Le voyage de Felicia

For as far as I know this was the very first movie that I've seen from Atom Egoyan. I had heard his name before and I knew that the movies he makes are often very good, but you just can't see them all, can you? Still, I'm glad that I finally got to see one and I must say that I'm already a fan of his work. If his other movies are as good as this one, than I almost can't wait to see those too.

The title "Felicia's Journey" already tells something about what to expect from this movie. It tells the story of an Irish girl that is making her way from Ireland to England, to find her boyfriend who moved there to get a job in a lawn-mower factory. On arrival she meets a lonely middle-aged catering manager, called Hilditch, who recommends a boarding room to her. But Hilditch is a bit of a strange man. Even though he seems very nice and polite, he's always alone and seems to spend hours on studying tapes of an eccentric TV chef called Gala. Gradually we learn that the man has a much darker side than what we and Felicia at first assume...

Even though he could easily have made a horror movie out of this subject or perhaps even worse, a TV-movie (it has something to do with having a bad youth, murder,...), Atom Egoyan has made the excellent choice of focusing on the drama and studying the characters with flashbacks. And by only slowly allowing the viewer to get some new information, rather than to give away everything at once, he builds up tension very well. But a good story isn't enough to make a good movie of course, some fine performances by all the actors are needed as well. Despite the fact that I didn't really know Elaine Cassidy (I only saw her play in "The Others" before), I must say that she is a pleasant surprise. She really did a very nice and convincing job with this role. The same can be said about Bob Hoskins. Him I know a lot better, but he too surprised me. He was so good in his role as Hilditch, that it took me quite some time to believe that it was really this man who did those horrible things.

Overall this is a very fine movie with some excellent performances and a very interesting story. I'm convinced that there will be several people who will not like it for several reasons, but personally I liked it a lot. For me it wasn't too slow and I stayed focused from beginning until the end. And as this movie shows, you always have to be patient. Its power doesn't lie in the beginning or in the middle. Only when it is finished, you'll fully understand what has happened. That's why I give this movie a rating in between 7.5/10 and 8/10.

In an interview he did with Maclean's last year(the Sept. 12 issue, I think, though I'm not exactly sure), writer-director Atom Egoyan talked about an incident in his life which partly explains why his last three films - EXOTICA, THE SWEET HEREAFTER, and now FELICIA'S JOURNEY - have been about very twisted, almost predatory, relationships. It seems when he was a teen, he fell in love with a girl who, as it turns out, was being molested by her father, and naturally, that caused all sorts of difficulties. Unconsciously maybe, in order to understand how anybody could do such a thing, maybe Egoyan has tried since to use film to do that(although I won't state that as a fact; I'm no psychologist).

What is clear in FELICIA'S JOURNEY is that, for the first part of the movie anyway, Egoyan is clearly more interested in telling the story of Hilditch, the caterer who is more disturbed than meets the eye, than in Felicia, the young woman he befriends. If this were just a movie about Hilditch, maybe that would suffice. But in the novel by William Trevor this is based on, even though Felicia's story is a familiar one(young, somewhat naive girl falls in love with boy her family doesn't approve of, he leaves, she gets pregnant, and tries to find him), her story is of equal importance to the story of Hilditch, and Trevor is interested equally in both of them. The problem is Egoyan seems disconnected to Felicia's story, even though Elaine Cassidy is quite good in the role, so not only does the story go slack there, we start to question, as you didn't in reading the novel, how she could be so naive.

Eventually, though, when Felicia ends up staying with Hilditch and gradually learns about him, the terror of the story, and the fact that, thanks to Egoyan, we're seeing her primarily through Hilditch, makes us care. And, as I said, Cassidy is quite good.

Of course, the movie belongs to Bob Hoskins as Hilditch. Hoskins doesn't make the mistake of coming across as a sneering psychopath. Instead, he trusts us to make our associations from past roles of his(THE LONG GOOD FRIDAY, MONA LISA) to realize there's something bubbling under this mama's boy, and concentrates on playing Hilditch on someone who genuinely believes he's doing good deeds here, and just want to help. It also helps that Arsinee Khanjian, as Egoyan's wife, is quite good, and funny, as the domineering mother; you may never watch cooking shows the same way again.

Egoyan also doesn't make a conventional Hollywood thriller as the movie draws to its conclusion. What he substitutes is something which, admittedly, played out better in the novel because Trevor was able to stretch it out more, but it still chills you to the bone. One may wonder why Egoyan took to a genre piece right after THE SWEET HEREAFTER, but he reworks it into a movie which does resonate.

Felicia's Journey was the closing film of this year's Galway Film Fleadh (Gaelic: Festival).Based on a story by Ireland's premiere short story writer William Trevor, Felicia's Journey is one of the most terrifying thrillers made this decade. So disturbed were some of the viewers that they refused to applaud the movie - "That was to freaky", said a local movie buff, "I didn't need to see that". The movie begins by fooling the audience. It starts as a bittersweet tale of a young Irish girl (Elaine Cassidy) who sleeps with a British Army soldier and is shunned by her family. She is exiled to Birmingham, England, where she meets Joe, a kindly old man (Bob Hoskins). So far, a pretty typical poignant Irish drama. Suddenly, some rapid editing and jolting images reveal that Joe ain't so sweet. In fact he's one of the most vicious, despicable psychopaths you'll ever seen on screen. The mood is extremely fearful for the remainder as Elaine Cassidy's perfect rendition of an innocent Irish Catholic girl screams out for help. Hoskins has played the best role of his life of a tortured, gentle, caring, sick, evil but very human man. His performance is only comparable to Peter Lorre in Fritz Lang's M. Excellent editing and and a complex, skillful score contribute to making this one of the movies of the year and a classic of the thriller genre. Don't see it unless you have the nerve.

Egoyan's presentation really sets the mood for the film. The music is particularly effective, and the look has a certain ominous feel even in the scenes where characters would normally be at peace with nature.

This movie was so riveting and engrossing because it kept building up by revealing more about the mysterious main characters. It goes about doing this in a manner that makes the film more interesting by opening up possibilities instead of closing them. As we get more of an idea of who these people are, the tension mounts because we can see the movie is leading to a major disaster, but we aren't sure what and when.

The flashbacks and transitions between the two main characters are so effective. The flashbacks slowly reveal what caused the characters current traumatized state (their main similarity is it's one parent, but they don't know of this similarity), while the transitions emphasize comparisons between the two.

Hoskins performance is really the key because he has most of the lines. He does an exceptional job, changing a little bit with each revelation about his character. By the end of the story, he's nothing like the guy that you thought he was at the very beginning, but the changes are totally credible. Although I mentioned he has most of the lines, the most impressive thing about his performance is the believability of the emotions he's portraying throughout this dialogue because his character is one that generally doesn't say what he's really thinking and feeling. On some occasions, his intense feeling is really obvious. In a lot of others though, it's buried beneath the skin as the point is the topic of conversation or the other persons actions have caused something to stew inside of him but his character is trying his best not to boil over.

Cassidy is highly impressive because she's able to convey the all the emotions without many lines, especially since all her lines are purposely delivered with the same unassuming nature and low key tone. As is one of the trademarks of characters in Egoyan's movies, she also has a dualism in her actions and words where we kind of believe more toward the opposite is actually true. We aren't really sure, but we can see that something is beneath the surface. It's hidden just enough so that the person she's with doesn't see it. Depth, subtlety, and what lies beneath are definitely the strengths of this movie and Egoyan's cinema in general.

The movie really stands out because you could see how easily it would have been another boring and predictable thriller had it been made in Hollywood. Hoskins would have been much more narrowly defined so he could be a clear-cut villain. The narrative would have been dumbed down and told in a more conventional style. The director would feel he had to insert some happy or comical moments that would only water down the intensity and weaken the portrayals of these characters. The temptation to totally leave the psychological level and have Hoskins chase Cassidy around his house with a sharp object at the end would have been too great. Luckily, it wasn't made in the land of the rehash, so it was a somewhat challenging movie that stayed true to its roots from start to finish.

Aside from leaving Canada, I don't see why people think this is so different from Egoyan's other famous films, Exotica & The Sweet Hereafter. The core ideas, style, and presentation are all here. Like those other two, this is an excellent film that's one of the years 10 best. 9/10

Angel-faced Elaine Cassidy is suitably innocent as an unwed Irish teen naively searching England for the boyfriend who deserts her, and Bob Hoskins is effectively controlled and creepy as the serial-killing caterer who comes to her "assistance"; but this is a mostly uncomfortable smashing together of coming-of-age drama and "Silence of the Lambs". At times the film has a mesmerizing pull, but director Egoyan too often stalls things with needless flashbacks that provide information the audience has already come to understand, or tries to invest trite scenes with a revelatory significance that just isn't there. It climaxes awkwardly and absurdly with a delirious depiction of two religious crusaders being more monstrous than Hoskins' character himself.

Egoyan labors to establish some pre-conscious link between the girl and the killer, contrasting Hilditch's (Hoskins) warped, twisted innocence with Felicia's pure, unspoiled variety. He just can't quite pull it off though, as there is no escaping the conviction that what Hilditch has been doing (luring unhappy girls into his car, befriending them on videotape, then killing them) is repugnant beyond comprehension. In fact, that is probably the most tired, hoary theme in movies today: that the seemingly cold-blooded killer or assassin or whatever is "just doing his job" or is "really no different than you or me". Oh really? How fascinating.

Despite Egoyan's sumptuous visuals, I found myself focusing on the many plot holes due to his studied (some have found it hypnotic) pacing. How in the world did Hilditch attach a name to a face when it comes to tracking down Felicia's boyfriend? Why doesn't the boyfriend recognize Felicia at the pub? How can Hilditch be sure that Felicia wouldn't suspect him as the person who stole her money? True, she's gullible and trusting but he WAS alone with her bag in the car. There's no way he could've known she'd leave her bag out of sight anywhere else; in fact it's highly unlikely that she would. And why in the world don't the abducted girls he's giving rides to just escape by jumping out of his car? You can clearly see on the videotapes that he's driving slowly in populated areas, and you never see him using a gun. These are the sorts of things that really stand out when the central story isn't quite working.

"Felicia's Journey" certainly isn't a total failure and I admire some of the chances it takes, but ultimately it fails to work because the two approaches are at odds with each other. That is, the microscopically observed psychological "stuff" dehydrates the thriller elements (and at times, the movie is clearly trying to pump up the suspense and WANTS to be a nail-biter) and the thriller elements trivialize the dramatic breakthroughs.