In Tale 1, a beautiful and rich Frenchwoman has a near death experience and embarks on a journey of discovery about what we think we know about the afterlife. In Tale 2, a boy loses his twin brother in a tragic accident and deals with the disillusionment that comes from seeing a variety of frauds who claim to be able to help him get in touch with his beloved sibling. In Tale 3, a legitimate psychic tries to run from his gift because it’s virtually impossible to build a life when you spend all your time working with the dead.
Here’s the problem: unlike, say Amores Perros, which juggles its tales in a way that keeps us invested in all of them simultaneously, Hereafter makes us wish the damn thing would settle down with one story and tell it properly. Just as we get in to a particular character’s life, the film changes focus and we feel frustrated. Hereafter would have been much better served by telling its three stories one a time, then putting them together in last 15 minutes.
I like Clint Eastwood. I like this film’s performers. I’d have loved to have gotten lost in Hereafter. But this film errs in its structure, and it doesn’t work as well as it could. Bummer.
5 comments:
I couldn't disagree more. I thought all three stories worked perfectly. The editing between each was excellent and I thought one of the real strengths of the film was the way it savored just being with each of its characters in their very distinct settings. You just don't get this kind of patience in most American movies. They're always anxious to get on to the next plot twist or action scene but that's not Hereafter's interest.
In fact this is very much a Euro-arthouse film which I guess accounts for the deeply divided reaction amongst critics and viewers. Well, that and the belief amongst those who hated it that Eastwood and Morgan are pushing some New Age-y view of an afterlife. A strange assumption in any case since both Morgan and Eastwood are atheists.
Whether or not Damon's character is really talking to the dead - we never see him talking to ghosts or delivering prophecies - is treated with ambiguity throughout and the film never takes sides but the very idea clearly touches an irrational nerve amongst critics. Amusingly as if foreshadowing the critical kicking there's even a line in the movie to this effect. Something about how ordinary people can get quite irrational when the topic of an afterlife comes up. Well, their loss.
For me this is an engaging film that is both thoughtful and moving. There's a serene quality to Eastwood's direction like no other working American director and it's wonderful to let yourself be absorbed by. The way the movie uses death and the possibility of a hereafter to reflect on the value of life feels both right and proper. This isn't a ghost story or a comfy wish-fulfillment fantasy ala Heaven Can Wait. You want to know what heaven is? It's right here on Earth, in the connections we make with others and the lives we forge with them. Hereafter's final scene left me with a smile on my face. I knew exactly what Eastwood was saying and it was just great. Even the title has a different meaning on reflection. Not the supernatural connotations but Hereafter as in people Here struggling with loss and loneliness and what comes After.
This is a movie that will undergo serious critical reevaluation in years to come. Just you wait.
Craig, you may very well be right. Nevertheless, I feel that you're setting up something of a straw man argument when you write about the reactions of "many critics" or "those who hate the movie." I find it impossible to argue for or against the impressions of the vague "other," but (the singular) I am right here and am happy to discuss my or your reaction.
Regarding the legitimacy of the Damon character's "gift," I wonder if you saw the same film I did.
SPOILERS FOLLOW
Damon clearly evinces a legitimate ability, first in the dinner scene with Howard and second in the hotel room scene with McLaren.
Regardless, I don't take issue with the stories or the ideas behind them. I take issue with the manner in which they were told. Did you find that the interweaving added to the film's efficacy?
>>Damon clearly evinces a legitimate ability, first in the dinner scene with Howard and second in the hotel room scene with McLaren.
Yes, I would agree he has some sort of ability but whether it is talking with the dead is what is debatable. With one clearly signaled exception Damon tells his subjects nothing they could not have already known. He could just as easily be reading minds, picking up memories and impressions of loved ones instead of actually communicating with the dead. Just .. think about it.
The one exception I mentioned is the second half of the sequence between George and Marcus where it is pretty clearly signaled that Damon - in an effort to placate a distressed child - tells Marcus what he wants to hear. So again the supernatural interpretation can be discounted. Significantly Damon even says during that scene that he has no idea what happens when you die!
I might add a more general observation which is that Damon's abilities have to be taken in the context of the overall theme. The point of the story is to acknowledge that death is universal, that nobody knows what happens when you die but that what counts are the connections we make with people in this life, not some imaginary, hoped for Hereafter. That's why the film ends not with ghosts but with Marcus reunited with his Mum and the possibility of romance between George and Marie. This is a life-affirming movie.
Moreover if you actually look at the messages Damon delivers to Christos, to Marcus - they all restate the SAME thematic point; make the most of your life now because there's no help to be gained from the dead. The reading with Melanie is obviously different because the intention of that subplot is to dramatize George's belief that his gift is a curse, something it does with immense power. So I'm sorry Alex, but I think you're mistaken here.
As for setting up a 'straw man' argument when referring to negative reviews, not so. Hereafter proved a divisive movie with roughly half the audience hating it and the other half loving it. Go look at the critical scores on Metacritic or RT. I HAVE read the reviews so no need to indulge in 'straw man' arguments as you put it.
Oops, missed this!
>>Regardless, I don't take issue with the stories or the ideas behind them. I take issue with the manner in which they were told. Did you find that the interweaving added to the film's efficacy?
I had no problem with the structure. It struck me as ingenious and very atypical of studio pictures. The characters and settings were believable and distinctively rendered (thankfully without being flashy) and I thought that opening with what in any other film would be the climax gave the movie the momentum it needed to hook you into the characters and their predicament.
Craig, I think yours is a fair reaction to the film. Further, I don't think we're particularly far apart in our interpretations of Damon's gift. In my initial review, I wrote that he was a psychic, then I paraphrased his dialogue in explaining why he walked away from the profession. I never made the case that he actually spoke with the dead - I wrote that he's "legitimate," an interpretation with which you appear to agree.
Post a Comment