Dir: Steven Knight
2014 (1hr25mins)
As far as films go these days, this one is fairly stripped-down: but for the opening 5mins, the entire film takes place within car - and if that wasn't enough to turn off most audiences, it features just one actor (on the screen anyhow). Credit to Tom Hardy, then, that the film comes off as well as it does. He commands the screen with a performance that, with practically no backstory to aid him, is able to fashion the kind character and life that is not only real, but worth caring about: no small feat, given the already-mentioned constraints and, as though these were not enough, a rather short running time, too (1hr25mins).
The reviews for the film have been glowing. They should be. Some of these have referred to the film as an experiment, and maybe it is. The challenge, if that's how we want to look at it, seems to be threefold: (1) can you create a compelling story with very little - if any - backstory? (2) Can you hold the attention and interest of the audience by limiting the screentime to (i) a single actor; (ii) a single setting? (3) Can the audience take anything away from the film given challenges 1 & 2? The answer is an overwhelming "Yes," thanks, as I've already mentioned, to Mr. Hardy. Some critics have encouraged viewers to check out the film for just that reason: to see that experiments of this can be pulled off. To suggest, however, that this is the reason for seeing the film - as opposed, say, to merely one of several - would do it an immense disservice. For one, it would do much to turn the attention away from where it really succeeds: in showing how little we as an audience need in the way of cues to engage the story and life of the characters we give our attention to. That is to say, if a story is acted in a compelling fashion, and rendered with the appropriate care by the director and her staff, then there's little else we, as viewers, need to find ourselves enrapt. That "Locke" succeeds in this respect is its real credit. And that is the reason we should see it.
4 / 5 stars : Recommended
Ease of viewing:Moderate (Pacing)
Tone:
Contemplative, Moody
Mood:
Atmospheric
Notables (Technical):
Acting
Thematic flags:
None
Time of day to watch:Late Evening
2014 (1hr25mins)
The reviews for the film have been glowing. They should be. Some of these have referred to the film as an experiment, and maybe it is. The challenge, if that's how we want to look at it, seems to be threefold: (1) can you create a compelling story with very little - if any - backstory? (2) Can you hold the attention and interest of the audience by limiting the screentime to (i) a single actor; (ii) a single setting? (3) Can the audience take anything away from the film given challenges 1 & 2? The answer is an overwhelming "Yes," thanks, as I've already mentioned, to Mr. Hardy. Some critics have encouraged viewers to check out the film for just that reason: to see that experiments of this can be pulled off. To suggest, however, that this is the reason for seeing the film - as opposed, say, to merely one of several - would do it an immense disservice. For one, it would do much to turn the attention away from where it really succeeds: in showing how little we as an audience need in the way of cues to engage the story and life of the characters we give our attention to. That is to say, if a story is acted in a compelling fashion, and rendered with the appropriate care by the director and her staff, then there's little else we, as viewers, need to find ourselves enrapt. That "Locke" succeeds in this respect is its real credit. And that is the reason we should see it.
4 / 5 stars : Recommended
Ease of viewing:Moderate (Pacing)
Tone:
Contemplative, Moody
Mood:
Atmospheric
Notables (Technical):
Acting
Thematic flags:
None
Time of day to watch:Late Evening
No comments:
Post a Comment