Collusion

"Collusion" is a very clever film consisting of many layers, and it takes you on an engrossing journey as each one is presented. The movie opens on a painting, which a voiceover tells us was once part of a much larger painting, and similarly, the artwork is only a small piece of the movie's much larger web of deceit. On the surface, Jack Littlemore (Aden Gillett) runs a museum security business, Sally Waterville (Kate Ashfield) is his vivacious companion, Darren Headway (Daniel Lapaine) a young entrepreneur, and Serena Ames (Jessica Brooks) a frustrated daughter of a very wealthy and overprotective father who disapproves of all her relationships (including her latest one with Darren). Well, let's just say that things are not always what they appear to be.

The cast is outstanding, and really gives the movie an edge. The actors and actresses strike a great balance of allowing you to get to know them, but at the same time keeping certain things hidden and elusive. It's a fine line, but they walk it quite effectively. And director Richard Burridge gives the film a very sly, smooth feel, as he coolly weaves a complex story. When the film starts it is hard to tell where it's heading, but as the story moves along and the characters continue to interact, the frame of the puzzle comes into place. Then comes the challenge of putting the pieces in the right positions. "Collusion" certainly keeps its most important cards held until the end.

I saw "Collusion" at its US premiere at the Boston Film Festival, and knew nothing about it save what I had read in the one-paragraph synopsis in the program (and that the director would be present at the screening). I had seen no previews, and knew none of the actors- a different perspective than for most movies one usually sees at a multiplex. It was refreshing to go into a film without any preconceived notions of events or characters, and I believe this enhanced my enjoyment of the movie (and it's good idea to watch this movie with a clear mind anyway). But perhaps the most telling sign of this movie's impact is that after it was over, and as I listened to Burridge field questions from the audience, I was also thinking about the movie in my head, and trying to untangle its many twists and puzzles. And as I took the subway home, I kept thinking about it, and I realized that putting the pieces together was just as rewarding as viewing the finished product.

After reading some posters'reviews praising this film to high heaven, I have to wonder if I saw the same film they did.

This is one of those films that tries desperately hard to be clever and merely succeeds in being a wannabe. It takes more than a laundry list of clichés - the slow-paced scenes, the needlessly convoluted conversations, the jazzy score, etc. - to make a film qualify as good. Let's start with the characters. The leading male tries to be Robert Mitchum, but only manages to look like he swallowed a ramrod. His "perky" friend gives what must be one of the silliest, most mortifying and annoying performances I ever saw. A 30-something who acts like a 12 y/o. She riffles through other women's handbags, tries on their lipstick (uninvited, of course), and jumps up and down on beds, if you please. For goodness sake, not even kids do that anymore. Then there's the ex wife, the famous woman with a high end job, who earns more than her ex-husband, so she believes that gives her the right to verbally kick him around. Had enough? Me too.

The only good thing about this film is that the director kept it mercifully short. Still, since there is no accounting for taste, there are those who seem to have liked this pretentious bit of fluff judging by the way the gushed over it. Just like those other terribly clever people who gushed over the emperor's new clothes.

Sexy, subtle -- if Collusion has one fault, it's that it may be too smart for its own good. In a world that has grown used to paper-thin characters and contrived

plots, a film that respects the intelligence of its viewers will be a breath of fresh air for some, but too much of a challenge for others. This film demands active engagement right from the first frame. There are no obvious clues interjected to help the less perceptive unravel its labyrinthine plot, only a cast of smooth operators well versed in subterfuge, and an understated tone that does nothing to hide the mounting tension as one struggles to figure out exactly who is

manipulating whom. The end is a revelation, as viewers find that they have

been beguiled just as thoroughly as the scheme's victim. Collusion is visually lush, and filled with quietly brilliant performances. For those who prefer films with meat on their bones, Collusion will prove a very satisfying experience.

My love affair with intricate, enigmatic plots began a few years back with David Mamet's `The Spanish Prisoner' and my masochistic tendencies a few years prior to that. It's almost an oxymoron really because deriving pleasure from this genre of film can be truly taxing on the brain in that it forces you to really evaluate what drives people. And to see this played out is sometimes a very scary thing. Fortunately, the self-titled `Collusion' acknowledges the deception from the get-go. More importantly, it leaves its audience guessing and wondering about the truth up to its abrupt conclusion. The last 5 minutes of the film being the appropriate time where you think to yourself: `What actually happened?' and are left with about a billion puzzle pieces you need to put back together. In a world plagued with films intended to explicitly shock and immediately gratify (where our attention span is shorter than a 30 second frame), a film like `Collusion' stands out as a classy remnant of a not-so-far gone past when people actually enjoyed participating more actively in the cinematic experience by utilizing a tiny fraction of the space between their ears.

The deliberate tension-filled mood for `Collusion' is aptly affected in the smoky jazz tunes scored by David Mitchum.. The film's main character, Jack Littlemore (Aden Gillett) is a mysterious man, belying an artifice of the strong, silent type. We are immediately both intrigued by this man and skeptical of him. Hints about Jack's past are strategically placed throughout (in the way of understated comments and character interactions) and from bits and pieces we gather Jack is a man with a dubious history. Jack's brash gal pal, Sally, is played with according bravado by the ever-so-effective Kate Ashfield. Like Jack, she is also of a questionable background. While we may not like Sally's self-promoting antics very much, we can't help but be somewhat sympathetic to her dogmatic resistance to fail. (and be amused by her unabashed disloyalty to anyone but herself) Her relationship with Jack as she describes it: `Two ships that bump in the night' (By the way, I LOVE this line and will make a point of using it as often as I can) Simplicity pervades Sally. She is very linear. Jack, it would appear is not.

Darren (the beautiful Daniel Lapaine) enters the story early on as an acquaintance from Jack's past. Jack does not like Darren and Darren enjoys getting under Jack's skin. The cat & mouse uneasiness between the two men mimics the tension in the group as a whole. (rounded out by Darren's heiress girlfriend, Serena) Serena (Jessica Brooks) is Sally's polar opposite. Quiet, genteel, and much more refined, Serena mirror's Jack's persona. She appears silent, yet quite possibly not so strong. Despite their choice of partners, there is definitely more chemistry (both spoken and unspoken) between the Jack/Serena and Darren/Sally duos. And not so surprisingly there is jealousy. Sally wants to be Serena. She studies her, almost like an actor/actress would research a role. She copies her clothes, tries to affect her mannerisms, and ultimately seduces Serena's boyfriend. Even Darren and Jack seem at times indistinguishable. This is the point however. To reveal at a very base level, that art is artifice, that people's facades are just that, that truth is an unknown entity, and thus deception commonplace. And in this world, true intimacies are rare.

Imogen Stubbs plays Jack's ex-wife, Mary, and Ames' lawyer. Blackmailed by Ames, she becomes a pawn in the collusion. She is inevitably torn between loyalties to her employer and her ex-husband. While Jack is usually very guarded and deliberate in his actions, he seems the most indiscreet in his interactions with her, almost to the point of revealing the collusion. But not quite. We must remember that Jack is more calculating than he seems. Of course as the film relays nothing is as it seems. So it's all amateurish guesswork (on our parts), really.

Serena's father, Ames (Leslie Phillips) is a prominent tycoon who seeks to control her and to use his power to manipulate anyone who gets in his way. He is particularly hell-bent on destroying Darren. (or any man in Serena's life) While Ames appears ruthless on the surface and is an altogether detestable character, Phillips plays the character with a certain directness and honesty that lies in stark contrast to every other person in the film. Like Sally, you know what motivates Ames. Darren, Serena, and Jack are more of a riddle...

A riddle that Burridge does not give up until he is forced to and the film must end. Burridge, a well-known screenwriter (`The Fourth Protocol') took on many roles behind the scenes. He acted as producer, director, and screenwriter. For his first time out as all 3, I have to give the man my sincerest praise. The film seduces you with its sexy songs and its even sexier characters. And leaves you achingly wanting for more. You slowly succumb to its rhythm and do so almost subconsciously, unaware of the spell it has cast and just how relentlessly it'll linger.

Man, was this a crummy movie. I'm not sure if it was the actors' faults for being wooden or if nobody could play these characters and make them interesting??? The main actress looks 35 but acts 19, all I could think was 'crackwhore' when I watched her. The other characters were just dull and boring, and some of the lines and situations were so stupid -- ie in a restaurant, the main actress actually tossed her earring on the floor to instigate a private conversation under the table. Puh-lease!!! I rolled my eyes a lot when I wasn't looking at my watch. This was one of the longest 90-minutes movies I've ever seen. It was shown at a film fest in Houston and I can see why it's not going to show at any of the art-film houses here for a run.