Jerome Meyer, Maggie Naouri in Joe Cinque's Consolation |
So in addition to expecting some rendering of the courtroom
drama that was part of the events, you wonder how or if the film-makers,
especially writer director Dounoukos and his co-writer Matt Rubinstein are
going to try and render, if at all, the subjective Garner presence lurking and
poking and prodding into all sorts of areas that otherwise might have escaped
attention.
So again. The biggest surprise is that the film doesn’t enter into this
territory at all. That might come as something of a shock to readers of the
Garner tome. Instead we get a very simple rendering of what might be seen as
some basic facts about how Joe Cinque died after his girlfriend filled him up with
heroin after telling a few friends that the couple had entered into a double
suicide pact. (She then got off a murder charge and most people believe she
shouldn’t have. Oops pardon the editorial but it’s of interest simply because
she and her lawyers managed to convince the court that manslaughter was all
that was involved in these events.)
Somehow or other the book and the events have been ground
down into a very simple narrative. A single long flashback, that runs from Joe
and Anu’s first meeting to Anu being lead away in handcuffs. We are supposed to
be fascinated by two things. One of them is the egocentrism of Anu Singh, an
extreme pathological case. The film charts a course of self-centred behaviour
extending over years that mostly takes expression in manipulating her
long-suffering boyfriend and her Indian girlfriend, the latter being an apparently odd character
prepared most of the time to accept Anu’s word and do her bidding no matter how
extreme the request. It ends in Joe’s murder and the poor dopey bugger hardly
realises at any stage just what is happening to him.
Is it convincing? Are the characters authentic? Do we
feel that these people are more than inexperienced actors delivering lines? Do we get even a modest sense of involvement. Nope.
The second element that the film-makers seem to want to let
us know about is the view that the national capital, where these events took
place, is like some drug of its own – a mediocre depressant sucked up by the
general population that turns the residents of the neat suburbs into desperates trying
to get out of it by climbing into the grip of heroin or whatever other drug is going. Canberra is rendered as featureless in medium and long shot. The film
gives over to the current trope, derived I think from those Scandi crime
series, where time passing is denoted by a random long shot of the city which has no
discernible bearing on the action.
I don’t think Dounoukos does all that well in getting inside
the minds of his protagonists and his mise-en-scene in all the conversations and the intimate interior scenes does little. Cut, cut, cut around a dinner table, cut cut, poorly frame an
intimate conversation. The photographer doesn’t help much with dim and flat
lighting.
But, as Ronald Reagan said in Kings Row, where’s the rest of me. More ambition was needed and I
suspect it needed a writer with a knack
to do some dazzling assembly of the elements which would include the courtroom,
a far more extended examination of the effects of it all on the bewildered
Cinque parents and some rendering of Garner’s own role in writing and
reporting. Who that writer is I wouldn’t know.
But whatever,that was all jettisoned and the result is something far, far simpler than Helen Garner's "Joe Cinque's Consolation".
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.