Young Adam

A thoughtful, unapologetic and non judgmental character study of Joe, one man, one distinctly unique yet common man. It is presented in the context of a mystery, but this is no mystery thriller. Thrill seekers, go elsewhere.

If you crave action, dialog, explanations and clear resolutions to a plot, I suggest you avoid this film. If you are fascinated by human complexity, admire beautifully crafted film-making, and can think and observe for yourself, this may be a rewarding experience for you. If you love and understand great acting you must see this film.

It is exquisitely filmed, in an understated and confident manner, using hue and tint as artfully as any great painter. Joe lives in a drab and uninspiring world, mostly of interiors; tight, constricted places, where the inhabitants are caged too closely, too much ever present in each other's spaces. When we are occasionally brought out into the world at large, this tight confining world is often seen to be surrounded by a distant, unreachable beauty. There are subtly beautiful panoramas of the lush greenness of Scotland off in the distance, out of reach of Joe, of all the people of his world.

The structure, the editing, the weaving of time present and time past is without conceit. There is no "look at how cleverly I did that transition" cutting. It is a perfect representation of editing unseen, unnoticed, the mark of brilliant editing. Everything comes together, simply and without explanation. Characters are presented simply, without prelude. Events occur, without justification. You must think and observe for yourself. If there are conclusions to be made, they must be yours.

If for no other reason, see this film to experience Ewan McGregor: He has been a reasonably attractive and adequate performer, in mostly rather forgettable productions, until now. Here he suddenly emerges as an actor of astounding depth and complexity, inhabiting, living, revealing another soul. Without any reservation this is a great performance. His subtlety, his inner directed creation of a complete individual, is simply remarkable. It is a complete, compelling, always true performance. You cannot look away from Joe. You must follow him, know him. Do you know him? Can you ever really know him?

The plot, what little of it there is, unfolds through character and behavior, with a minimum of dialog. There is much complete silence in this film. The score is understated, never telegraphing what you are supposed to feel or think. Indeed, I doubt that there is an answer to any question here. Who is Joe? What is Joe? That is not the point.

Here is Joe. This is what he is, this is what he has done. What will he do now? There is a quiet suspense, never quite gratified, which begins with the very first frame,a corpse, gently floating, photographed darkly, from below, so dark there is no face. A deceased, faceless female human being.

Joe's is the first face we see. That first glimpse of his eyes, told me that nothing would be what it seemed in this film. Joe sees something we do not see. So begins the mystery.

Nothing is jarring, nothing is false. Life is simply never quite what we think it is. Make no mistake. There is a real mystery here to be revealed. Not a contrived, plot dependent series of revelations. It is the unpeeling of the layers of a human being.

Much has been mentioned in this forum about the frequent sex scenes. They are achingly non-erotic, distanced and cold, and ultimately only functional. It is a passionless, desperate, mutually using and abusing kind of sex. Only one scene has heat. And that scene is not really sex. It is frustration, anger, vengeance, humiliation and desperation. This scene is truly horrible, truly frightening and truly revelatory.

I haven't told you much about the plot. That is deliberate. The plot works. It reveals the character. The progression of events is true, often surprising, but never false, never contrived. If you need to be told what is happening and why, this is not for you.

If you love great acting, by all involved, and appreciate the crafts and arts of film construction, I highly recommend "Young Adam".

(I have one question for anyone out there who might have a feasible answer: the title confounds me. There is no Adam. Nor is there any reference to an Adam. I could draw no path to or from Genesis. So why is this called "Young Adam"?)

Okay, this film isn't for everyone. A little dreary, a little bleak, and the love scenes weren't always attractive, but something in the dark simplicity got me.

McGregor is incredibly versatile, I didn't think once of the bohemian poet Christian, or of Obi Wan... he's taken on an unlikeable character with a slow moving plot and pulled it off beautifully.

Tilda Swinton plays the antithesis of a Hollywood seductress, which makes some of the love scenes uncomfortable, but refreshing. The acting, as a whole, is the entire film. The action between characters is subtle and intense, and although I may be biased as an Ewan fan, I thought it was perfect for a dark, rainy night!

One of the more quietly desperate films of recent past, Young Adam is an interesting study of lower working class characters - working poor, perhaps – set against an idyllic Scotland river life we have probably never seen. That working barges ply streams with bridges so narrow that crew must guide the craft along by kicking the tunnel-like sides of passage and canals and rivers are so pastorally picturesque is an awfully artful examination of a simpler time.

Joe (Ewan McGregor), a hired hand laboring on a barge-of-all-trades is the bad-boy promiscuous lover of any and all girls within contact. Torrid sex with any and all of them is his single-minded purpose, we gather at first. But we quickly find he 1.) is or was a writer – (failed or perhaps more correctly never-started) 2) is linked to a body found in a river and 3) is seemingly incapable of or devoid of emotion. But we are going to alter some our judgments of Joe as more is revealed.

Sexual promiscuity confined to abrupt, even relentless encounters is the main character's focus even though we know it is as unfeelingly given as it seems to be received. In one encounter, nearly violent in its depiction, we cannot see the face of his partner as she cries (or is she laughing?). Interestingly lit, we marvel at this singularly stark depiction of lust. Ella (Tilda Swinton) and her husband Les (Peter Mullan) have employed Joe on their barge and it is not long before we see how Joe has changed the dynamic in the marriage. It is with Les that Joe recovers the body of a woman floating in the river. Curiously Joe cannot manage the use of a boat hook to snare the woman's body; Les has to take over.

The story becomes one of determining who the woman is and how she fits into the story. Through flashbacks we see a disturbing development as as the police investigation of the dead woman ensues; we continue to follow this thread through the course of the film.

The music chosen for the film is unmemorable, but that may serve us well in that it is never a distraction. Time passes during the course of the story, but it could be a week, perhaps six months.

An interesting film, the title has been bandied about for its Biblical reference but reveals little about the matters at hand. In the final analysis the only surprise found in the movie is when a prominent figure merely disappears; consistent with the tempo, it is a profoundly quiet moment. Disturbing at every turn, this is a film charged with raw sexuality and should be seen to appreciate naturalistic film.

If you love film, you know the first Polanski project, "Knife in the Water." It is a simple project: a couple, plus an extra man, confined on a boat. Sex.

It is an important project, taking the seat of the characters and extending it into a space around them. The challenge for the actors is to project out into a haze that surrounds them. It only works because the space is confined, incidentally in a boat. Orson Welles conceived the idea but his project was unfinished. Polanski finished it.

Polanski's project was told from the perspective of the couple. Presumably the man is a lawyer with his out-of-law wife (his mistress). It is all about laws of various kinds.

Now imagine a project with the identical approach but told from the point of the drifter. What is his story? What is his haze?

Watch the two together if you dare. This time around we have a more ostentatious art: beautiful staging, terrific lighting, hazy score. Absolutely controlled and contained acting. And yet at the same time we have the haze extending to grit, humanity, sweat, rutting.

This time around that reality gives us more explicit and human sex. And more explicit law.

You need to watch this, folks. It is intrinsically deep and engaging. Slow. Meditative. As with a Rembrandt, the meditative but intense emotion draws you into the haze, here shown many times as shadow (or coal dust, or water).

One of our most serious actresses is Ms Tilda. I'll watch anything she chooses to throw herself into.

Ewan chooses intelligent projects. You will discover that our drifter is a writer trying to do something different. It is why things are so hazy and non-linear, the typewriter underwater. The one explicitly folded shot quotes his "Moulin Rouge" folded typing.

If you want to understand how actors put themselves on their skin, then their sweat, then the haze around them that is shared, then into your own haze... watch this.

Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.

By halfway through this story, the biblical underpinnings become firmly apparent: this is an allegory for The First Man, and his base, animal instincts. Hence, it's a tried and true thematic device, used by many authors: for example, in the tradition of Saturday Night and Sunday Morning (1960), Sons and Lovers (1960), and many other films that explore sexual transgressions coupled with (no pun intended) unrelenting naked desire, the author, Alexander Trocchi, presents his version of the modern Adam – always on the make, and totally suffused with his own animal desires and his pretentious efforts at self-fulfillment.

In truth, the Young Adam of this story, Joe Taylor (Ewan McGregor) is portrayed as, at best, misanthropic and crypto-misogynistic. Taken to extreme, Young Adam could be borderline sociopath in another story and setting. This is not satire, however, as with Patrick Bateman (deliciously played by Christian Bale) in American Psycho (2000). No, this is a reality that existed in the 1950s setting of the novel and which remains a stigma within all humans today. In truth, I think it was St.Jerome, in one of the biblical stories, who moaned about his need for release from his sexual depravities. But, nothing much changes in human relationships, from antiquity to now.

In a manner, you can look at this story as Ingmar Bergman for the poorer masses – another version of dirty scenes from a dirty marriage: because in this plot, the unwashed Joe is presented with a moral dilemma as the story progresses: am I truly my brother's keeper? So, the question for him, finally, is: will he be able to rise above his animality and achieve a humanity that he has avoided throughout his young life to date?

McGregor's acting in this story is stunning; so also Tilda Swinton as Young Adam's latest sexual conquest (Ella) aboard a coal-carrying canal barge (aptly named Atlantic Eve) where he thinks he's escaping from his responsibilities. Poor Joe – he's such a slave to his desires, he just can't stop: on the barge, in alleyways, under trucks, on the floor, against a canal wall – anywhere for a quick hit, so that he can forget about his failure as an aspiring writer, among other things. To that extent, one is reminded of the controlled excesses in Last Tango in Paris (1972), where Marlon Brando gave his finest performance as another poor slave to animal passions. And, while on the topic, how can anybody forget sociopathic Frank Booth (Dennis Hopper) and his velvet fetish in Blue Velvet (1986)?

On the other hand, the same theme has been used for light or outrageous comedy with films such as Tom Jones (1963), Kubrick's masterpiece Barry Lyndon (1975) and Boogie Nights (1997), all worth seeing, simply because none hurt the psyche.

But, getting back to Joe – so ordinary Joe, a symbol for all men, young and older – as he fills his days as a canal-worker-slave, obtaining relief from boredom only when satisfying his slavish work in a different type of living canal. Significantly, the director has the barge enter a few dark, moist tunnels through which the barge travels – and with the men treading all over it, albeit somewhat delicately, and just enough to make sure they exit carefully.

You don't get symbols like that too often in films; a delight to savor, for the location and the execution.

The denouement for the story arrives when our Joe makes his moral choice – a choice so fundamental, you stare at his face, watching his look, the tortured eyes, the mouth, his eyebrows, all as an expression of the raging dilemma within his animal/human brain. Rarely will you see such a choice done so well, and with such resigned finality – and a mirror for all of us to ponder in our darkest hours.

The supporting cast is exemplary, while the photography, sound and editing match the needs for such an important – and yet ordinary – story to be portrayed so professionally. Occasionally, it was momentarily difficult to sort out past, present and future; but not so much that the structure caused any unresolved confusion.

The NC-17 and R ratings are appropriate: this is not a film for children or adolescents. But, I highly recommend it for all adults – young and old – who are not afraid to look critically within themselves.

May 10, 2011.