Falling Angels

Review for Falling Angels

The definition of acting, the way I've learned it is creating the illusion of reality. Now a substitute for that in the dictionary might be see; Falling Angels. I know that I'm not alone and not doing so bad, when I see other people trying to figure out life. The three girls in this story are pretty much left to figure everything out for themselves. Their role models are an absent alcoholic mother and a twisted alcoholic army dad, who every time he sees them, they stick their hands out, for a cleanliness inspection. This is why I watch independent film. This is why I joined Film Movement and thank you, director Scott Smith. A slice of life; getting into the personal drama of other peoples lives. These people react to situations as real people do, without saying, "I'll be back!" and then killing every one in the building with a machine gun.

It seems fair to say that the title "Falling Angels" is plural so as to include not only the baby brother who somehow fell over Niagara Falls and whose picture is later given wings and enshrined behind wood paneling in the Field family's basement. It also describes the mother, Miranda Richardson, whose spirit has been gradually destroyed by her volatile, controlling, husband, until she is reduced to a morbidly depressed alcoholic with no life beyond the couch and television. Each of her three high-school age daughters are falling as well, away from the insular family where no outsiders are allowed to observe the sad dynamics, no help is asked for or accepted. Each family member is alone in coping with their emotions and longings. Still there is always the sense that this is a family with strong ties and feelings for each other.

The three sisters gravitate (fall) into outside relationships, whose merits and wisdom are not judged by the movie, but simply shown. The girls' future lives are being formed, and will always have been influenced by the events of the past -including forced confinement in a bomb shelter by their father as an exercise in preparedness. Even that act of well-intentioned cruelty is not judged too harshly by the film. It's a misguided deed done for the sake of the family. There is no angst or acting out or weepy reconciliation drama in this family. Instead there is some anger, some sadness, and some unspoken love.

The acting is first rate by all. Miranda Richardson is excellent as the fragile porcelain-like mother, drained of spirit, quietly detaching from life. The portrayal of the late 1960's is the most realistic I have ever seen. It's achieved not by the musical score, or the pop-culture icons of the period. Instead it is the 'feel' of the house and furnishings, the neighborhood, the clothing. And also, it shows how life then was somehow different than today – quieter, more private – at least for some of us and the families we grew up in during that time.

Yet another would be shocking but predictable expose of repressed lives in the 1950's (oops, 1960's. Maybe the revolution arrived a bit late here in Canada). The father is meant to represent all things wicked and patriarchal, but he comes across as too likable and well meaning to really pull this off--I just couldn't buy that he would keep his young family locked up in a bomb shelter for two weeks and force them to drink dishwater or start knocking down the furniture because he'd been told that he misspelled a word in a Scrabble game (although if I'd had to live with that passive-aggressive little bunch maybe I'd start tossing around stuff too). And I think there should be a moratorium on the "ironic" use of 1950's ads in modern films--I suspect that people who actually lived in that era were just as skeptical of their ads as we are of our own.

That said, there were some elements of the film that worked. The open concept houses with shag rugs were dead on. The very strained relationship between the most difficult of the three daughters, Lou, and her father was convincing--in many families there does seem one kid who brings out the worst qualities of a parent and acts as a kind of scapegoat for the other siblings. And even though it seemed a bit gratuitous, I enjoyed the the very sick and twisted Ron and Reg subplot--pure Barbara Gowdry.

Overall, it was worth a look, but I was glad I waited until it came out on DVD.

Another Canadian offering at the film festival from director Scott Smith who also did indie film `rollercoaster' a few years ago. It's based on a book by Barbara Gowdy and was filmed in Saskatchewan though it takes place in Ontario. The story centers around 3 sisters in their late teens, still living at home under the imperious rule of their father, Jim. He has long since succeeded in bullying his wife, Mary, into a defeated alcoholic who spends her days in her dressing gown, staring remotely at the television and sipping whiskey from the ever present coffee cup. He continues his tyrannical reign over his daughters but the year is 1969 and things are changing. Authority is being challenged and the traditional `father rules the roost' values are being shot down left and right. The sisters are all trying to discover who they are and how to break free but are tied to the family out of duty and concern for their mother.

The family doesn't talk about secrets. They bury them and there lies a lot of the problems. There was a firstborn son that died in a `fall' over Niagara Falls and then there was a two week enforced confinement in a bomb shelter that the father built in the back yard about 10 years ago. We see this through some flash back sequences. Norma is the oldest, chubby, plain, she is the one that takes care of everyone else. She follows father's rules like a good girl yet there's a lot about herself that she won't accept. Lou is the middle smart mouthed daughter, bent on rebellion. She sees her father with other women, she hangs out with a new boy in school, riding in his van, smoking dope. She hates her father and loves yet has contempt for her mother's weakness. Sandy is the youngest, blonde, pretty and sweet looking and seems attached to her mother. Sandy sews her own clothes, high necklines, ruffles and peter pan collars but wears a ton of makeup and has no compunction about starting up an affair with a married man of her father's age. It certainly doesn't seem to be her first time either.

The movie starts off showing the mother in a coffin and the father drunkenly lurching into the funeral parlour. The rest of the movie retraces the steps that lead up to the mother's death on New Year's Eve. The actors are all very believable in their roles. Miranda Richardson plays the remote mother, so immersed in apathy and alcohol that she can't even react to anything in her daughters' lives though she does show glimpses of not being as oblivious as we might think she is. The flashbacks in the bomb shelter show her a little more spirited than she is now but the destruction of her self esteem has already begun. Callum Keith Rennie plays the bully control freak father with just the right balance of domination, control and a glimmer of insecurity and affection for his family that does lurk under the surface. Katharine Isabelle plays Lou, she was also in Ginger Snaps and she's terrific.

The director stayed after the movie for a few questions and when asked where he got all the `stuff', the houses and props and cars, replied `We filmed it in Saskatchewan!' implying Sask. was stuck in the past. Made the audience chuckle. Wherever and however they got all the props, they did a great job. The whole style of the movie was SO 1960's Canada as I remember it right down to the coffee cups, the turquoise blue paint in the kitchen and the wood paneling and stripey tweed carpet in the rec room. The clothes had me in flashbacks as well. The ending was a bit ambiguous but it comes down to whether the girls will reject or stick by their father in spite of everything. Again, I can't see it being everyone's taste but if you like Indie films, you should see it. Canadian films have come a long way but you know, you can still pick one out of the crowd. There's just a certain atmosphere and I think that comes from the fact that most of them are made with independent money and means and don't have the gloss and high budgets that Hollywood movies have. There are good actors, both Canadian and from other countries. The writing is getting better as well but there is just always something quintessentially Canadian about them, this one included.

This has to be the most well done Canadian film I've ever seen. The acting was marvelous; the directing was beautiful and the story was very original and realistically hilarious. Everything in this film seemed like it was done so subtly, which it gave such a realistic portrayel of the late 60s/early 70s.

There was something wonderful about this film. It just seemed so authentic.

I don't know what else to say about it; I guess you just got to see it for yourself. It was just such a warm story ---> even with all the depressing aspects it had.

8/10