of the fathers, the affluent, workaholic architect Ryota (Masaharu Fukuyama).  In the film’s opening sequence, Ryota and his wife Midori (Machiko Ono) sit on either side of Keita (Keita Ninomiya), the boy who’s been with them since birth.  Keita is applying for a place at a new school and the trio are interviewed together:  it’s immediately evident that Ryota is both ambitious for the boy and anxious to get compliments himself.  In the course of the film, the viewer finds out how Ryota got to be the driven, humourless man he now is.  The son of a ne’er-do-well gambler of a father (Isao Natsuyagi), Ryota is tensely determined to overcompensate.  Relatively little attention is given to his wife, who had a hard time giving birth and can’t have other children (that has naturally intensified Ryota’s attitude towards Keita) – or to Keita’s biological parents.  As might be expected, the other father is the polar opposite of Ryota:  Yudai (Lily Franky) is the warm, humorous, happy-go-lucky-verging-on-chaotic owner of a shabby electrical goods shop.  He and his wife Yukari (Yoko Maki) have two other children as well as Ryusei (Shogen Hwang), the biological child of Ryota and Midori.   Unlike I Wish, Like Father, Like Son isn’t told principally from the point of view of the children.   This works very well:  focusing on how the grown-ups respond seems to leave Keita and Ryusei more helpless to influence events, and makes their situation more distressing.

    Because there’s not such richness in the adult characters and because Ryota, although more fully detailed than the others, is defined rather narrowly, I didn’t find Like Father, Like Son as rewarding as Still Walking but it’s absorbing, the storytelling is fluent, and Kor-eda has a real gift for making episodes powerful by not making obvious dramatic highlights of them.  At first, it seems an omission that he doesn’t do more to describe the reactions of the four parents to the hospital’s shocking news but you soon realise there’s hardly time for them to take stock of how they feel.  They’re being hassled by the hospital authorities, who advise that the boys should be returned to their rightful parents before they get any older.  As a result, Kore-eda expresses much more strongly a sense of these people being borne along by an unbelievable but unstoppable turn of events.  When the two couples have decided, after much soul-searching, that Keita and Ryusei should live with their biological parents, Ryota assures Keita that his new mother and father love him very much.   ‘More than you love me?’, Keita asks and Ryota answers ‘Yes’.   That yes would normally be a heartbreaking lie in a screen story of this kind but in this case it could be true.  Ryota, although he’s demanding of Keita, can be pleasant towards the boy but he’s also frustrated that Keita isn’t perturbed by failure (at school and particularly in the boy’s piano lessons):  it’s chilling when Ryota thinks he sees a chance to fashion Ryusei in his own competitive image instead.  Ryota eventually realises that this isn’t going to work – that he’ll need to become more like the joker Yudai if Ryusei is going to accept him.  Ryota loosens up and the child does seem to become happier – Ryota and Midori even take Ryusei on the camping holiday that Keita never had with them.   It’s just when they appear to have become a happy family – lying next to each other and looking up at the stars – that Ryusei delivers the coup de grâce.   Ryota and Midori tell the boy to make a wish and ask what he wished for.  He tells them – apologising that he couldn’t help himself – that he wished he was back with Yudai and Yukari.

    Like Father, Like Son ends with each boy returning to the couple with whom he’s spent most of his life so far and this feels like a happy ending – just as the earlier separations felt like a violation of family life.   It could be argued that Kore-eda is thereby stressing the importance of nurture over nature but, if so, the effect isn’t at all tendentious.  Kore-eda has a genuinely sensitive touch – although, on the evidence of this film at least, that sensitivity is more evident in his direction than his screenplay.  It turns out that the hospital didn’t make a mistake with the two babies:  swapping them was a deliberate act on the part of a nurse (Megumi Morisaki), who now admits that she was envious of Ryota and Midori, a couple who to her seemed to have everything.   At the time the babies were born, the nurse was struggling in her personal life to come to terms with raising a son who wasn’t her own.   This plotting is mechanical; so is a follow-up sequence in which Ryota goes to the nurse’s home to give her a hard time but ends up chastened and impressed by the nurse’s stepson’s robust defence of her.  Here too, though, the experience of the scene is persuasive enough to transcend the conception of it.  Kore-eda is also skilled at working in details which you notice immediately but the significance of which doesn’t become powerfully clear until later – such as Keita’s refusal of the gift of Ryota’s camera when the boy is going to live with Yudai and Yukari.  Kirin Kiki, as Midori’s mother, has a small part but, as usual, makes a big impression.

    23 October 2013

Posts navigation