Motherless Brooklyn - I segreti di una città

#MotherlessBrooklyn has the authenticity of a period piece like Road to Perdition combined with the corruption & intrigue of The Departed. Writer/director/actor Edward Norton paid homage to the classics in this movie. Featuring an All-Star cast, there was no way he could lose with the characters' performances. I think that is the one drawback of the film, with such a stellar cast he had to give everyone time and the movie boasts a runtime of 2:24 minutes. A bit lengthy for a crime drama/who done it because there will be slower portions of the film. However, it was never boring and the dialogue is spot-on with the snappiness of Sin City but it doesn't come across as a caricature. A very entertaining film and please don't be emo like me and cry after the opening scene.

Edward Norton, by most film fans, has been and will always be known as one of the best actors out there. Appearing in classics like Fight Club and more modern masterpieces like Birdman, he's never been one to pick a bad project on purpose. Motherless Brooklyn marks his latest leading role, while also directing and writing. As ambitious and difficult as that is, he has pulled it off quite well. Motherless Brooklyn is a very well-made period piece.

Set in the 1950s, this film follows Lionel(Edward Norton) after the murder of his closest friend and colleague. Hellbent on discovering who the killer is, he finds himself on a paper trail across Brooklyn, never giving up on his plan. Being someone who also happens to suffer from Tourette Syndrome, he is a character that has a lot of depth to get behind. Personally, this particular character needed a great performance in order to be authentic, which is where this film shines the most.

It's been a while since I've seen Edward Norton this committed to delivering a powerful performance. There are hardly any instances where he feels like he doesn't actually suffer from this condition. His devotion is what kept me engaged because the overall story does slightly meander at times. At nearly two and a half hours, this film can feel its length at times, but that's simply due to the fact that this movie cares about its characters and spends a lot of time on long conversations, some of which do lead to revelations though.

Based on a book, this screenplay here definitely feels inspired and the voiceover work by Norton calms the viewers throughout, making for a sort of relaxing experience. In addition to that, the use of classical and jazz music is so much in the forefront that it nearly became a character of its own in the film. I really admired that aspect. Still, the overall movie doesn't leave too much for the audience to figure out, since the narration does lend a hand.

In the end, Motherless Brooklyn is a really, really solid crime mystery that has the perfect setting and feel for this sort of premise. I found myself completely engrossed in this world and was eager to see where the movie ended up. Edward Norton gives an award-worthy performance and his direction only adds to that, making for a great overall movie. Motherless Brooklyn may be meant for a more mature audience as it is quite niche in terms of the nature of the story, which may lend itself better to an older crowd. Even so, I quite enjoyed myself.

Motherless Brooklyn is a modern film Noir about a troubled man seeking answers, exploring new worlds within familiar ones, and going toe-to-toe with violent thugs and oppressive tyrants, in the heart of New York during its blossoming years. It also just may be Edward Norton's "Sling Blade."

Some of its most noticeable achievements, are the visual and audial elements. With the gloomy, yet bustling sets, and the somber, thoughtful soundtrack, the effective lighting and mood of each shot, it's a brilliant homage to the classic Noir style. It's not even just a throwback, but could eventually be considered a monumental addition to the genre.

And the acting. Expect nothing less from such a stellar, experienced, well thought out cast. Edward Norton nailed it especially, and shines a humorous, yet wondrous and even educational light on Tourette's syndrome. Excellent performances by all.

Story-wise, it's nothing groundbreaking. But it's certainly engaging. One can tell it's no cookie-cutter script, a lot of heart went into it. Sure some may find it boring, slow, presumptuous even. Others will find it exhilarating, and refreshing. Hopefully most will find the passion, love, message, and humor in it, and also discover that it could be that movie which so many people have been wishing Hollywood would make, instead of those dry, cash-cow blockbusters that stain the very heart and art of filmmaking itself. While also being unique in its own way, it's also familiar, without being too familiar if you know what I mean.

I wish Bruce Willis was in it more, and there are some plot holes and mildly annoying coincidences, cliches, etc. These are few and far in between. While it can be difficult to follow at times, it's still quite a fantastic movie.

Those who would enjoy this movie, probably also enjoyed other titles like Chinatown, L.A. Confidential, Road to Perdition, The Sting, Double Indemnity. See it in theaters, you'll find yourself driving down Nostalgia lane in a vintage 1950's Chevy.

The first time I saw Tourette Syndrome portrayed in mainstream film was, as I imagine is the same for many others, in Deuce Bigalow. It wouldn't be the last time, however, that the portrayal was an exaggeration of coprolalia (the swearing tic), the shock value of which was used for a cheap and easy laugh.

Over the years, I've seen that many people have presumptions about this neurological disorder - understandable, given the circumstances. Unfortunately, I've also learned the hard way that many of these presumptions have been heavily (and negatively) biased towards this inferred 'swearing tic', and I can't help but feel like Deuce Bigalow, or Not Another Teen Movie, or others, have helped shape this presumption.

The presumption honestly doesn't bother me, provided the person holding the belief is willing to have a conversation with me about it. I've always been open about my Tourette, and I consider myself lucky and fortunate to have won awards, or spoken with the media, or inspired others, due to my openness and having some small success with writing and acting.

What does get to me, though, is when the people aren't willing to have a conversation with me. I've been fired from jobs once it's become known that I have Tourette, even though it hasn't affected my work. I've had dates suddenly lose interest. I've been kicked out of bars when bouncers have mistaken my tics for drug use and refused to hear any explanation without threatening violence.

So when I heard that Edward Norton would be portraying someone with Tourette Syndrome in #MotherlessBrooklyn, I was excited to see what an actor of such calibre would do with such a complex condition. And I was not disappointed.

Motherless Brooklyn is great. Adapted from the novel and written and directed for the screen by Edward himself, the film is an enthralling and charming noir detective piece peppered with big names playing relatively small roles, all of whom tell a captivating story about government corruption in 1950s New York.

Edward's presentation of Tourette Syndrome was refreshing. It was delivered with a level of maturity and respect that is seldom seen on the silver screen. And even though the condition is never outright named in the film, much like his tics, it can't be hidden from anyone watching.

And yes, his character does have coprolalia, and echolalia (the tic where you have to repeat things said), and other verbal and motor tics. And sometimes it's funny. But his tics aren't just a cheap laugh for the audience - they affect his character. A PI trying to stay unnoticed on the subway who suddenly blurts out some choice words and draws attention to himself is funny. And when he's consoling someone and can't stop touching their shoulder, it's funny. And when they reassure him that it's okay, it's endearing.

And it's okay for us to laugh at the realities of life, however absurd or uncontrollable they may be at times. Tourette Syndrome is real and sometimes it's funny and that's okay. But at least in this film, we're finally laughing at it for the right reasons. And with his portrayal, which also shows some of the positives that can come with Tourette - as opposed to just the obviously stare-inducing drawbacks - I am hopeful that this may help provide the less-aware with a better, more informed presumption about this condition.

Are there actors out there with Tourette Syndrome (and who are open about it) that could have played this role? Absolutely. Like me. But I'm not Edward Norton. And are there actors out there with Tourette Syndrome (and closeted about it) that could have played this role? Absolutely. But they are also not Edward Norton.

The issue of roles going to actors who don't live with the condition being portrayed has been a hot-button issue for many, and I do think there are instances where the role should have gone to someone else. This isn't one of those times. Actors are actors, after all - their job is to convince you that they're not pretending.

Edward was convincing. And I - and I imagine a number of others with Tourette Syndrome who have been subject to unfair or illegal treatment due, at least in part, to a sub-par late '90s movie - thank him for being so. I was fortunate enough to see this at TIFF this year, where he introduced the film. Had he stayed for a Q&A afterwards, I would have loved to have said this to him in person. But I doubt I am the first, and know I won't be the last, person to say this.

I found this film satisfying overall, but one anachronism distracted me and pulled me out of the 1950s setting. Lionel's symptoms of Tourette's syndrome, repetitive verbalizations of a rhyming nature, were accepted equanimously by everyone he encountered. No one displayed annoyance, made fun of him, or called him insulting names to cast aspersions about his intelligence. His repetitive touching of people on the shoulder as he faced them ought to have caused women to back away and men to knock his block off. They did neither. It was as if these 1950s characters had been taught the acceptance of people with disabilities that was not really commonplace until the 21st century. This is the biggest mystery in the movie.