Twist

It goes without saying that updating and reinventing a classic tale is a minefield of potential mismatches, and anyone familiar with the original is disinclined to suffer fools gladly. In this case, even if the viewer tunes out Dickens, the best that can be said of it is that some of the acting (particularly Stahl) scores and the technical values are at least adequate.

Because none of the characters is fully developed, there is no opportunity to judge much beyond that. And because the plot is therefore weak and wobbly, the only thing left for comments is trying to find isolated bits of action or notions relating to one's own experiences. For example, I found the scenes involving heroin use strangely devoid of release, merely technical and prophylactic. In order for a screenplay to succeed, it needs to draw the viewer into the feelings of the actors. That happens only rarely here in spite of what one senses is good dramatic potential.

I think I'll stick with Dickens.

What an original title for my comment. It was what I thought of in a pinch. Anyway . . . the film is based on Oliver Twist, using basically, only the name of the characters and their abject living conditions to parlay a story about male hustlers and their life in Toronto.

The atmosphere created is pitch-perfect, and the audience really gets the feel of the weather in Toronto during winter. It's dark, damp and freezing cold, much like the the world the boys live in. And in the hollowed eyes of the hustlers, you can feel their hopelessness and exhaustion.

It is told in the view point of Dodge, rather than Oliver, and focuses on his life. Dodge is played by Nick Stahl, who does a great job of evoking the scared, hungry, cold and insecure young boy, who has seen too much. Joshua Close plays Oliver, who seems a little too one-dimensional for my liking, but is really effective in scenes with Stahl (especially the alley scene), perhaps a testament to Mr. Stahl's talents.

The film is definitely disturbing. There is no sugarcoating, and yet, there is no sex in the film, only mild violence. Most is left to the audience's imaginations, even the face of the Bill character, who plays the "pimp" in the film. His anonymity may have been used to increase the scariness of the character and his intentions, but almost became a shtick in my eyes, especially after his deplorable actions after finding out his "woman" had betrayed him. Bill was almost too bad to be a "real bad guy."

The lines are blurred between affection, power, violence and sexual need, perhaps most effectively in the one scene, it is all mixed up into one degrading act for Dodge. Some might have found it grotesque or perverted or used for shock value. However, I found it necessary to understand Dodge's actions and his character. It also helps to underline the pervasive cycle of abuse.

The ending is dark and bleak, and full of symbolic undertones. There are many questions left unanswered. I found the film to be very engaging, bittersweet and a good portrayal of how love is the most complicated emotion of all.

I'd love to invite all viewers of this film to watch it again and try to exact what made it so good. There's the obvious: a great script, great acting from Nick Stahl and "Fagin", great music to paint the moods and a subject matter that holds its grip 'til the end.

But there's the not so obvious. Why were we so absorbed by this film in a way that is quite unusual? Maybe, it's because it's not the monthly Hollywood thriller. But maybe we could watch it again and realise that the way it was shot is the main reason why we were glued to the screen.

For those who like cinematography as art, you can find certain clues of what will happen in the way the story is told from the very first scene: wide angles, proscenium-like framing, rock-steady shots, events not depicted but imagined, lingering images of the gritty places we go with the characters. All these things are unusual in recent film-making (not only American, but from any Country). It's difficult to do and very effective in Twist.

The lighting was kept to its minimum so all the darkness and cold that actually surrounded the real action is transmitted. The possible close-ups were discarded for the framed versions of the character and his surroundings, giving the whole idea of the situation, and not only of that of the character himself.

This film is a daring and very intelligent approach to a new way of doing things. From the adaptation of the novel and the creation of a modern Toronto-from-London-filth-town-to-gritty-city approach to the use of 16mm film instead of the common 35. The selection of format that wouldn't give the super-wide view of Panavision and the blow-up process of the 16mm negative to the theatrical 35mm release, make of this film a truly new way of looking at things. Even the use of sound. When someone is far away from the camera, so is the sound (with some exceptions on several street shots). This makes you get even closer to what's happening, because you must be really attentive if you don't want to lose a word.

All in all, I think this is a film that rose the bar for newcomers and offered a lot to analise, something we now can do in the comfort of home.

Last reflection: Nick Stahl is as chilling as he was in A Man Without a Face, remember?

For a small independent film I thought it was good. I kept comparing it--in my mind--to "Love and human remains" and "Eclipse" probably because it too was distributed by Strand and that Strand intro always catches me. I'll agree with others that it was overlong, or would have benefited from tighter editing; some scenes should have been tightened up. But the overlong scenes are probably there because those making the film were really eager to get a point across or create an atmosphere.

Each reviewer seemed to get a different message, as is true of just about all the films reviewd at this site. I was impressed with the way the hustlers absorbed and accepted the opinions others have of them; I've sort-of gotten that same opinion watching boys at work at a local mall and transit depot. Society thinks of them as lepers or diseased or garbage and they begin to think of themselves that way. I often get the impression that they've come to think of themselves as so dirty that even if help were offered they would just say that it's "too late for me." I have heard one-or-two say that, by the way. Someday I'd like to meet one who didn't accept the role society assigned him and actually developed a positive self-image. That's the important gift my mother gave me.. "you're as good as anybody."

Being an romantic old fag I was, of course, much taken by the character of Oliver before he became angry and bitter. Thank God I've become too old to think that I can save anyone who's become hard, angry and bitter; that's for the experts.

The character of Fagan was interesting just because he was played as a person who seemed to have moments of caring that came across to me as sincere; I hadn't expected that. I know I've seen that actor somewhere else, but I can't remember where.

I really thought that the final scene with Oliver in the motel got the film's message across forcefully. It's a shame that the film maker didn't stop there; the empty bed scene over stated the obvious.

You cannot help but get sucked into this film... Beautifully acted, exquisitely filmed. Throughout the film, you want to jump on the screen and rescue Oliver. The audience at the Toronto International Film gasped in unison throughout the film...

A fantastic adaptation of Dickens' masterpiece; who knew that today's Toronto could be as darkly sinister as Dickens' London?