The Great Train Robbery

The Great Train Robbery

Directed by Michael Crichton.  Written by Michael Crichton.  Stars Sean Connery, Lesley-Anne-Down, Donald Sutherland,   
1978, 110 minutes, Color, Rated PG. 

Michael Crichton had an interesting film career in the 1970's. His first job as director was the television movie PURSUIT (1972) which was based on his novel Binary (published under his 'John Lange' pen name).  PURSUIT is a perfectly fine little film but doesn't really point to any great talent. His first big-screen film was WESTWORLD (1973) based on his original screenplay, and was a corker of an idea executed far better than the meager budget allocated to it would have predicted.  Blessed with an above-average cast (especially the stunt casting of Yul Brynner as a robot), WESTWORLD shows some real flair for film storytelling.  Crichton moved on to other things after WESTWORLD, namely writing The Great Train Robbery (1975) and Eaters of the Dead (1976), but swung back to filmmaking when he accepted the directing and screenwriting chores for COMA (1978), which was based on the novel by Robin Cook. COMA is quite effective and fits in nicely within his oeuvre, even though it was not his original idea.  Along with PRIMARY EVIDENCE (1989), ROBBERY stands apart from Crichton's other films by not having any science fiction element to it. 

THE GREAT TRAIN ROBBERY (1978) is an old-fashioned adventure tale based on fact and blessed with sparkling performances by Sean Connery, Donald Sutherland and Lesley-Anne Down. The film is set in London of 1853 and does a good job of depicting this thanks to the opulent cinematography by Geoffrey Unsworth.  The bulk of the running time taken up with Connery's plan to plan and execute the world's first robbery on a moving train.   The robbery itself occurs over that last twenty-some minutes.  The plan involves copying four keys so that they can open safes on the train that contain gold bullion while it is moving.  In 1855, no one had ever successfully robbed a train in motion so it was a big deal at the time.  

Sean Connery plays Edward Pierce, mastermind of the plan.  The films shows the steps that led up to the robbery and the robbery itself.  The film compresses and slightly rearranges the events but remains faithful to the source novel  Those involved in the robbery were caught in 1857 and put on trial, but Pierce escaped and presumably lived out his life in luxury, as the money was never recovered.  As all of the pertinent facts for the story come from the trial transcripts, if they had not been caught we would have no real way of knowing how it had been done.  

Crichton states in the novel that he took all dialog from the trial.  The lends an aura of authenticity to the book, but also ultimately becomes its biggest problem in that almost nothing is known about Edward Pierce with certainty.  Given the lack of confirmable information that is available, it is not even entirely clear that this was his real name.  Therefore everything we know about him comes from what others said about him, and we know he lied to them.  Crichton largely overcomes this issue in the novel by layering in much detail of the time that the story is set.  It's a great read and very entertaining.  The film cannot spend so much time on the context of the events, but between Connery's charisma and the excellent production design the film moves along in a way that you aren't really aware of the lack of true understanding of Pierce.

Other changes from the novel and film:

• Two people are combined into the character that Sutherland plays.  He is a pickpocket and "screwsman" (someone who makes copies of keys) in the film, in the novel he is just the screwsman with another person being the pickpocket.  
• One of the keys has to be obtained from Mr. Henry Fowler, who in the film is a lecherous bank executive who carries one of the four keys needed to open the safes that contain the gold.  Pierce is able to copy the key by setting him up with a prostitute (played by his accomplice Lesley-Anne Down).  There is subterfuge involved and Down's character does not have to actually do anything with the man.  In the novel he is still lecherous, but suffering from the effects of a venerial disease.  Pierce sets him up with a prostitute who is a virgin (and frightfully young) and is able to copy the key while they are engaged in their activities.
• In the film, Pierce is caught at the station directly after the robbery.  He is put on trial and convicted but escapes as he is being led from the courthouse with the help of Down's and Sutherland's character.  In the novel everyone gets away.  However, two years later Sutherland's character is brought in by the police after a woman he knows tells them that he had a part in the gold robbery.  He eventually gives up Pierce and this is how everyone is caught.  Pierce still escapes, but Sutherland's character ends up in jail.

Just when things start to drag a bit too obviously--somewhere around the act of copying the fourth key--the film finally gets to the robbery itself.  Up until this point, the film was lightweight, agreeable and mostly fun, but the train sequence elevates the film and is far and away the most impressive thing that Crichton ever filmed.  Connery was just shy of 50 when he made this film, which makes his doing all of his own stunts on the train impressive.  The film shows him climbing onto the top of the moving train with no safety harness, and it's astonishing.  When Connery is almost taken out by low bridges several times it truly appears as though he was in real danger.  In his book Travels, Crichton explains that these scenes were carefully planned out which makes the execution all the more impressive, at least from a cinematic standpoint.

This is not to say that Connery was not in real danger at times.  Crichton also relates in Travels how the train was supposed to stay at 35 miles per hour, but as it was a period train there was no speedometer.  The enginemen estimated the speed the best they could by counting how many telephone poles they passed in a minute.  Later, the helicopter crew confirmed that for at least one of the sequences the train was in fact going closer to 55 miles per hour.  This gives the film an element of danger that it probably doesn't deserve.  Still, an agreeable film that has always been a personal favorite.

I watched it this time on the Kino Lorber Blu-Ray.  It's an older transfer but looks decent enough.  The disc includes the audio commentary by Crichton that was originally on the MGM/UA laser disc.  Crichton is an intelligent speaker and it's a great commentary.

Silent Madness 3-D

Silent Madness 3D

Directed by Simon Nuchtern.  Written by Bob Zimmerman & Bill Milling.  Additional Dialogue by Nelson DeMille.  Stars Belinda Montgomery, Viveca Lindfors, Solly Marx.  
1984, 93 minutes, Color, Rated R. 

Summary:
When a glitch in the computer system at an asylum for the criminally insane results in the release of the wrong patient - a giant-in-stature homicidal maniac named Howard Johns, who has a penchant for killing college coeds - it’s up to one of the institute’s top doctors to track him down. Unfortunately, it’s not just Howard she has to worry about, as the administration of the asylum has decided to cover up the error to avoid bad press, going as far as to hire a duo of thugs to permanently ’silence’ the good doctor. Soon enough, Howard finds his way back to the sorority house he once terrorized and sets out to murder the latest batch of nubile coeds who have taken up residence in the stately manor.

3D Rating:  **** out of *****

What makes a good 3-D film?  One could argue that the same rules that apply to 2-D films should apply to 3-D.  Good is good, right?  But that is not the case.  Any movie has the capacity to be better in 3-D.   I'm not talking novelty--I mean the very nature of it's dimensionality can enhance a dramatic work in unexpected ways. This is where "real" 3-D sets itself apart from "converted" 3-D.  Real meaning either two cameras or lenses captured the spatial information real-time on a set.  Converted meaning a 2-D image was processed to artificially create the two images used to make the 3-D image.

In a converted film, the visual effects technician has to manually determine what the dimensionality will entail, and how nuanced it will be.  This is not unlike what a cameraman using a 3-D rig would do on set, but the difference is every shot converted to 3-D costs money, and by and large only a certain amount of money will be spent on something as innocuous as someone walking down a corridor to get from point A to point B.  Certainly, some fine conversions are out there, but even in the best conversion there will be aspects that don't take full advantage of the third dimension.  And the reasons for that can be varied but it usually comes down to either money, or the filmmakers playing down the dimensional effects because they do not want "gimmicky" 3-D.

However, when you talk about a "real" 3-D film all of that depth and real world spatial orientation is just THERE.  True, the camera system used was adjusted to affect depth, but by and large when real 3-D is both filmed and presented correctly it's an amazing experience.  One of my film truisms is that a great presentation will always make marginal entertainment more watchable.  

Which brings us to SILENT MADNESS.

Now, this is not a great film.  I had never heard of this before seeing it for sale on Black Friday 2020, and only bought it largely due to it being released by Vinegar Syndrome and featured 3-D restoration work by the 3-D Film Archive. There would be a vigorous discussion trying to call it even a "good" film.  The acting is variable, and the story is pretty dumb, but even in 2-D it achieves some suspense and atmosphere.  

However, it is fabulous 3-D entertainment.    Truly, this is one of best 3D experiences I have had in many years.

3D disclaimer:  I have a LED TV that can display digital 3D.  My 3D reviews are based on how things look on my set. I am aware that other methods of displaying 3D may be different.

SILENT MADNESS was filmed in Arrivision 3-D, which was a single camera system that used a special lens to capture both right eye and left eye information on a single strip of 35mm.  Because only half of the 35mm frame was used, films shot in Arrivision 3-D are typically more grainy than not.  The director of photography was Gerald Feil, who had previously filmed FRIDAY THE 13th 3-D (1982).  Judging by the results on display in SILENT MADNESS he learned a few things from that experience.  

SILENT MADNESS does not have a great story.  According to the supplemental features on the disk, the film started as one kind of film but ultimately morphed into a slasher film.  As such, the film is a little clunky, characterizations are a bit thin, and the acting is a bit variable.  The film does tell a (generally) coherent story and generates suspense, so it satisfies as early 1980's horror film even without the third dimension.  

When viewed in 3-D, however, the film is an absolutely hoot.  Real care was taken to highlight the dimensionality of the different locations, and there are numerous "pop out" effects.  Additionally, the final chase sequence adopts a filmic style with colored gels that is quite different from what preceded it.  Think Mario Bava as opposed to FRIDAY THE 13TH and you get an idea of what I mean.

The Blu-Ray is taken from a release print, as apparently the original negative is missing.  The print used for this release is not great.  Many of the same faults found in the other Arrivision 3-D films JAWS 3-D and FRIDAY THE 13TH 3-D are also present here--alignment issues and a general all around softness.  These faults are largely baked into the print used, so while The 3-D Archive has done a remarkable job making it look as good as it does here, there was also only so much that could be done.

Also included on the disc is a "sizzle reel" which is in better condition than main feature.  This sizzle reel includes footage not in the final film and also presents a black and white flashback sequence in full color.  It's an interesting extra.  Colors are stronger as well, which seems to indicate that a scene in an experimental hospital wing was influenced by the body farm in COMA (1978).

Also notable is that there are two 3-D versions of the film included in the release.  There is the digital 3-D version of course, but there is also an anaglyph version as well.  I was not interested in this when I purchased it, but I have to admit that it works far better than I thought it would.  My experience with anaglyph 3-D was limited to broadcast "special events" when growing up, which typically did not work very well due to limitations inherent to NTSC.  However, the good folks at the 3-D Film Archive have come up with a proprietary process for anaglyph that works really well.  Watching it in anaglyph is a very viable alternative if you are not equipped for digital 3-D.  I've included some screenshot examples of anaglyph from the sizzle reel.  If you have the appropriate glasses, the 3-D should work well on your computer monitor.  

Vinegar Syndrome also includes at least one pair of anaglyph glasses in the package, as well as an embossed slip cover.

The Magnificent Ambersons

THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS

Directed by Orson Welles.  Written by Orson Welles.  Stars Tim Holt, Joseph Cotten, Dolores Costello, Anne Baxter, Agnes Moorehead, Ray Collins.  
1942, 88 minutes, Black And White, Not Rated. 

Where to start with this one?  

Rightly or wrongly, the original version of THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS stands as one of the great lost films in the history of Hollywood. This was Orson Welles' second film for RKO, after CITIZEN KANE.  The controversy generated by KANE did not translate into box office dollars, so when the first cut of AMBERSONS tested poorly, RKO instructed the film's editor to shorten it dramatically and reshoot some of the more extreme scenes to be more palatable.  Said editor was Robert Wise.  

Welles was out of the country while most of this went down, and it's intriguing to think what may have happened had he been in the country.  Evidence suggests that he was not opposed to making changes and memos exist where he suggests even more drastic restructuring than what ended up in the released film.  The story of why he was out of the country is an interesting story in itself--he was appointed a good will ambassador to Latin America by the Government and so started to make an anthology film of life in the lower America's.  Although jointly funded by the U.S. Government, RKO pulled the plug based on the footage being sent back, which was also most likely as an indication for how far Welles' star had fallen.

While most can acknowledge the innovations of CITIZEN KANE, even if they don't care for the film itself, it's not generally as understood that AMBERSONS was just as innovative in new and different ways than his previous film. The visual look of the film is what most people gravitate to, but there are other more subtle innovations that were lost due to the editing. Specifically, the original version of AMBERSONS featured multiple scenes of extremely long takes with intricate camera moves and/or subtle character interactions.  This is not to suggest that Welles was being theatrical in the way of stage plays, but rather theatrical in the film medium*.  The shot length for many of these scenes originally were far outside the shot length norms of 1940's Hollywood. The film is also much darker—literally and figuratively—than typical films of the era, with deep shadows that mirror the characters emotions. 

Then there are the sets. Going against convention, Welles had the Amberson manor constructed as a contiguous multi-story set. The detail lavished on the set was impressive (and expensive) and contributes enormously to the believability of the setting. It also allows for some highly expressive (“arty”) shots that use both depth and shadows to outstanding effect.

While Welles does not act on screen in AMBERSONS (the only time he was ever able to do that for one of his films) he contributes the narration. The first few minutes of AMBERSONS are an absolute joy to behold mainly due to his rich baritone voice.  It is also worth noting that the first half hour of the film is the least molested of what remains.  There are deletions, but nothing in the way of new scenes.

100% of the long takes mentioned above were compromised by the pre-release editing done to "improve" the film. The two biggest areas that were harmed were the ball sequence--a long single take that wound from one end of the set and back again, all while dialogue scenes and dancing took place. Welles claimed it was an entire reel of film, but even if it wasn’t it was still a tour de force. As most of the edits occurred after the halfway point of the story, much of the scene still exists in the film as it is relatively early in the story. Not so lucky was the original ending with Agnes Moorehead's emotional explosion chopped off before it really gets going.  Likewise cut in half was a kitchen scene where it is explained that some of the Amberson land had been sold because they needed the money.  In fact, just about all of scenes that illustrated how society was changing, for better or worse, and how it affected the family were lost in the re-editing.

I think that if the original 131 minutes version had been released in 1941, it would have died a death at the box office, so it's reasonable that RKO would have tried to "fix" the film. The question of whether the film was taken out of Welles' hands is more complicated.  Superficially, this became the first in many films that Welles lost control of.** Looking at it a little closer, however, it's an open question whether Welles was removed or whether he removed himself.  He left for South America to film his Latin American film before AMBERSONS was fully edited, and one has to wonder why he did that. Was he simply naïve, or was he aware that the film was problematic?  Perhaps he didn’t have the stomach for the compromise needed to appease the studio.  Sheer irresponsibility also cannot be discounted.

Based on what is known about the original version--the continuity script exists for that version--it was an artistic triumph but not an "easy" film.  The film is also aggressively "arty" and that may have also been a problem with audiences outside of the bigger cities.  This would have hurt its chances at the box office. The fact is, the film was flawed in having one of the most unlikable lead characters in film history. I happen to think that Tim Holt is fine in the role, and played it exactly as Welles wanted, but the character is a cad and it colors much of the story. The fact that the film's portrayal is a faithful rendering of the character from the Pulitzer Prize-winning novel does not really help things--what works in print sometimes just doesn't work on screen.  If Welles had played the lead, he may have been able to pull off making the lead character more likable.  This may have improved its chances at the box office. Maybe.  

That said, I also 100% believe that if the long version had been released it would be considered a filmmaking masterpiece, right alongside KANE.  It probably would have taken a generation for it to outlive its box office failure, but like it or not, art generally prevails.  

* On a side note, I personally have always viewed Mike Nichols' peak period (1966-1973-ish) to be "Wellsian" in nature as he approached things in a similar manner--long takes with a striking visual touch. 

**.  LADY FROM SHANGHAI (1948), MR ARKADIN (1955), TOUCH OF EVIL (1958).

The Nightmare Before Christmas 3D

Directed by Henry Selick.  Written by Caroline Thompson.  Story by Tim Burton.  Adaptation by Michael McDowell. Stars Danny Elfman, Catherine O'Hara, Chris Sarandon, William Hickey.  
1993, 86 minutes, Color, Rated PG.

Summary:
Bored with the same old scare-and-scream routine, Pumpkin King Jack Skellington longs to spread the joy of Christmas. But his merry mission puts Santa in jeopardy and creates a nightmare for good little boys and girls everywhere!.

3D Rating:  *** 1/2 out of *****

When THE NIGHTMARE BEFORE CHRISTMAS was released in 1993, Tim Burton was on a roll.   His first five films as a director were PEE WEE'S BIG ADVENTURE (1985), BATMAN (1989), EDWARD SCISSORHANDS (1990), BATMAN RETURNS (1992).  BATMAN (1982) was a huge hit, which no doubt enabled him to get NIGHTMARE BEFORE CHRISTMAS greenlit.  It was something of a dream project for him, and it took 3 years to accomplish all of the stop motion animation required to bring it to life.  This isn’t to say that Burton actively much worked on the film.  Director Henry Selick (JAMES AND THE GIANT PEACH) brought the film to life, overseeing all aspects of its creation.

It's a wonderful Halloween film*, full of witty visual jokes and real heart, perfectly realized by Director Henry Selick and his team of animators.  It was state of the art animation at the very tail end of the "traditional" visual effect era--JURASSIC park was ushering in the era of CGI at the same time.  The film contains an outstanding performance by Danny Elfman as Jack Skellington, and he also composed the songs and soundtrack.  The movie is great fun.  I had a CAV laserdisc set of this back in the day that I cherished.

3D disclaimer:  I have a LED TV that can display digital 3D.  My 3D reviews are based on how things look on my set. I am aware that other methods of displaying 3D may be different.

THE NIGHTMARE BEFORE CHRISTMAS was filmed in 2D and converted to 3D in post-production by ILM.  Needless to say, 3D was not a consideration during the making of the film, although the nature of how it was made--three dimensional animation--lends itself better than I expected to digital 3D.  

NIGHTMARE is full of crazy Expressionistic sets that lend themselves very well to 3D.   Additionally, the very nature of stop-motion animation takes the third dimension into account by its very design.  Pair that with the top notch conversion job and you end up with a very satisfying 3D experience.  All of the sets exhibit the type of dimensionality usually only found in true 3D films.  This means that every few moments there is something new to gawk at.  There are also some pop out effects that work much better than you would think.  This is an exceptional conversion that is faithful in spirit to the original production.  In this way it is like the Pixar conversions.

* This is not a Christmas film.

The Finest Hours 3D

Directed by Craig Gillespie.  Written by Scott Silver, Paul Tamasy & Eric Johnson.  Stars Chris Pine, Casey Affleck, Ben Foster, Eric Bana, Holliday Grainger.  
2016, 117 minutes, Color, Rated PG-13.

Summary:
In February of 1952, one of the worst storms to ever hit the East Coast struck New England, damaging an oil tanker off the coast of Cape Cod and literally ripping it in half. On a small lifeboat faced with frigid temperatures and 70-foot high waves, four members of the Coast Guard set out to rescue more than 30 stranded sailors trapped aboard the rapidly-sinking vessel.

3D Rating:  ** 1/2 out of *****

At first glance, this seems like an odd choice for a 3D film.  More than half of it takes place at night, in poor lighting conditions and with weather further obscuring things.   The film is based on a true story and was originally intended as a smaller budget film.  It grew considerably in both scope and budget during production and ended up as a big-budget special effects bonanza.  Whether it needed the big budget to tell this story is debatable--it probably didn't--but it ended up with over 1000 visual effects shots.  

The core story is compelling, and the storytelling is intelligent, efficient, and respectful.  This respectfulness also results in a curious downplaying of the danger inherent to the events depicted.  Kind of like how a date can be too respectful if you are in the mood for some action--sometimes you just want something more and if your date is unwilling you can mistake it for a lack of interest.  I do not think that the filmmakers were uninterested in their audience.  I think it more likely that the original small film idea got swamped by the visual effects needed to make it more of an action film. 

All this said I liked the film.  Now, on to the 3D.

3D disclaimer:  I have a LED TV that can display digital 3D.  My 3D reviews are based on how things look on my set. I am aware that other methods of displaying 3D may be different.

THE FINEST HOURS was filmed in 2D and converted to 3D in post-production.  According to the director the filmmakers planned for 3D while making the film.  This is not always the case, so this attention to framing coupled with the significant amount of CGI layers results in a fairly robust 3D environment.  It does not hold a candle to a real 3D film, of course, but the quality of the conversion is above average.  

There are very little in the way of "pop-out" effects in the film, but depth is truly outstanding, which helps sell the different environments.  There is one shot that involves a verbal message being relayed from the top deck of the ship down to the engine room that is a good encapsulation of the benefits of the 3D in this film.  As each crew member relays the message, we see another hallway, stairwell, or open room that subconsciously helps sell the illusion that these characters are on an actual ship.  It's an impressive shot, made even more impressive since they were not on an actual ship and the shot in question was pieced together from multiple shots on the soundstage as a visual effect.  Any scene with weather also works effectively in 3D, which is most of the film.   

I won't say that the 3D made this a dramatically different experience than the 2D version, but the 3D is effective enough that it will be my go-to format if I watch the film again.  As stated above, this was an odd choice for 3D but it turned out to be a reasonably rewarding 3D experience.  It was not released on physical media in 3D in the United States as Disney had abandoned 3D by 2016. 

HARPER

Directed by Jack Smight.  Written by William Goldman.  Stars Paul Newman, Lauren Bacall, Julie Harris, Arthur Hill, Janet Leigh, Robert Wagner, Shelley Winters, Strother Martin.  
1966, 121 minutes, Color, Not Rated.

HARPER is based on the first of the Lew Archer" series of books by Ross MacDonald.  The film version had a screenplay written by William Goldman, who had written only one movie prior to this but had written several books.  He later credited this film as being the one where the lightbulb went off in his head about screenwriting, and that he would be successful at it.  He was, in fact, very successful at it and would later write such films as BUTCH CASSIDY AND THE SUNDANCE KID (1969), PAPILLON (1973) , THE GREAT WALDO PEPPER (1975), MARATHON MAN (1976), ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN (1976), THE PRINCESS BRIDE (1987), MISERY, and MAVERICK.  He was also gainfully employed as a script doctor.

The film is remarkably faithful to the book, but it has been judiciously edited to be more streamlined.  In this way, Goldman proves that he understands movie plotting, innately (apparently) understanding what can be glossed over and what needs to be shown in detail.  The plot involves a missing husband.  Newman plays Lew Harper (changed for Lew Archer for some reason), a private detective hired by Albert Graves, the lawyer of the man who's gone missing.  Harper is a bit of a sad sack, but as we ultimately see is pretty good at his job.

The film is stylishly made but almost undone by its desire to be topical--it wallows in the Holywood vision of the hip and swinging 1960's and this ultimately dates it badly; Go-Go dancing is featured entirely too much for this to be a timeless entertainment.  By contrast, the novel is not nearly as locked in time even though it was originally published in 1949 and is awash in all kinds of post-war ennui.  Graves and Archer/Harper are not quite near enough in age to have their friendship make sense.  The fact that they served together in the war helps fill in the story there.

Aside from Newman, the cast is full of lead actors of a somewhat faded luster, as well as some competent character actors.  Lauren Bacall and Shelley Winters and Janet Leigh do the best with their roles, but Robert Wagner and Strother Martin come off best of the secondary roles.  Casting less old-school Hollywood faces may not have helped the film, but I can't really say that anyone is bad in the film.

Newman was active in the 1960's--HARPER is one of seven films he appeared in that were released from 1966-1969.  All of these films are interesting roles for Newman, with the standouts being HOMBRE and COOL HAND LUKE (both 1967).   He is interesting in even the misfire films, like TORN CURTAIN (1966).  Newman was uncommonly subtle in his craft by this point in his career which no doubt cost him some acting awards, but his work was way above average.  A method actor, much of his work is internal, and was not helped by his preference for playing strong silent types whose actions ultimately tell the audience what kind of person his character really is.  

In HARPER he keeps everything close to his vest until the very end of the story.  Newman is quite good in the role, bringing a lot of reality to the proceedings.  He is consistently behind the curve plot-wise so the majority of what he does is reactive, but that is exactly his strength.   He plays the sad sack well--so much so that the majority of the people he interacts with consistently underestimate him.  When the time comes, Harper brings the goods, in much the same way that Eliot Gould's Philip Marlowe does in Robert Altman's THE LONG GOODBYE (1973).

While Newman would return to the role nine years later in THE DROWNING POOL (1975), his work in this film should have been the start of more than it was.  As it turned out, this film wasn't the hit everyone wanted.  He would score with COOL HAND LUKE (1967) the following year, but big box office success would not come until BUTCH CASSIDY.

Still, the plot is intelligent, the characters are interesting and the mystery well handled.  Jack Smight directs with style and the widescreen cinematography by Conrad Hall is fabulous. I especially like how Smight uses long tracking shots in the film.

Warner Archive released an outstanding Blu-Ray of this a few years back.  It features a commentary by William Goldman that originally appeared on the DVD.

Young Adam

Written and Directed by David Mackenzie.  Stars Ewan McGregor, Tilda Swinton, Emily Mortimer, Peter Mullan.  
2003, 98 minutes, Color, Rated NC-17.

Summary:

Joe (Ewan McGregor), a rootless young drifter, finds work on a barge traveling between Glasgow and Edinburgh, owned by Les (Peter Mullan) and his wife Ella (Tilda Swinton). One afternoon they discover the corpse of a young woman floating in the water. Accident? Suicide? Murder? As the police investigate and the suspect is arrested, we discover that Joe knows more than he is letting on. Gradually we learn of Joe's past relationship with Cathy, the dead woman (Emily Mortimer). Meanwhile, an unspoken attraction develops between Joe and Ella, heightening the claustrophobic tensions in the confined space of the barge.

This is an interesting film, full of unhappy characters, death and what looks like some extremely chilly weather.  It's a mood piece, really, but notable because it is intelligent and just ambiguous enough to require the viewer to pay attention.  Character interactions are realistic, the way of life depicted is hard, and there is very little joy to be found in the film.  To say that it is unrelentingly bleak would be accurate but the film has much to offer in its darkness.  Life in the tiny barge is all about enforced intimacy and disillusionment. 

Based on a short 1957 novel by Alexander Trocchi, YOUNG ADAM unfolds in a manner that makes the central mystery difficult to anticipate.  This mirrors in some ways the way the book unfolds, which is written in the first person but nevertheless still conceals the mystery for an impressive amount of time.  Early in the film we see Joe on the barge from above as it passes by.  He is walking towards the back of the barge, and because the boat is moving forward it appears as though he is walking place.  This illusion perfectly mirrors Joe's life at this moment--he is a writer suffering from writer's block and has escaped from that by taking a job loading and unloading cargo on a small, barely-solvent barge.  He is neither confronting his past, or trying to move forward.  He is merely keeping time until the next thing comes along.  Walking in place as it were. 

We learn that Joe had been seeing a woman named Cathy.  When his relationship with her reaches a crossroads, he takes the easy way out and walks away rather than commit to her and their relationship.  Joe, we come to learn, is somewhat selfish.   The only thing he takes with him is his typewriter and that he throws that into the river.  On the boat, When confronted with his desire of Ella he ignores the consequences and goes after her.  When this drives away Les and leaves him with more responsibility than he wanted, he again takes the easy way out and walks away.  When he meets up with Cathy months later and she tells him that she is pregnant, once again he takes the easy way out and walks away.  When Cathy accidentally falls into the river, he does not jump in after her.  We had already seen him jump into the river to save Ella's son, so we know he has it in him.  One can surmise that there was no upside for him to go after Cathy.  He did not want a relationship with her.  When he jumped in for Ella's son, it is quite likely he did so to earn favor with her.

We never truly understand Joe perhaps, but the trick of the film is disguising his true nature for as long as it does.  There were certainly clues to his character. Joe literally has consensual sex with EVERY woman we meet in the film*.  However, it should be said that he finds willing partners wherever he goes.  McGregor gives a good performance, remaining legitimately likable even after we find out he was there when Cathy died and has kept it to himself with tragic results.

For all of the above Joe is a troubling character.  If not for the genuine remorse he exhibits when Joe the plumber is arrested for killing Cathy--he knows how she died after all--one could make a case that Joe is a sociopath.  So, not a sociopath, just weak and selfish.

Tilda Swinton gives an impressive performance, infusing her character with a lifetime full of disappointment, and masterfully displays raw sexuality in a real and non-glamorous manner.   They say that when contempt enters a marriage there is probably no way to recover from it.  Ella has contempt for Les, and it seeps out in their every interaction.   We learn that Les is impotent and unable to satisfy his wife sexually, and he proves to be equally impotent when faced with Joe taking his place in both Ella's bed and as the man of the barge.  

Emily Mortimer as Cathy should have received an award of some sort for a scene in which she is debased with food.   She is less clearly defined than the other characters.  Pretty, intelligent, and capable, she would seem to be the idealized companion that Joe thinks he wants.  However, in day to day life, he sees faults and can't help but be disappointed in her. 

At this point, it might be interesting to ponder the meaning of the title of the film.  There is no character named Adam in the story and apparently, Alexander Trocchi never explained what he meant by it.  It's possible he meant Adam in a biblical sense, and if the fruits of the Garden of Eden is a metaphor for sex, then Joe is a main character partaking of many apples.

The film remains in the memory long after viewing it.  

*Or does he? I admit I missed the possibility of an unreliable narrator the first few times watching the film, even though as the novel is told in the first person it is a shining example of the form.  I haven't re-watched the film since making this connection to see if it really changes anything.  It's just another potential layer of a truly remarkable film.