Helen - Autopsie d'une disparition

I agree with jlon and arnold here. This film is really tedious, dull, leaden, plodding, nothing really happens... The comparisons someone made with Antonioni are good ones, somehow his films are riveting. Because they re cinematic. There's such attention paid to each shot, which slowly builds a mood and atmosphere. This isn t cinematic, it feels very limited. Its hard work, for no rewards. Antonioni s films are hard work, but somehow they pay off. This just got on my nerves. One critic calls it 'a resurgence of UK art cinema.' Gawd help us in that case. The acting just isn t, it plays like the characters are reading an autocue. Maybe this was deliberate. I ve decided now to boycott all British and Irish 'art' films excepting the superb Shane Meadows. They re just not worth wasting time with.

Saw this at the 2008 Sydney Film Festival so apologies if I'm short on detail.

This film does look good, with an all-pervasive dreamy quality. That said, the vocabulary of camera movements is eventually too meagre and repetitive. At times it seems that every shot is a slow dolly.

Like Bloomer wrote in hir comment, the acting and dialog is peculiarly stilted. I initially took this for a deliberate ironic or alienating effect and I read the film as a satire of English New-Labour era 'caring'. The scenes with the teacher, policewoman and social worker all stuck with me for this reason.

But by the end I was forced to conclude that the awkwardness was unintentional and I that I have an overactive imagination. As Alan Donald commented, this film's virtues are simply overwhelmed by bad acting and direction.

I saw about twenty films at the 2008 Sydney Film Festival, and Helen was probably my favourite feature. Steadfast in mystery, atmosphere, weirdness and emotional bleakness, the film follows the slow-growing obsession of the eponymous heroine with the former life of another girl, Joy, who disappeared in the local park one day, and whom Helen is 'playing' in a police reconstruction of the event.

The film has a beautiful cryptic quality, not in any conventional kind of whodunnit sense, but as regards both the elusive character of Helen and the nature of the film itself. The long, unbroken takes, great silences and restrained, almost self-effacing interactions amongst the characters generate fascination and curiosity. Is it some kind of hyper-naturalism? Or the opposite of naturalism? The players are often facing away from each other, or off the screen, or shot from behind, or just so that you can't see their faces. When a creepily patronising policewoman arrives to brief Joy's schoolmates about the reconstruction of the disappearance, half the scene is viewed via its reflection in a mirror.

Some of the dialogue is bizarre in its expositional nature, enough to prompt amusement, yet at others times it is completely evasive. Helen feels such a great hollow within herself (she has been raised in care, and her past and parentage are shrouded in mystery) that her vocalisation mostly consists of dull murmured statements. The strongest indication that some of the weirdness is in droll taste is an amusing scene in which a morose-looking teacher appears to do the worst job in the world in trying inspire the students with talk of 'blue skies thinking'.

The film is framed by metronomically perfect editing, fades to black, abstraction-making shots of dappled light filtering through park trees and a glacial ambient score. It reminded me at times of David Lynch in its poetic design. It offers a unique vision of a situation which opens onto multiple mysteries, most importantly the mystery of what is inside Helen, played with supernatural understatement by Annie Townsend. And it is emotionally confronting, with some moments that are very difficult to bear. This is beautiful cinema.

The low budget British/Irish was film divided critics in the UK, some did not like it but others including the highly respected Mark Kermode loved it. But the audience reaction on IMDb has been negative (amidst from a low base) and this is an example of a divide between critics and audiences over some lesser known films.

Set in an unnamed town in England or Ireland a teenage girl disappears and the police plan to conduct a reconstruction for investigation. A girl from the same college, Helen (Annie Townsend) is picked to play Joy. Helen is a girl who has been in care since a young age and she soon compares her life to Joy's and slowly gets to know Joy's love ones as well as being given the opportunity to finally find out about her past on her 18th Birthday.

Helen is an experimental film, it was directed by Joe Lawlor and Christine Molloy, a directing duo who previously worked on short films. Helen is essentially a short film stretched to become a (short) feature length film because of the extremely slow pacing. There short films and Helen are filmed using a special technique that relies on shooting on 35mm cameras, long shots and unprofessional, local actors. The acting is big problem with this feature because of a lot of it stiff, wooden or just down right bad. Townsend was best when she was alone playing a meek, quiet gorl who is actually longing for more and speaks to Joy on the path she would have taken but at times it felt like she had not personality at all and did not have one written for her. An example of bad acting is with the parents who just seems so stiff and no emotion even though their daughter has disappeared: normally they is some sort of reaction to a tragic event like that.

They is a nice, quiet visial to the film, it is not grand or grim and gritty. I personally like long takes, long shots for the most part. I particularly like the visuals in the woods and the park. This gave Helen a more natural feel. But at other times I felt the film needed a cut to break thinks up and see another action/reaction. Maybe it is because the camera was in the wrong place or simply the acting was not good enough, compared to a 10 minute scene in Hunger that was one take and it was really compelling because of the acting. Helen's scene just drag and the film breaks basic screen writing rules like enter late, leave early: it does the opposite.

I was also slightly confused by the setting because the police uniforms looked like they were not from the UK and the accents were all over the place, some of Liverpulian, others Irish and some just general English. The filmmakers should have stuck to a board area of the UK to show that this could happen anywhere. Also elements of the police investigation felt really fault, like getting a local girl to play Joy, wouldn't the police get an actor from outside so family and friends would not have any ties to the person or when the police find the jacket they would have to keep as evidence and keep it in the evidence bag.

There were some really good ideas in Helen but it could have been explored. It starts out well enough showing Joy with her walking with her mates in the park and when she goes off alone it is the last time never to be seen again. It would be a good start to a thriller. The story could have gone in a number of directions, like the parents trying to do what happened to their daughter or the stress seeing some random girl trying to be their daughter, maybe friends of Joy questioning why Helen is trying to be like Joy and take over her live, the parents seeing Helen and confuse her for Joy, the impact of the disappearance on the college and the community or Helen seeing she looks similar to Joy and tries to find one more about the girl and even tries to take her boyfriend. Or it simply could be a girl who lived in care tries to find out more about her own past.

Helen is interesting it does have a good idea behind it but the execution was lacking.

A college student, Joy, goes missing and the police enlist the aid of another student, Helen, to re-enact Joy's last movements. Helen, an orphan brought up in an institution, lacks everything Joy possessed - family, personality,intelligence, a boy friend. But as her impersonation progresses she starts to hijack Joy's life, including her family and boy friend.

This great idea for a film is sabotaged by poor direction and acting. Apart from the lead actress, the actors are wooden (and occasionally downright bad -- I think I could do better myself!). The direction is amateurish.

Camera work and editing is professional and well done. The script is adequate.

I suspect the producers found themselves financially strapped and had to make do with second rate actors. Helen has the seeds of a good film; seeds that fail to sprout.

Worth seeing if you are studying film