The Death & Life of John F. Donovan

True to form, Xavier Dolan has given us something original and profound. This is a beautiful story about time, progress and boundary-crossing forms of friendship and love. The film has its minor flaws but the acting is great from everyone involved (even Kit Harrington, usually rather one-note in my opinion, gives a wonderfully nuanced and haunting performance), an awesome soundtrack, equal parts style and substance, and exquisite cinematography. The critic reviews are shockingly unfair and not at all representative of the great quality that this piece of art embodies.

'The Death & Life of John F. Donovan' is a mess - even if it's an intriguing one. The English-language debut of Canadian director Xavier Dolan ambitiously tackles themes of fame, privacy, sexuality, growing up, and, of course, mothers and sons but never really digs too deep beneath the surface of the very complicated issues it takes on. And from Green Day's 'Jesus of Suburbia' to Florence + The Machine's 'Stand by Me' and Lifehouse's 'Hanging by a Moment,' Dolan is at his worst when he allows his cringe-worthy choice of music to substitute for a deeper effort to underline his characters' emotional states. Still, at the very least, 'The Death & Life of John F. Donovan' is never boring with the big brassy performances from the movie's generally strong casts.

You know what? If you don't like Xavier Dolan and/or don't appreciate his work, please do not watch this movie; and, above all, don't do reviews.

After watching this movie, I surfed the net - moved only by curiosity -to look for reviews. And, what I mostly found, even from the most qualified and acclaimed reviewers, is a sort of standardized analysis, gravitating around usual Dolan's logos (as unfortunately they use to say): Dolan always talks about his himself, mothers, homosexuality.

So what? Even if these items seem to be recurring in his works, couldn't they be considered as tools, keys he uses for opening the door of his inner world? Everybody use tools, why Dolan should not be allowed to use his? Why don't start from different angles in analyzing what flows before our eyes ?

If we look at things always in the same way, with the corrective lenses of prejudgement, we lose the freedom of observing things the way they are/could be, because we look at them only in the way we would like them to be.

This movie has a lot to say not only about the director himself- of course it does, he's one of the writers- (by the way, the direction is great and beautifully crafted, and emphasizes events and emotions; Kit Harington, Natalie Portman, Susan Sarandon and the kid, Jacob Tremblay, offer beautiful acting performances) - but also it tells a lot about ourselves, humans beings always looking for something to relieve our mal de vivre; always looking for others approval, always deeply involved in an unbalanced balance between joy and despere. Yes, mothers, gays, and children too -people - in a carousel of feelings and emotions.

I stop here. There are many things this movie talks about, many clues to investigate, many paths to follow: I leave you, sensitive people, the pleasure of discovery.

This movie takes place mostly over two main timelines. In 2017, Rupert Turner (Ben Schnetzer) has written a book about his correspondent letters with late actor John F. Donovan (Kit Harington) and journalist Audrey Newhouse (Thandiwe Newton) is interviewing him. During the mid-2000's, John is closeted star with a hit show. Sam Turner (Natalie Portman) is raising her son Rupert Turner (Jacob Tremblay) in England. Grace Donovan (Susan Sarandon) is John's mother and Barbara Haggermaker (Kathy Bates) is his manager.

This seems to have one layer too many. I don't think the present-day shell is necessary. The story is already bifurcated into Rupert's story and John's story. It takes an hour before the story gets to the point. It needs to get there a bit faster. Dropping the present day story would help a lot. The scandal unfolds wrong. The aftermath of the assault needs to have more space instead of just a comment. Haggermaker would not handle it in that way if she knows anything about public relations. The movie reaches a high level with the stolen letters and couldn't maintain it.

I remain dubious and hungry: the movie globally lacks of achievement and seems unfinished.

Pros: the sensitivity of Xavier Dolan, the interpretation of the actors, the music, the photography, ...

Cons (only one actually, but a crippling one): the hubbub! I have the feeling that Xavier Dolan tries to artificially fill the relative emptiness of the script dealing with an epistolary relationship modestly reduced to a secret garden with a kaleidoscopic narrative, fuzzily alternating between Rupert and John on the one hand, the present and the past on the other hand.

To be watched again in a decade or two, with another look.