Huérfanos de Brooklyn

Edward Norton has Tourette's Syndrome, which comes out when he is stressed, which does not include driving a car, or getting into a gunfight or walking into a strange location when you expect them to kill you. He works for Bruce Willis, who runs a detective agency out of Brooklyn. Willis gets kidnapped and shot, so Norton is the man in the shop who is supposed to track down the killer. This leads him on a tour of an alternate 1956 New York City, which seems to be populated by great actors like Willem Dafoe, Gugu Mbatha-Raw, Cherry Jones, Bobby Cannavale and Alec Baldwin as a megalomaniac closely modeled on Robert Moses. One of them is the bad guy. Guess which and why.... I had it figured out four minutes before Norton did, but then, I don't have Tourette's. Still, that means it's a fair mystery.... not who, but why.

Mostly, though, it's a chance for actors to strut their stuff, and none more so than Norton, who besides having Tourette's has an eidetic memory, smokes pot to control his symptoms, and will never be rich. No one seems to be put off by his tics, including touching women, making comments which are mildly lewd, making noises while jazz musicians play, and in one scene where he is trying to light a lady's cigarette, repeatedly lighting a match and blowing it out before it can get to the cigarette. Everyone is astonishingly enlightened, except, of course, Baldwin. Being evil, he hates poor people, and Blacks in particular.

Good acting, but when I want to visit 1956 New York City, I don't want everyone there to be from 2019. Still, some great acting, some great locations, and the CGI recreation of Penn Station revives my anger towards the morons who tore it down.

The first time I saw Tourette Syndrome portrayed in mainstream film was, as I imagine is the same for many others, in Deuce Bigalow. It wouldn't be the last time, however, that the portrayal was an exaggeration of coprolalia (the swearing tic), the shock value of which was used for a cheap and easy laugh.

Over the years, I've seen that many people have presumptions about this neurological disorder - understandable, given the circumstances. Unfortunately, I've also learned the hard way that many of these presumptions have been heavily (and negatively) biased towards this inferred 'swearing tic', and I can't help but feel like Deuce Bigalow, or Not Another Teen Movie, or others, have helped shape this presumption.

The presumption honestly doesn't bother me, provided the person holding the belief is willing to have a conversation with me about it. I've always been open about my Tourette, and I consider myself lucky and fortunate to have won awards, or spoken with the media, or inspired others, due to my openness and having some small success with writing and acting.

What does get to me, though, is when the people aren't willing to have a conversation with me. I've been fired from jobs once it's become known that I have Tourette, even though it hasn't affected my work. I've had dates suddenly lose interest. I've been kicked out of bars when bouncers have mistaken my tics for drug use and refused to hear any explanation without threatening violence.

So when I heard that Edward Norton would be portraying someone with Tourette Syndrome in #MotherlessBrooklyn, I was excited to see what an actor of such calibre would do with such a complex condition. And I was not disappointed.

Motherless Brooklyn is great. Adapted from the novel and written and directed for the screen by Edward himself, the film is an enthralling and charming noir detective piece peppered with big names playing relatively small roles, all of whom tell a captivating story about government corruption in 1950s New York.

Edward's presentation of Tourette Syndrome was refreshing. It was delivered with a level of maturity and respect that is seldom seen on the silver screen. And even though the condition is never outright named in the film, much like his tics, it can't be hidden from anyone watching.

And yes, his character does have coprolalia, and echolalia (the tic where you have to repeat things said), and other verbal and motor tics. And sometimes it's funny. But his tics aren't just a cheap laugh for the audience - they affect his character. A PI trying to stay unnoticed on the subway who suddenly blurts out some choice words and draws attention to himself is funny. And when he's consoling someone and can't stop touching their shoulder, it's funny. And when they reassure him that it's okay, it's endearing.

And it's okay for us to laugh at the realities of life, however absurd or uncontrollable they may be at times. Tourette Syndrome is real and sometimes it's funny and that's okay. But at least in this film, we're finally laughing at it for the right reasons. And with his portrayal, which also shows some of the positives that can come with Tourette - as opposed to just the obviously stare-inducing drawbacks - I am hopeful that this may help provide the less-aware with a better, more informed presumption about this condition.

Are there actors out there with Tourette Syndrome (and who are open about it) that could have played this role? Absolutely. Like me. But I'm not Edward Norton. And are there actors out there with Tourette Syndrome (and closeted about it) that could have played this role? Absolutely. But they are also not Edward Norton.

The issue of roles going to actors who don't live with the condition being portrayed has been a hot-button issue for many, and I do think there are instances where the role should have gone to someone else. This isn't one of those times. Actors are actors, after all - their job is to convince you that they're not pretending.

Edward was convincing. And I - and I imagine a number of others with Tourette Syndrome who have been subject to unfair or illegal treatment due, at least in part, to a sub-par late '90s movie - thank him for being so. I was fortunate enough to see this at TIFF this year, where he introduced the film. Had he stayed for a Q&A afterwards, I would have loved to have said this to him in person. But I doubt I am the first, and know I won't be the last, person to say this.

Motherless Brooklyn (opens Friday Nov 1) My friend won advance screening tickets tonight for Motherless Brooklyn, which turned out to be a rather deluxe affair with wine and food served beforehand in the "VIP" cinema area of a cinema in Vancouver, Canada.

We needn't have worried that all these emoluments were buttering us up for a bad movie-it's a really good one and likely to get Oscar nominations for Edward Norton, who not only stars as Lionel but also directs and co-wrote the screen adaptation from a novel. When I was grasping for the real world connection I thought I saw in this feature drama, my husband prompted me the sociopathic mogul, Moses Randolph, depicted by Alec Baldwin in the film is only a thinly papered over Robert Moses. That smasher of neighbourhoods in the name of grand schemes had a leading role in the 2016 documentary Citizen Jane: Battle for the City, about Jane Jacobs and her fight for the soul of New York City. (That soul, I'm hearing, has suffered some blows of late.)

This 1950s period film has an instant classic feel to it. It has enough Hollywood dynamics and star power in it to pull in a larger audience but there's some very nice cinematography and lots of social relevance, both in the good old USA and in satellite nations like good old Canada, where I live, with regard to present-day politics and power-wielding at various levels by wealthy people. This is particularly the case when it comes to who runs city hall and gets to force out large numbers of people from the communities where they belong.

The city where I live has an ongoing struggle for which Motherless Brooklyn has relevant things to say. Even as I travelled to the cinema in question, I was distracted by the ugliness of the rapid-transit corridor it sits on which has been heavily redeveloped since the line went in for the 2010 Winter Olympics. The construction cranes are still plentiful, the featureless higher density buildings lining the route have an oppressive, mountain-view blocking dominance. Robert Moses/Moses Randolph or whoever wears their snappy shoes would love it.

Almost the only thing I was indifferent to in the film was the "brain thing" affliction of Norton's character, which seemed like some kind of cross between Tourette Syndrome, Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, and a revisiting of Dustin Hoffman's Rainman character, at times. The syndrome had relevance to the story, though, and there were some nicer moments in how it was depicted.

In addition to Ed Norton's strong performance and Willem Defoe's decent contribution, I enjoyed seeing Michael Kenneth Williams as a mellow jazz musician (I always think of him as Omar in The Wire.) Alec Baldwin was convincingly evil, though I think some real life power mongers prettify their harsh decisions, to themselves and others.

Motherless Brooklyn is a modern film Noir about a troubled man seeking answers, exploring new worlds within familiar ones, and going toe-to-toe with violent thugs and oppressive tyrants, in the heart of New York during its blossoming years. It also just may be Edward Norton's "Sling Blade."

Some of its most noticeable achievements, are the visual and audial elements. With the gloomy, yet bustling sets, and the somber, thoughtful soundtrack, the effective lighting and mood of each shot, it's a brilliant homage to the classic Noir style. It's not even just a throwback, but could eventually be considered a monumental addition to the genre.

And the acting. Expect nothing less from such a stellar, experienced, well thought out cast. Edward Norton nailed it especially, and shines a humorous, yet wondrous and even educational light on Tourette's syndrome. Excellent performances by all.

Story-wise, it's nothing groundbreaking. But it's certainly engaging. One can tell it's no cookie-cutter script, a lot of heart went into it. Sure some may find it boring, slow, presumptuous even. Others will find it exhilarating, and refreshing. Hopefully most will find the passion, love, message, and humor in it, and also discover that it could be that movie which so many people have been wishing Hollywood would make, instead of those dry, cash-cow blockbusters that stain the very heart and art of filmmaking itself. While also being unique in its own way, it's also familiar, without being too familiar if you know what I mean.

I wish Bruce Willis was in it more, and there are some plot holes and mildly annoying coincidences, cliches, etc. These are few and far in between. While it can be difficult to follow at times, it's still quite a fantastic movie.

Those who would enjoy this movie, probably also enjoyed other titles like Chinatown, L.A. Confidential, Road to Perdition, The Sting, Double Indemnity. See it in theaters, you'll find yourself driving down Nostalgia lane in a vintage 1950's Chevy.

I found this film satisfying overall, but one anachronism distracted me and pulled me out of the 1950s setting. Lionel's symptoms of Tourette's syndrome, repetitive verbalizations of a rhyming nature, were accepted equanimously by everyone he encountered. No one displayed annoyance, made fun of him, or called him insulting names to cast aspersions about his intelligence. His repetitive touching of people on the shoulder as he faced them ought to have caused women to back away and men to knock his block off. They did neither. It was as if these 1950s characters had been taught the acceptance of people with disabilities that was not really commonplace until the 21st century. This is the biggest mystery in the movie.