Der Solist

Since Ingmar Bergman's 1962 film, "Through a Glass, Darkly", the 2009 film "The Soloist" is one of the two most accurate portrayals of schizophrenia, from the point of view of the mentally ill person and of people who want to interact with the ill person. I speak from experience. David Cronenberg's film, "Spider", is the other.

I was disappointed in my two favourite critics, James Berardinelli and Roger Ebert, each of who gave "The Soloist" only 62½%.

Berardinelli says, "The Soloist is afflicted with a lack of passion. The story lacks a strong trajectory; it meanders, seemingly unsure of precisely what it wants to do and say and where it wants to go." Actually, that is the reality of schizophrenia. One never knows what is going to happen next. There are many setbacks. He also says, "The soundtrack supplies multiple, overlapping voices. The objective is to invite the viewer to participate in the unhinging of Nathaniel's mind, a first-person perspective of schizophrenia. Unfortunately, it feels artificial and contrived." I have taught seven NAMI* courses on mental illness. One episode in one of the classes involves requiring class members to perform certain simple tasks while being bombarded by random voices from behind. Many class members find that to be the most unnerving, and illuminating, of all the activities in the course.

Ebert misses the point when he says, "Yes, mental illness can be like that, but can successful drama? There comes a point when Lopez has had enough, and so, in sympathy, have we." Dealing with a mentally ill person can be devastatingly frustrating. Must we always be entertained? There is a place for grim reality in drama. Otherwise, how can we learn?

"The Soloist" is as accurate a representation of schizophrenia as you could experience without becoming mentally ill yourself. If you keep that in mind then the film will be rewarding; if, however, you are looking for a film that makes sense easily and progresses from point to point in a logical manner, then look for a different film.

If you choose to watch the film and absorb the reality of mental illness, then you will learn much. You never know when that knowledge will be of great value to you. Then again, you may be spared, and never need it.

The film introduces a very important idea: mentally ill people do better if there is someone, whom they trust, who takes an abiding interest in them.

It also poses one very important question: should mentally ill persons be forced to take medication to stabilize themselves? Different states, provinces and countries have different laws concerning this. Some feel that mentally ill persons should be forced to take medication if and only if they are likely to harm themselves or others. Mentally ill persons are often unaware that they are mentally ill, and cannot be convinced otherwise. Would they have more freedom to decide correctly for themselves if they were first medicated until they become sane? The film addresses this question but does not attempt to give a definitive answer. You will have to think out that question yourself, keeping in mind that different people have different reactions to the same medication. There is no universal answer, but for each individual, there is probably a best answer but not necessarily a good one.

The film captivated me from the beginning to the end. I did not miss the common devices that some movies use to make them exciting. There was excitement enough for me in the growth of the principal characters and in the learning that I did, and in the thinking that I was forced to do.

*NAMI is The National Alliance on Mental Illness.

P.S. Schizophrenia has absolutely nothing to do with having multiple personalities, or of dichotomies (apparent contradictions). The split in the expression "split personality" is the split between the personality and reality. Unfortunately, the word is misused far more often that it is used correctly.

What makes this film watchable is that it is based on a true story. A caring Los Angeles reporter named Steve Lopez (Robert Downey, Jr.) tries to help a homeless man named Nathaniel Anthony Ayers (Jamie Foxx).

Ayers suffers from paranoid schizophrenia. But he once attended Julliard, and he still lives and breathes the music of Beethoven. Ayers, with his shopping cart of possessions, walks the streets, playing his violin amid the noise of the freeway. He's content, in his own world.

That unusual behavior grabs the attention of Lopez, no doubt as a human interest story for his own column. But as Lopez gradually becomes more genuinely concerned about Ayers, their relationship encounters frustration, anger, and emotional pain.

It's a poignant, gritty story, full of realism. The film manages to be compassionate without being patronizing. The film does a terrific job in portraying the harsh, depressing reality of the boarders who live at a large shelter where Ayers goes, at the insistence of Lopez.

Technical elements of the film are good. The visuals are thematically impressive. Production design and costumes are detailed and realistic. Acting is credible. Robert Downey, Jr. gives a fine performance.

The main problem is the plot. Too much time is spent on Lopez and his trivialities. Somehow, the compelling Ayers story morphs into a weighty examination of Lopez and his distress in dealing with Ayers. The script is to blame here. I think if the main character had been Ayers, instead of Lopez, the film could have been quite inspiring.

Even so, the film clearly calls attention to the plight of the urban homeless. As such, the film deserves viewer support.

This film was supposed to be a major competitor for the Oscars last year, but Paramount bumped it to a few months later. Despite the mixed reviews the film has received, I believe it would have been a major contender. I honestly think Paramount's decision not only ruined its chances for Oscars, it gave the impression that there was something wrong with the picture. There isn't, really. The subject matter does scream "Oscar Bait", with Robert Downey Jr. playing a newspaper columnist who writes about a schizophrenic genius musician (Jamie Foxx) who is homeless on the streets of L.A. We all remember Shine. Shine was pretty good (if entirely made up, as we later discovered). The Soloist is probably a little better. I think it's stronger because of its exploration of the relationship between the two central characters. Both Downey and Foxx are extremely good; both are award-worthy. This material could easily have been cheesy Oscar bait, but director Joe Wright (Pride and Prejudice and Atonement) is a virtuoso himself. The way he uses image and sound move the story along beautifully, not allowing the clichés to clog up the film.

With an interesting subject matter, two talented actors starring, Beethoven (one of my favourite composers) featuring heavily in the soundtrack and an impressive trailer, 'The Soloist' had enough to make me want to see it.

Joe Wright is somewhat hit and miss for me. 'Atonement' and 'Hanna' especially of his films are great, also liked 'Pride and Prejudice' and 'Darkest Hour'. 'Anna Karenina' didn't do it for me though and 'Pan' was a big misfire. 'The Soloist's' mixed reception admittedly created some uncertainty on my part, but the interest points mentioned in the first paragraph were enough to check it out anyway. Seeing it, 'The Soloist' is somewhere in the middle of Wright's films in ranking.

Not one of his best, not one of his worst either. Better than reputed, but considering the potential a better film was in there somewhere that didn't quite materialise.

'The Soloist's' biggest strength is the two leads. Robert Downey Jnr. especially is riveting in a performance full of vigour and heart. Jamie Foxx had the more challenging role, and while not as subtle as Downey his acting is incredibly emotionally committed and touching. Catherine Keener also fares well.

It's a good looking film too, polished, gritty and elegant. The music is magnificent as one would hope. 'The Soloist' does have its fair share of powerful, poignant and uplifting moments, the chemistry between the two leads strikes all the right notes and the scenes and portrayal of the homeless have a lot of power. The portrayal of schizophrenia, a very complex condition that has been prone to a lot of misconceptions and misinterpretations, is not too inaccurate.

However, Wright's direction is fairly unimaginative and sometimes chaotic. While there is nothing amateurish about his images (apart from some over-eager/clever editing) not all of them serve much of a purpose. The script does tend to ramble, even in Foxx's dialogue which is at times slightly annoying, and be too ham-fisted.

Similarly, the story is somewhat too thin and tries to cover too many themes and ideas without exploring some of them enough. Consequently, some of the film gets unfocused and over-crowded with a tendency to get melodramatic and be erratically paced. The rest of the acting barely registers, which is a shame because the two leads are so good.

Overall, not a bad film but could have been more. 6/10 Bethany Cox

Yes, you can trust Joe Wright with your life, without bound for two hours.

Some parts of this are simply ordinary. There's the original sequence of stories which exploited the simple tension of discarded talent in a city that both worships talent and discards people wholesale. These were simple structures, headlines and patronizing prose.

There's the screenplay by a hack, with simple shape and essentially no movement. In other words, forget what people usually think a movie is about: the people and the story. Those parts are missing. There is no happy ending. There is no redemption.

But this has three things: madness, music and the marriage of madness and music.

I saw this right after "State of Play," a traditional newspaper movie, with archetypal writer and editor. This is a modern version with two of our most folded actors: Downey and Keener. Their job is simple: define an edge between internal and external. The coupled acting here is not between Downey and Foxx, but between Downey and Keener playing a recently divorced couple. There's a quiet tension these two build around the absent son, whose place Foxx's character fills.

Foxx makes not a character but an phenomenon, an experience, this experience of madness in music. He is helped by being placed amid folks who we are told are "real disturbed people." What Wright has is a fairly vacuous notion of madness, but a sublime talent in expressing it cinematically. Some of his tricks are trivial when considered independently: a cutout of Ayers getting smaller and "disappearing into" the music; a cheesy light show to Beethoven; an attempt to conflate voices in the head to music in the head. This latter is very real but the expression is cheap.

While they seem trite individually, none are used heavily or relied on. And the effect when combined with more masterly things produces a symphony of excess. Downey's character remarks on the sheer depth, the love the penetration in describing just this very thing we see. It works. Music, indeed all real paths through passion are madness. Every adventure into commitment is a step outside safety of self.

Wright knows this. He feels it. He can show it. I can trust him with my life. Its madness to do so, but I recommend it to you.

Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.