Waking David

Stunning. Though it starts with a young American woman delivering a conference speech, the backdrop is utterly British: lack of communication and the resulting misinterpretation of the signals of others and the inevitable construction of false narratives. Life is a tawdry business. You can pretty up your environment as much as you like (Wedgwood blue walls, carefully arranged accoutrements), but you remain ugly and wounded inside, hiding the unspeakable. And for each of the players it's always about me. My pain. Everyone quaffing alcohol, the only way the Brits can undo their corseted tormented psychology. Nash and his screenwriters Kristy and Shane Bruce (respectively playing Amy and Julie) honed this tale down to a tee, and nailed it. A remarkable achievement, ultimately because it's a woman's film: by women and for women.

What a surprise this movie is. It is excellent. This is not a main stream and is a character study. Simply, how do you cope with a skeleton in your closet!

The setting is authentic and neatly expresses the differences both between the UK and USA, and between two generations.

The characters are very believable; human, flawed and vulnerable.

The acting is at the very least good and becomes excellent as the story unfolds.

The story structure is brillant. It tells you just enough to think you know what is about to happen but dreading you might be right. The drama is griping. The dialogue is perfect.

Waking David is story telling at it best. It will leave you pondering two of the greatest questions of today's society. Is it right to keep secrets? Should we judge when we don't know the facts.

There was much I liked about this film but overall I was left disappointed because, I think, it couldn't decide if it was a situation drama that developed a powerful narrative (the story is highly emotional), or a character (perhaps 'personality' is more accurate?) analysis, and if it was the latter then which character/ person is its focus? - or is it an experiment in multi-perspectives? Not that I believe there's anything 'wrong', so to say, about any of these filmic approaches. My point is that here they seemed blended (or ambiguous) to the point where my engagement vacillated and waned.

Both Scarlett and Amy for instance seem to equally share our attention-credits (something that seems to be sealed in the very last scene); but Julie too is emotionally central; and Helen's involvement fundamental to the storyline. And is Simon victim ('I love you Julie, I love you, I love you') or conman ('You disgusting bastard' says Helen), or both, and if both then is this too much of a stretch for the viewer to accept, given the other points I've just made?

Perhaps I'm overcomplicating things. Waking David is not just your classic situation drama. Nor is it drawn altogether from therapy sessions (though interestingly at one point Amy says to psychologist researcher Scarlett 'I am not your project', to which Scarlett to her credit apologises).

Perhaps I'm just too comfortable with my generic stereotypes.

I did not expect to love an independent film by a first-time director. Just wow. A few possible rough edges in the editing - but possibly that was on purpose. Not sure. A very brief scene or two might have been able to be deleted. But I absolutely did not see the surprise ending coming. Tension-wise very well done.