Three Blind Mice

I watched this title because it followed as a reccomnedation on a streaming site for a movie that I'd been pleasantly impressed with (Spring Forward). I have enjoyed Australian films as a linear escapade, less driven by typical Hollywood plot. This movie fit that ideal. This movie did not disappoint. There was a story, but the characters lived out the important points and purpose of the film, rather than being driven solely by events and MacGuffins. The performances were subtle and often inconvenient to fitting all plot points. There was tenderness and brutality as they really are in most male communals. The three leads played their parts well, and not stereotypically. Mr. Newton was outstanding and played the central role with charm and grace.

I saw this as part of the World Tour sidebar of the 33rd Cleveland International Film Festival. It starts with some pretty compelling mix of plot elements: the last shore leave, the rascal who wants to have as much wine, women and song as possible, the soon to be married mate who wants dinner with the in-laws and the sailor who's obviously come up against some debatable military "discipline".

Unfortunately, the director chose not to have subtitles turned on for this.

I became more and more lost as the movie progressed. Scenes around a card table with three Aussies yelling, one talking and one sub-vocalizing left me with little to go on for critical plot points.

I expect to rent this if possible and re-rate it. But if you have trouble with this sort of dialect at all do check to see if sub-titles are available. This movie had more than enough promise to give it another chance.

This was the evening movie last night, and I admit missing the first half hour, but I'm glad I caught the rest of it. I was entertained AND engaged by a well paced, well written and directed, and to my great relief, well acted piece of film making.

Someone who can direct a decent film performance out of the otherwise talented Brendan Cowell and Bob Franklin must be doing something right. What director/writer Matthew Newton really gets right is the cadence of the storytelling. The tale of these three sailors' final night in Sydney, before their posting to the Gulf, skips along with energy and assuredness. The script reflects Newton's excellent ear for dialogue, and his direction sees the actors free to really work their performances in an entertaining and believable way. It helps that he's picked a fairly rocking cast too.

Newton knows the story he wants to tell, how it should come off the screen, and he nails it in nearly every scene. It's the sign of someone who's genuinely comfortable with the language of film - it isn't bogged down with technicality, only using that to unleash creativity in taking us on the journey. That's quite an achievement in this age of film formula force feeding. It says to me Newton knows his stuff well enough to crack a mold without causing audience upheaval. That he's gathered together this stellar cast is also testament to those actor's belief in the quality of his communication.

For the performances, I give special mention to Barry Otto and Heather Mitchell as the in-laws to be. Newton gives them several wonderful scenes and they reward us with their consummate acting skill. I hold Mitchell's talent on stage and in film on par with Cate Blanchett. Pity she doesn't get the roles.

But all these accolades reflect on the combined talents of Matthew Newton. He's got an almost impossible task to comeback from epic, public disaster here. I was a big detractor until tonight. But he's clearly paid his dues in his craft. Whether that's enough to keep his head above water in this country is another thing. Three Blind Mice is very good, and I'm looking forward to seeing his next contribution to a sadly lacklustre industry here.

Saw this at the Dublin film festival. The set-up is basically this: 3 navy guys are given shore-leave and what we are presented with is a drama through one night where we see their (mis)adventures as they wander the streets and bars in search of a good time. Except there's a bit more to it than that....details of an incident aboard their ship is slowly revealed throughout the film and is weaved beautifully into this premise. Its the sort of thing which would also work as a play, but I've always liked filmed plays like Glengarry Glen Ross anyway. Thats not to say that this isn't an original work (I'm pretty sure this is an original screenplay and all the more impressive for it). There is also the (in)famous Australian sense of humour at play in this film. For me this is an unquestionably positive ingredient in this work but I found that at my screening of the film most people weren't laughing at the same time as me. Either... 1: I was out of touch with the film's sensibility completely or....2: It was one these audiences which failed to click with the whole thrust of the movie. I am convinced it was the latter.

There's a certain sub genre of film drama that sits somewhere between the conventional scripted narrative and an observational documentary. A sort of flirtatious experiment with layers of realism, hand held cameras and a very loose approach to what feels like a lot of semi improvised dialogue.

The question inevitably, on everyone's mind, "does it work or does it collapse under its own alternative cleverness?"

Scenes play out in almost teal time and dialogue flows, stops, does a few twists and turns as it tends to in real conversations between people, not in the short hand of movie dialogue.

The question inevitably, on everyone's mind, "does it work or does it collapse under its own alternative cleverness?"

We meet three young seaman on the town for a spree without a single sighting of Gene Kelly - it's the classic set up of one last night of innocence and shenanigans before being shipped off to a war zone in the cold light of day.

Director / Writer / Actor, Matthew Newton in a trifecta of effort plays high spirited and repeatedly reckless Harry; Toby Schmitz as the contemplative and responsible Dean; and Ewen Leslie as the somewhat lost lamb Sam.

In the confines of a rather bland hotel room, in semi whispers, Dean and Harry are treading on egg shells concerning something that has happened to Sam... and the teasing out of what it is and why it has happened is beautifully infused into the developing story line.

Now, the extent of naturalistic, real time conversation isn't everyone's cup of tea... a five minute exchange between two characters takes five minutes to play out... and by TV soap opera standards, with their 90 second scenes, this will feel as slow as molasses in January, but it has a function - the protracted time scale allows the actors to really inhabit their character and for us, as an audience, to absorb nuances that otherwise would slip by unnoticed when playing a scene in some contrived short hand.

That said, there are some scenes that might have fared better with some heavy handed pruning at the film editing stage. In particular a card game featuring Newton, Schmitz, Alex Dimitrades, Marcus Graham and Clayton Watson.

While the actors I'm sure were having a wonderful time reaching to the very core of their "he man" bravado, it goes on so long that it starts to feel like an acting improvisation class rather than an integral part of the developing problems for our heroes. I'm not saying it has NO function, but in terms of screen time compared to the payload it delivers, it feels rather disproportionate...

In another sequence, Barry Otto and Heather Mitchell as Dean's prospective in-laws, play out a painful bickering, drunken aversion of all the reality about them -- Again, fascinating character stuff but ultimately, like the card game, is it helping to drive the plot and impact our main characters?

So filming is over. It's eight weeks later, here we are in the editing room and it's time to look at what's in front of us, objectively, and ask that very important question, repeatedly... "Would the audience miss that moment or that moment, if the scene was half the length? Would cutting it down that much actually make the intent of the scene more concentrated and effective in communicating it's intention? More isn't always more... discuss.

While there are those somewhat bloated legatos scenes, there are also tighter, leaner and more focused moments that really demand our attention.

Sam's visit to his Mother and Grandfather is a multi layered glimpse into not just Sam's background but the expectations of Grandad - Bud Tingwell in his last film appearance - and Jacki Weaver in a fascinating and multidimensional characterisation.

Her conflicting disappointment, fear, criticism and love for her son are barely fleeting hints of a very rich and detailed back story. And Tina Bursill, just perfect, as a tired prostitute who, in just a few lines of dialogue, sums up an entire life.

In an Interview with Stuart O'Connor of The Guardian, Newton has said of the film, "I guess I also wanted to show what young men should be doing with their evenings as opposed to going and getting killed or having to kill someone else - making mistakes, getting in trouble, meeting girls, playing cards, trying to figure out what it is to be a man."

The themes of loyalty, commitment, honesty and the abuse of power are all knocked squarely and firmly into their respective pockets... with a surprise twist in the final moments surrounding Sam and Harry's personal decisions. This is no gimmicky twist - not at all - it that feels absolutely right given what they have been through over the course of the evening.

Despite some significant film festival wins, the release of the film in its native Australia, and beyond, was very limited and it was difficult to track it down on DVD six years later.

Three Blind Mice deserved better. It's a brave little film - its rawness and honesty show a real freshness and spirit - Newton and his cast, they really do deliver.