What Richard Did

Lenny Abrahamson directed the excellent low budget Dublin film ADAM & PAUL so I was eager to see what this newer production was like. WHAT RICHARD DID isn't as good as that film, although it has some promise and typically realistic performances. The best thing about it is Abrahamson's moody direction, which makes you feel every moment of a torrid and emotional storyline.

Unfortunately, WHAT RICHARD DID is also rather slow and lacking in incident. The storyline is a very simple one that drags out a bit, especially in the latter half, and the almost entire lack of an ending is a disappointment in itself. It's a very realistic movie with a solid script, and Jack Reynor does well in a complex leading performance. But after ADAM & PAUL I expected more, and what I got was merely adequate.

I definitely sought this out because I was a big fan of the director's recent film Room. His directorial hand is sort of similar here, in terms of giving a lot of weight and true significant to the little details in character interactions, and in terms of each half of the film being primarily centered around a different development (although the first half of this is basically set-up and character development so the second half hits harder, and boy does it do a great job of that). I thought all of the performances here were very refined and pretty realistic. The actors do a great job of really inhabiting their characters and making the most out of small moments with he director's help. Overall, very effective film, moves along nicely and a very powerful morality act. That ending is genius.

This film seems to confirm and amplify Abrahamson's (Adam & Paul, Garage) considerable strengths as a film-maker, and, to a lesser extent his frustrating weaknesses.

On the plus side, he is great with his actors, both in who he casts and what he gets out of them. His characters always feel complex and real. He also sets up very convincing, morally ambiguous worlds, situations and people. No easy heroes and villains.

But he also has a tendency to be drawn to melodramatic twists, and those actually make his films less interesting, not more, as it feels like he's trying to force the emotional issues.

In many ways my favorite part of the film was the first 45 minutes before the central incident. Abrahamson is great at observing and capturing the complexities of late teen-age life with subtlety and a fresh eye. These aren't the desperate angry street kids of poverty, nor are they the morally bankrupt idiots we often see rich kids portrayed as. They feel real; they drink, but they're not all alcoholics and stoners. They have sex, but more often than not it's attached to some sense of emotion, at graspings towards being in a relationship. Their parents are flawed but trying. Its people as people, not just symbols, even though subtle issues of class and social standing inform the whole story.

But when it gets to the big twists and the big themes, I felt it laboring more, working at it's effects instead of letting them happen. It's not that the 2nd half isn't good,it's that it lacks the power the set up and situation seems to promise. It sticks to it's ambiguity, but it starts to feel just a touch like an intellectual conceit, not an exploration of darker human truths.

'What Richard Did' is a distinctly underwhelming title for this film, but it is at least descriptive. Richard is a good looking middle class lad, seemingly someone with few problems other than a bit of entirely normal teenage sexual jealousy; then something bad happens, and he has to deal with it. I thought the portrait of his everyday life was pretty convincing and well done; but the film's refuasl to descend into melodrama thereafter is a weakness as much as a strength: following the shock, nothing much happens. The result feels like half a story: well-enough told, but without sufficient underlying narrative purpose.

What worked:

• the ambiance and the setting of the movie goes in the right direction in the first half of the movie, good enough for the viewers to understand and sympathize with the lead characters

What did not work:

• the movie did not hit the right mark or at least to the extend to make the audience feel the overwhelming tension of the situation. In my opinion, more could have been done to conclude the movie, maybe a different perspective or more scenes to support the point.

Final verdict: It's okay but not a movie that you need not miss.