stuartwhyte300

A slower burn drama than the initial plot summary leads you to expect. What many might see as a bolt-on plot device, in the titular plush monster, foil to Cumberbatch's spiralling, drunken anti-hero Vincent is it's missing heart.

I think the fact that Eric is elusive, neglected, gruff & running low on confidence is telling.

All the well wrought human characters are endowed with autonomy, identity & purposeful ideals. They are located in a realistic & recognisable milieu and hold onto their place with varying levels of security or confidence.

Their dialogue is spare & often procedural - whilst weighed with deep inference & strong characterisation yet it mostly develops from necessity, confrontation & oppositional relationships.

So what is absent?

Vincent's son is missing.

Like his father, a talented artist with a well developed inner life, Edgar reproduces his small world in chalk facsimile. He fills his time away from his dysfunctional parents, who are by turns wholly absent or intensely, emotively present, by creating a much needed ally that he can love wholeheartedly.

Set in 1985, the drama is really adrift in the destructice wake of the 1970s' lost idealism & soured empowerment. The harsh realities of Reagan era Manhattan is evident in this loveless individualism.

"I heart NY" but it seems 'we' cannot heart NY or indeed, each other, in full.

That these voids & absences must be bridged provides the dramatic momentum in this many threaded tapestry before implosion or nihilism sets in.

As the mini-series ends I found that I wanted more. However a longer, say 13 part series, might simply bring greater clarity to the many dysfunctions, despair & threatened depravities. I wanted the characters to relate & become more but they were not able to come out to play.

I should first admit that, up until the major plot development about 34mins into proceedings, I was thinking about stopping the film & watching something else.

The scripting is a little manipulative of the audience's attention & the main character does seem less than capable as she struggles both to maintain her family & work life and to suitably engage with her 'support network', a year after losing her husband.

Her depressed son obviously lacks "a strong authority figure", so mum takes a 'personal day' off work & jogs off into the deep woods nearby. *Metaphor Alert* :-)

However, with very little acting support (although some good voice actors deserve credit) Naomi Watts carries the film with a very strong performance.

Given the story's focus, I should point out that this film was rated age 11+ on the streaming service I watched it on. There are, unfortunately, quite a few other school shooting films out there, mostly rated 18. Another I recently watched, revolved around the protagonists' actions & motivation from the POV of a student bystander - with, almost inevitably, quite a graphically high body count.

Which would you prefer your kids watch? Or discuss in class with their teacher & fellow students? How would the NRA seek to defend the high prevalence of gun ownership & the relatively easy access to them if your kids' grandma had watched this film & felt strongly that AR-15s should no longer be available to private citizens?

Essentially, for Watts' character to arc from uncertainty whether her son is going to school today, to then dealing with how far he may or may not be involved in a 'live shooter' incident, to her own personal involvement in the story's denouement, is actually quite a lot of work to layer together, whilst maintain pace/tension successfully. (And to signpost a few salient factors for a general audience to digest)

To answer some of the reviews of the "Watts running through the woods talking on her cellphone" variety, how would you describe the plot of The Blair Witch Project? Because when I saw that particular film my first criticism was "Don't park there, you idiots, you'll never find your car again!"

If you don't want to watch someone with literal 'skin in the game' react in real time, despite feelings of abject powerlessness, to an unfolding school shooting scenario with little information available, is that because you would rather watch a film about the violent shooting itself?

There is a point after the basic plot is drawn out when several episodes return to the premise, the plane in a storm & picks out an individual passenger/character whose story forms the plot of that episode. Dull though this sounds, this would be more interesting that what actually unfolds.

A lot of the acting & shot composition is poor.

There is a specific scene in Ep.12 which is surreally bad/funny: A missing child's sketchbook is explained to be a portent of future events. "This next one shows... us right now." A lame child's sketch of three adults looking at a piece of paper cuts to the same scene composition in camera. A lame child's camera shot surely?

Everything seems unintentionally wooden & comic thereafter.