Claire in Motion

Don't waste your time. Better off watching news. From 10 years ago.

The premise of the film was viable. The filming, directing, and the acting were well below average. Yet another production, touted as a mystery, with no resolution. Apparently, for many people, this passes for art.

Greetings again from the darkness. A math professor and an art professor are apt to view the world discordantly, but it doesn't mean they aren't capable of a strong personal relationship together. After planting a morning kiss on the cheek of his wife, Paul sets off on a one-man survival hike through the hills and forest. When he doesn't return, the mystery begins. Only it's not really a mystery, and it's certainly not the thriller it seems to be disguised as. Rather, it's a character study of how a rational mind works to make sense of a world that can't always be explained logically.

Lisa Robinson and Annie J Howell have co-written and co-directed this story that gives Betsy Brandt a chance to really spread her dramatic acting wings after her time on "Breaking Bad". Here she plays Claire, a math professor, wife, and mother to Connor (Zev Haworth). Being of sound mind and structured thought, Claire immediately starts trying to find the logical reason for the disappearance of her husband. What she discovers is her husband often secretly veered from the structured life she so valued. This leads Claire to an awkward meeting with Allison (Anna Margaret Hollyman), one of his grad students. It turns out Allison and Paul had a pretty close connection over an upcoming art project.

By now, you are probably sure you have this movie figured out. Fortunately, the filmmakers ensure it's not as predictable as you might think. It's not a thriller like Gone Girl or Deceived. We watch Claire re-trace Paul's steps on a path unfamiliar to her, and this evolves into a self-realization that she had been sleep-walking through life: doing her job, raising her kid, going home each day. There's a key moment when she's watching an old video of herself and Paul, and he says "look at me". It's at this point she begins to understand – and it's enhanced by a chance meeting in a bar with a former student. Maybe Paul isn't the only missing person.

Son Connor probably doesn't get the screen time his character deserves. Like his father, Connor has some secrets of his own. His friends don't know he enjoys knitting, and he intends to keep it that way. It's one more indicator that no matter how close we are to someone, we don't know or share all. Finding and discovering one's self can be a torturous process before it ever reaches enlightenment, and though the story short-changes the process of grief, we do understand not to mindlessly nod when someone says "you know me".

If you are watching this movie hoping it is a mystery about what happened to the missing husband, you will be disappointed.

But you must shift your perspective. The missing husband is merely a catalyst. The movie is, in fact, about a mathematician who is forced to confront the inexplicable. She is forced to operate within a life equation for which there is no solution. She is also forced to confront emotions which she struggles to keep in careful control. What happens to her when she can't fit everything into a careful box? What happens when she realizes she was missing a lot of information about her carefully constructed world? How does she respond?

If you watch THAT story, there is a very complete arc with a very satisfying ending.

This is a very thoughtful story that some people may have difficulty coping with, as it has no special effects, no major reveal or build to a climax that answers all questions. No, this is not like that. It is a study of human experience, a section of the lives of a wife and son left behind by the disappearance of the husband/father. As she encounters strangers who knew her missing husband, she comes to realise how much she did not know about the one man whom she was supposedly closest to. People have their secrets, sometimes purposefully hidden, sometimes open to those who can see them but unknown to those who have lost their focus. On the whole the characters were believable, although a couple were clearly under- developed devices to help the story along. The photography was well executed, despite the frequent lens flare, and the use of lighting and variable exposure levels were a subtle enhancement of the woman waking slowly to the harsh reality of abandonment. Yes, the execution is flawed in places, but the movie flowed along well enough. There are a few levels that can be unpacked in the story and how the characters interact, but if you prefer facile, strictly linear formulaic movies with action, body counts, CGI etc, then this is not for you. If you appreciate a "slice of life" approach with sensitivity to shifting emotions and neglected relationships, then this is worth a watch.