Wildlife

It's a decent film, nothing memorable or amazing, but it does have a personality.

Set in the 60s, we follow this family of 3 as the parents' relationship and lives fall appart and the son stands in the middle like a deer caught in the headlights. It's a four-person, five-act story that could easily be a stage play.

Carrey Mulligan plays the mother as a mixture of Blanche DuBois / Madame Bovary, someone who imagined a better life than what she got and reaches a breaking point.

Jake Gyllenhaal plays the dad who is similarly disappointed by his lack of progress in life and has his hopes pinned on his son becoming something better than he could ever become, embarking on a desperate attempt to salvage his dignity.

Then there's the son (Ed Oxenbould), who most of the time is just at a loss. He is presented as the only mature/responsible person in the family, who is confused and frustrated by his parents' behaviours but simultaneously too reserved/repressed to do anything about it.

Bill Camp plays the catalyst in the family's implosion - not so much a separate character, as an embodiment of the family's desperation.

It's not unpleasant to watch and it has a nice stage-play feel to it, what with the addition of the poetic backdrop of the neverending forest fires that burn throughout the summer and until the arrival of the first snow. However, it also doesn't manage to be captivating and all the characters feel underdeveloped. The mum and dad are practically the same person: the frustrated adult who - at one point - tried too hard to achieve a better life and got punished for it. The son's character is equally underwhelming: he was probably meant to be this stoic, introverted, keeping his feelings to himself and hurting in silence, but he just comes across as bland and boring.

American Beauty and Revolutionary Road did it better.

This movie is being described as "A boy witnesses his parents' marriage falling apart after his mother finds another man." And while I think thats true, I think its a bit more complex than that. It also is a bit of a coming of age story where Joe has to grow up and be the adult in this family, but also it seems that mom is having a mid-life crisis (although shes not quite mid-life) and trying to discover who she is outside of being the "perfect 50s housewife" that perhaps she feels trapped in. There's a lot of symbolism in this movie. The backdrop of this movie is that there is a wildfire that has been raging and the townspeople have been desperately trying to put out. And that correlates with Joe and his own family. Hes trying to put out the fire in his own family. Also, Joe works at photography studio and Paul Dano (the director and co-writer) even said that this is supposed to be a PORTRAIT of a family life.

Speaking of Paul Dano, I think he did well with his directorial debut. I think visually there are some gorgeous shots in this movie. Like for instance where Joe is watching the wildfires (and hes perfectly centered - probably again to mimic the portrait vibe). Also where Joe is about to give up but it starts to snow and hope has regained. I liked the film for the most part. They do frame the film by following Joe's perspective. And I think its mostly effective in making you feel for this kid, my only problem is there are a couple of parts where I feel like there are gaps in the story. Without giving too much away there is a scene where Jerry (Jake Gyllenhaal) has decided to seek revenge and it ends up backfiring. And yet, the next time we see him everything seems to be fine. And it never really gets explained what happened. Theres a brief line that they decided it was a "misunderstanding" but you never really see what happened and he also gets hurt during this, and that never gets brought up again either. I know Paul and Zoe (the other writer) were adapting this from a book and perhaps thats the way it is in there too. But I personally found that a little frustrating. I needed a little more.

Carey Mulligan is fantastic in this. She would be deserving to have her name thrown in the hat for awards season. I also thought Ed Oxenbould was a standout too. Which is good to hear since he's onscreen for pretty much most of the movie. I definitely will be looking forward to more of his things. I also thought Jake Gyllenhaal was good but hes absent for a good chunk of the film and so he just didnt stand out as much as Carey or Ed did.

Overall I liked the film. It wasn't perfect, but I would totally check out another film that Paul Dano directs.

I have so much respect for restrained filmmaking for which this movie is an example. Its steady pace and tasteful design gives it authenticity, allowing you to feel like you are living the life of the main character Joe. The acting is superb and the characters are living, breathing individuals filled with hopes dreams and independence. Though Jeanette falters at times, she is doing what is she sees is necessary for her and her son's survival. The emotion on her face, flickering like a shorted lightbulb, portrays her fragility with great depth. The score of the film is great. The story, though maybe too subdued for some, stays with you long after this earnest movie reaches its resolution.

I usually like both coming of age movies and marriage implosion movies, but, for me, the secret to those kind of movies is that you have to like the characters so that you root for the relationships to work. Here I just didn't. Carey Mullgian's character is so hard to identify with, as she makes mistake after mistake, and Jake Gyllenhaal's is just not there for most of the movie that it is hard to root for the marriage to work. Really liked the direction, though, good debut for Paul Dano, but the screenplay left me a bit flat. I still think it's a worthy watch.

'Wildlife (2018)' is well made in every way, with its fantastic performances combining with its restrained but assured direction and solid but somewhat unremarkable script to paint a realistic portrait of a failing family seen through the slightly immature yet more world-weary than he's given credit for young lead. The piece isn't necessarily all that powerful, though, and is, sadly, pretty unmemorable, to boot. It's a bit of a strange case because I was invested in the story, characters and overall world right from the off, always involved in its twists and turns and feeling as though I was participating in its narrative (in the sense that I wasn't spoon-fed everything), but I literally forgot I had even seen the feature not two hours after getting home from the cinema, only remembering after being reminded what it was I'd just watched, which doesn't bode well for its overall lasting impact. It also marks it, perhaps, as an experience more adept at setting up a confident new directorial talent than anything else, one rife with opportunity for its actors to impressively stretch their 'acting muscles' and for its plot to portray a more nuanced view of its core players than we usually see in typical 'Hollywood' fare. Of course, your mileage will vary depending on how much it connects with you, and I'd easily recommended giving it a watch at least once. 6/10.