“Love and Mercy” manages to be both sad and uplifting, ugly and beautiful all at once.

Full disclosure. I have been a Beach Boys fan since I was a child. I blame my father as I was born in the early 80s and thus was not even alive yet during the height of their popularity. I found their music to be fun, upbeat and enormously catchy. As I got older, I came across the odd article or piece of information that talked about Brian Wilson’s battle with mental illness. (The Barenaked Ladies’ song “Brian Wilson” to name just one). I didn’t know much about it, but it didn’t surprise me that he had suffered. Many geniuses are known for the inner demons they fight.

I will admit that I do love biopics as well (despite the fact that they are usually ridiculously formulaic). I enjoy seeing a fictionalized tale about how that person “came up” and achieved fame. Usually the messier, the better. Most biopics tend to focus on the drugs, excesses and other extremes that challenged or destroyed the person’s career. If they died of an overdose, you can bet your ass the film will focus mainly on their struggles with drugs, or drinking and little else.

“Love and Mercy” could have gone that route – there is enough drug use and excess in Wilson’s past to warrant it surely. However, this film decided to take a different approach and I thought doing so made it quite brilliant. Instead of the familiar linear approach (we see their childhood, their break into fame, the trials, challenges, drugs, and finally their death), we got to see the struggles Wilson faced through two very pivotal points in his life. One of those points was in the 60s while he wrote the critically acclaimed album “Pet Sounds” and the other was in the late 80s as he was struggling to break free from his controlling psychiatrist Eugene Landy (Paul Giamatti) and mental demons. What makes it even more interesting is that during these two periods, Wilson is played by two separate actors – Paul Dano in the 60s and John Cusack in the 80s.

The film shifts between these two points. It shows us the beginnings of his troubled mind. The earlier part of his life, shows us the frantic need that Wilson seemed to have to “get his music out” and the unique way he approached song writing. It paints him as an artist first and foremost who cared about the music before the hit records (much to the chagrin of his own band). It showed us the beginnings of the voices he heard, the paranoia, the unravelling of his marriage, the difficulties with his abusive father and his introduction to psychotropic drugs.

The second point we see of Wilson is (as said before) in the late 80s. While Dano showed us a focused and very driven Wilson, Cusack’s older version of Wilson is subdued, unsure of himself and almost childlike. We first see him in a car dealership attempting to buy a Cadillac. He attracts the interest of the sales clerk Melinda (Elizabeth Banks), who is drawn to his non sequitors and his transparent need to talk to someone. They have a short and fairly sweet exchange until his psychiatrist Eugene Landy shows up and takes control of the situation. He orders the purchase of the car and whisks Brian away from her, but not before he leaves her a note on a piece of paper that reads “Lonely, scared, frightened”.

The more modern plot revolves around their budding romance and Melinda coming to terms not only with Brian’s mental illness, but also with the fact that Landy is using him and over medicating him. It culminates in her and his close friends launching a lawsuit against him to remove Landy from his life (as he was Wilson’s designated legal guardian at that point).

It’s a beautiful and moving story about two people who fall in love despite crazy obstacles. It doesn’t shy away from Wilson’s battle with mental health problems, and although it largely omits the period in his life where his drug use and issues destroyed his marriage and almost ruined his life, it doesn’t shy away from the fact that there is a darker side to Wilson. He takes responsibility for his earlier mistakes. In a way it seems that his allowance of Landy to thoroughly run his life was a direct response to all the things he had done in his past. As if allowing someone else full control could erase it all.

The Good:

1. The music. There isn’t a ton of it in the film. Most biopics focus heavily on the music of the artist to the point where you might as well have just downloaded their greatest hits rather than watch the movie. That doesn’t happen here. We don’t get full songs, we get clips. Odd bits and pieces of the music that are used very specifically to give us insight into where Wilson was at this point in his head. Most of the clips played come from the “Pet Sounds” album and Wilson’s creation of it. It’s frustrating at times to head only the backing track or a small sample of Wilson singing the song at his piano, but it is also refreshing not to be subjected to a 2 hour long music video. The music chosen is beautiful, powerful or simply happy to listen to. You cannot listen to “Good Vibrations” without smiling (seriously, try it. It’s NOT possible.) Director Bill Pohlad was very particular in what music he chose for the film, and it’s very effective.
2. Two Brians. It’s an odd choice for a biopic. Generally film makers rely on age make up, hair style and clothing changes to show the passage of time. Occasionally they get a different child actor if they are going that far back, but usually they stick with one actor to portray the character. There’s only 20 years between the two “Brians” but VERY different experiences have made them almost completely different men. I was skeptical about the decision, fearing it would take you out of the movie to see two different actors as the same character, but instead it does the opposite. Seeing Paul Dano’s portrayal gives a very interesting nuance to John Cusack’s interpretation. They seem to walk the same way and have the same physical characteristics which helps make both their performances more believable. Each of the actors brings out a different side to Wilson in his portrayal and adds to the beauty and tone of the story.
3. Elizabeth Banks and Paul Giamatti. Both give brilliant performances here. Banks as love interest Melinda comes across as wary, but intrigued, empathetic and compassionate and horrified at the life that Wilson is living. She comes across as someone who doesn’t care about his past fame or wealth. Material possessions are not important in fact, they seem to make her slightly uncomfortable. She cares for Wilson, but doesn’t want to be another person in his life sucking him dry. Their scenes together are sweet and awkward in equal measure. Both are damaged individuals just trying to find something in the other person worth holding onto. Paul Giamatti is also an inspired choice. From the second he appears on the screen we can sense something is deeply off. His outbursts and controlling behavior come across as beyond creepy. He is intense, magnetic and chilling in this role.
4. The Structure. It’s a unique way to tell a story. Two fixed points in time, rather than a beginning, middle and end. It’s simple and uncluttered but tells us more about Brian Wilson than we might have otherwise gotten in a film bogged down by changes in decades, excessive drug montages and other trappings of a biopic. At the heart of the film is its emotional core and structuring it this way allows the director to strip it down to its bare bones.

The Bad:

1. I honestly can’t think of anything. I really loved this movie.

This is one of those few movies that will stay with you long after you come out of the theatre. It will make you said, and happy at the same time. It will make you want to go home and download all of the Beach Boy’s music and listen to it all at once.

“Prisoners” is a moody thriller/morality tale that will hold you captive long after the credits roll

 

Going into this film, I really didn’t expect much. The media had not really hyped the film at all, and the trailers marketed it as a run of the mill mediocre thriller that would probably just fill the gap of movies coming out between the summer blockbuster season and the Oscar season.

What I got was a film that – while more shocking than some horror films, did not sensationalize, but rather used the violence to ask more probing questions from the characters as well as the audience.

It is a film that uses the content and the material to spur thought and discussion. It is a film that is difficult to categorize into a genre because there is a bit of everything – horror, torture, mystery, morality tale, thriller, etc.

It is a film that will have you asking yourself ‘what would I do’ and maybe not liking the answer that you come up with.

It is directed by French Canadian director Denis Villeneuve, but set in the Northeastern United States.

Hugh Jackman and Maria Bello star as Keller and Grace Dover, parents of two children. Terrance Howard and Viola Davis play Franklin and Nancy Birch also parents of two and it is at a thanksgiving gathering at their house that both parents’ young daughters – Joy and Anna go missing.

Jake Gyllenhall also appears as Detective Loki, who has been assigned to try to find the children and bring them home. The only lead he has to go on is the information provided by the two older children who inform their parents that the kids were seen earlier in the day playing on top of an RV parked outside someone’s house. The driver of the RV – a mentally handicapped man named Alex Jones (Paul Dano) is swiftly arrested and questioned, but ultimately must be released due to insufficient evidence.

Pushed to the brink, filled with desperation and convinced that Jones knows where his children are, Keller takes matters into his own hands, kidnapping him from his Aunt’s custody and torturing him to try to find his children.

The film could have easily delved into the territory of gruesome sensationalistic violence with a premise such as this, however Villeneuve manages to successfully avoid this by weaving an intricate mystery plot within it that also manages to delve deep into the psyche of all the characters involved.

The Good:

1. The Cinemetography. This film is brilliantly shot. It is moody and bleak in terms of surrounding and atmosphere – mirroring the characters’ emotional states through the film. The sets are real – you can tell that they spent time filming on locations and they actually serve to help bring you into the film in a way that digital and green screen cannot. I cannot emphasize enough just how much the landscape contributes to the emotional tone of the film. Villeneuve chooses to drain almost all the sets and outdoor shots of colour, giving us the feeling of desperation, urgency, heartache and anger that is simmering beneath the surface of the characters at all times. It is bright and harsh and angry and absolutely stunning. Clearly every attention was paid here to detail and that is something that isn’t as common in film anymore.
2. The music. Going along with the cinematography, the score music here is appropriate but not overwhelming. Too often the temptation is to make the score music so over powering that it tells the audience how to feel at any given moment. Many films don’t trust the actors’ performances or the scripting enough to let the audience get there on their own. Not so here. The music here serves to subtly enhance the emotional tone of the film without overwhelming you.
3. The intricate plot. Along with the emotional and moral questions the film raises, the film also contains a very well pieced together mystery plot. As I said before, it’s part moral tale, part thriller, part police procedural. I will try to avoid spoilers as much as possible, because figuring out the answer to who took the children and why is part of the experience of watching the film. As Jackman’s character wrestles with his own conscience over what he is doing, Gyllenhall is busy trying to solve the case and we the audience are taken along for the ride. The film assumes the audience is intelligent as it refuses to give away the answers. We learn via clues and hints what is going on just as Detective Loki does. Some will figure it out sooner than others (I put it together about ten minutes in), but that doesn’t make it any less entertaining. It’s not a disappointment (as other films tend to be) if you “guess the twist” – rather it adds to the suspense of the tale and creates a very effective sense of dramatic irony as you watch and wait for the other characters to catch up.
4. Hugh Jackman. He is absolutely brilliant in this film. He is no stranger to academy award nominations, but this film is one that could easily see him secure an Oscar. He is a man facing the possibility of losing his child, and that fear and anger has driven him to do things that we can only hope we might have the strength to say no to. This could have come across as very ham fisted and clumsy in the hands of a lesser actor. Jackman’s character commits acts of unspeakable brutality against the man he believes responsible for the loss of his child. Despite the fact that we should, the audience does not hate him. We are repulsed and appalled by his actions, but at the same time empathetic and sympathetic towards him. We want him to stop, but, like Franklin and Nancy Birch, we instead choose to turn away from the situation, hoping in our hearts that his actions will be justified by eventually yielding information as to the whereabouts of his children. It is a performance from a man who is not unlikeable – who appears to be no different than any other father and Jackman forces us to ask ourselves if we too wouldn’t do the exact same thing if it meant the life or possible death of our child. His performance is visceral and incredibly intense. There are moments when his rage and his fear and desperation almost vibrates off the screen – where we feel almost as keenly as he does the urgency of the situation. It is this transference that allows us to forgive some of the most terrible actions and it is this transference that breaks our heart – especially during one particular scene in the film.
5. Jake Gyllenhall. Also no strange to the Academy, it would not be a surprise if this film yielded two Oscars for male performances, as his is also superb. Though the writing and scripting is excellent for each character, Gyllenhall’s talent and skill easily takes it to a completely new level. He is the kind of actor that can disappear completely into a role and make that character come to life. Loki, like Dover is not a perfectly likeable character. There are points when he appears unsympathetic – almost heartless towards the Dover’s situation. It’s through Gyllenhall’s performance that we see this is just a way of the character protecting himself. We understand just how weary he is of seeing this kind of pain and how diverse the reactions from the victims are to it. He is tired, but incredibly determined. I have always enjoyed Gyllenhall as an actor and feel that he has done some truly excellent films in the past (Brokeback Mountain, Donnie Darko), but I truly think this is his best performance to date.
6. The attention to detail. As I said, the performances and writing is expertly done, however it is the details added to each character that make this film feel truly real. None of the information supplied to us about Dover is without a purpose. We know from the beginning that he is not only a family man and devoted father, but a survivalist and a bit of a control freak who believes in leaving nothing to chance. We see him bond with his son over a shared hunting trip, but we also see the uncertainty in his son’s eyes telling us that maybe Dover’s intensity is a bit too much. We see when Detective Loki enters his basement just how obsessed Dover is with having full control over any given potential situation and threat to his family. This informs the character’s actions in a big way. A man like this would not be able to sit idly by and let someone else look for his child. A man like this would need to take control over the situation and actively do something about it. A man like this would latch onto the first piece of evidence given – however thin because he would need to believe that he had some control over things. You don’t have a basement full of survival gear if you are someone who can easily trust others to handle a time of crisis. We also know just how much he is relied upon BY his family and that also tells us why he goes to such extremes. When their daughter goes missing, his wife not only falls apart by taking to her bed and using sleeping pills to get her through the day, but she actively blames Dover for giving her a false sense of safety. These words are incredibly harsh, but they tell us a lot about why he felt he needed to do what he did. Here is a man who is used to being viewed as the protector of his family. He is used to being prepared for any and all emergencies. These are all important pieces of the puzzle when it comes to the character of Keller Dover.
7. The “solution”. Without giving away the ending, I will say that the answer to the mystery is not difficult to figure out if you watch the clues that the film provides you with. It’s not a disappointment if you figure it out before Loki does, because it fits together so well and makes logical sense. The ending, while a bit frustrating is also necessary.

The Bad:

1. The female characters. This is my only real criticism here and I will amend it by saying that for the purpose of the story it is one I can somewhat look past. There are really only three women in this film (not counting the kids who are taken and the teenage daughter who really doesn’t appear much). They are the two wives of course and the suspect Alex Jones’ Aunt. Putting the Aunt aside, the two women are largely ignored within the story. Keller’s wife Grace (played by Maria Bello), as mentioned before spends the majority of the film in her bed sleeping and/or stumbling around in a drugged daze wearing her housecoat and sniffling into tissues. Viola Davis appears a few times but not nearly as much as I would have liked her to as her character was truly interesting. I hesitate to criticize too heavily on this however, for a couple of reasons. The main reason though is that it is very common in films that involve child kidnappings and/or murders to see the story focus be entirely around the mother ignoring the father almost completely (“Eye For An Eye” being a perfect example). This feeds into that mistaken societal assumption that women are ultimately more “caring” as parents and/or their attachment is greater to their children than that of the father. I like it when I see a film that focuses on a father’s anguish as well. The second reason I hesitate to criticise too heavily is because even though it bothers me to watch Grace Dover fall apart in the film, I have to remind myself that the character they have written is someone who is directly responding to a situation that is juxtaposed and gives reason for her husband’s response. They are BOTH damaged people here and in ways they are both unlikeable. I would have liked to see more to do for these women (as is too often the case with almost all of Hollywood) but at least I can understand why this was the case.

This will never be a mindless fluff film that I can just pop into the DVD player and switch off to. It’s far too complex and heavy in terms of its subject matter for that. You really need to be in a specific place to view this film and that’s OK. It doesn’t make it any less disturbing or any less brilliant.