Dear Frankie

I saw the movie last night in Los Angeles - it's only playing at a couple of theaters. Other reviews undoubtedly explain the premise of this film so I'll dispense with that . . .

Folks looking for a lot of exposition or for a film that screams "Hey! Look over here!!", or Gerry Butler fans looking for some of that famous sex appeal should be warned. This film is very subtly written and acted. Much of the story is told on the characters' faces, on what that tells you about what is going on internally within the characters. The characters aren't archetypes (i.e., villain, precocious kid, cynical older woman) but real and complex people who like the rest of us face life without histrionics or mugging for the camera. No plots are hatched but we see choices have been made in increments so that the idea of hiring a "stranger" to play dad does not seem contrived. I disagree that the audience is being manipulated; in fact, what could be a predictable manipulative ending is not, and is left to the viewer to interpret. The film tells you a story but doesn't try to tell you how to feel about it. Even the music is simple and subtle, no sweeping rifts to get your emotions going. It is a quiet film with a good story and people you end up caring about - as if you'd peered into their lives for a few days.

Like all the best stories, this one is simple and affecting.

There's not a lot in Lizzie and Frankie's lives to aspire to, constantly on the move and clearly in fear of something. All Lizzie wants is to give Frankie the life he deserves, and in the process she sacrifices her own comforts and happiness. The letters Frankie receives from his 'Dad' (written by Lizzie) afford him the comfort and release of imagining far-away adventures and his replies speak to Lizzie in a clear voice which Frankie's deafness denies him in real life.

The prospect of meeting his father, when his ship comes to town, is Frankie's dream - at last the chance to meet the exotic and mysterious man who loves him so much - and Lizzie's completely unexpected nightmare. How they deal with it, more together than they realise at first, is the heart of the film.

Having painted the slightly depressing picture of a mother and son caught in a life which they wouldn't have chosen for themselves, the film runs the risk of mawkish sentimentality to achieve a satisfying conclusion. This, of course, would only appeal to the most sweet-toothed romantics in the audience. But the film's skill in involving the viewer makes for a rewarding experience and the danger of tears being shed by even the most hard-hearted who see it.

This was one of the best films I have seen for many years. The photography is absolutely marvellous; it hardly needs anything else.

The acting is restrained, measured and true. I couldn't get much better than this.

It is true that it is emotionally laden but it is not all sadness, there is also humour, affection, and most importantly hope. If you find it too emotional you can always pretend that smoke got in your eyes.

Isn't the function of a good film to try and draw out emotions ? It is especially rewarding when these are positive and natural rather than base and specious.

An easy 10 out of 10

I just saw Dear Frankie October, 15th and was more than delighted in the film. It is fantastically moving, and even though it is not filmed with enormous 'dramatics', as the blockbuster Hollywood films are, it is so amazingly 'real' - and thus captivating. I heard that the first screening left the actors stunned to wait so long for the standing ovation to subside - I can see why.

The acting is superb, but the story is marvelous. It is a film with a not-so-simple message - one that moves the soul. One moment you are entertained with quick-witted humor, and the next moment your heart fills with compassion. It's simplicity is one of it's main high points and the absence of Hollywood "flash" is refreshing!

Heart-warming and pleasantly humorous - I would recommend it to anyone!

I loved it and plan on seeing it again. 5 stars for Dear Frankie!

Lori

I'm somewhat taken aback by a lot of the criticisms of this masterpiece. It is a masterpiece in my view, and that "fact" occurred to me only when examining the cries by the writers here. I found myself dismissing every single one of them without difficulty.

Firstly, I am aghast at those who are not happy with films that produce an emotional reaction on the part of the movie-goer, as if to make an emotive piece of work is somehow limp or uncool or a cop-out. The best films are those that mirror humanity, whether that be in terms of violence committed by Man/Woman to Man/Woman, love, hate, envy, ambition and the others which make up the full range. Let us be clear: any film that deals with pain and heartbreak is not one that is choosing a soft option. How many of us do not feel pain and heartbreak? None of us presumably, so to state the obvious, this is valid ground for the modern writer and director to tread.

The difficulty for the film-maker in 2005 is finding the money to make a piece of work that is not compromised by commerce: to use music, action and dialogue in a clichéd manner to satisfy the warped idea of producers that the masses will only pay money for films that use such devices. Auerbach manages in this movie to almost completely avoid these pitfalls. There is no sex, no bulging orchestral interventions, no truly happy ending. I would however have removed the awful song by the awful Damien Rice and taken the dopey look off Emily Mortimer's face when she realised that the stranger was a decent guy as well as a bit of alright, but these in the end are trifles; for the director makes us emote without manipulation and without using plot devices which strain credulity (I don't care what any of you think).

Critics here are being too cynical. The searing melancholy of Bergman might satisfy them I suspect, but they seem to be missing the fact that there is precious little humour in this movie. The Mortimer character here is almost humourless enough for a Bergman movie, as is the Stranger for the most part, so the criticism of mawkishness isn't remotely credible. The mother is also a fairly grim presence. Auerbach could easily have tweaked her film to emphasise or exaggerate the sense of internal pain of all three leads, but she happily and smartly eschews still shots of these nomadic characters wallowing in their isolation. Instead, their internal lives are displayed with a greater sense of reality. There is a humdrum quality to their lives which is as it should be if a director is shooting for naturalism. Contrast this with Leigh's Vera Drake where for more verisimilitude, there should have been more dirt, more roughness to the people and their homes. True the working class often prided themselves on cleanliness, but in the terraced house in Tottehnam I encountered in the late-50s and early-60s you smell the lack of true cleanliness and see it too.

In terms of characterisation Auerbach also got things right. Far from The Stranger being too handsome, handsome people can be found anywhere, and he's a scruff! Furthermore, the idea that he is Mr Perfect is risible. He is emotionally stunted initially, callous and unfeeling in his first meeting with Mortimer, and for me - not that I know any seaman - is plausibly detached from regular land life. The criticism seems to be that is implausibly seduced by the admittedly dysfunctional family unit. I don't buy that. His inability to relate to the child when they meet for the first time is either perfect or too much, but he's anything like the Disneyland father- manqué some reviewers here are suggesting. Auerbach has him thawing out very slowly. The movie too slow? A slicker 95 minute version wouldn't have allowed this. If some viewers have a retarded attention span that's their lookout.

That the Stranger is won over is not feel-good nonsense, it's entirely believable and well executed. Why? Because the father instinct is in all men. He responds to this splendid child in a way that is merely human. Sure, some men would not have responded, so go on, be cynical, but then there's no film. And if Mortimer's search for the surrogate father seems far-fetched, most of us can tell you miseries that the truth of everyday life is often far stranger than reality.

The denouement is magnificent. I'm rubbish at seeing twists coming in movies, and I saw this one accidentally. My reaction (look away if you've not seen the film) when the child first sees the "Father" was, 'he knows he's not his real Dad.' The direction is brilliant, the acting brilliant or Aerbach got lucky. In the end it doesn't matter; this key scene is superbly subtle however achieved.

There are indeed moving moments. The gift of the sea horse was profoundly affecting. The boy's talking to the Stranger to show how he felt about the crucial surrogate fathering that he's just received could for me also have been very, very upsetting. The direction of Frankie at this moment is fantastic: to keep his reaction under control is how we are: in our lives few lose control, weep hysterically or throw the punch. Frankie doesn't here, so tears us apart.

Finally, the real father: moral ambiguity? Life has many of these moments. I don't agree with the point anyway. Mortimer's reaction to the violent father is beautifully poised between the hard-heartiness part of her wants to show him and the dignified humanity the other part of her wants to reveal.

Such precious, subtle moments make for a tremendous piece of film-making. Fortunately most reviewers here liked the movie. If that weren't the case, we might as well all give up and start praying for the human race.

CWT