In My Father's Den

Saw it during my vacation in New-Zealand last December. Didn't know the story at all. Haven't read the book or anything. The lady from the B&B where we were staying suggested this one. I thought the movie was amazing. The movie starts slow and if you like high speed action movies this may not be your piece of cake. If you can stand a lower pace this is absolutely one to watch.

I have actually seen it a second time because it was selected for the Rotterdam Film Festival 2005 (little bit closer to home) and I am know hoping for a regular release in the Netherlands. In my opinion this movie does not get enough attention.

A compelling story, half melodrama, half thriller, set in a quiet and fairly isolated region of New Zealand.

Two brothers meet up after a long separation and dark secrets from the past slowly unravel on a collision course with present day reality. Paul is a Pulitzer nominated war photographer who left home still quite young and is now deeply resented by sibling Andrew. Their father has died and split the Will three ways. There is further tension from Paul's ex-girlfriend Jackie, and a mysterious 16yr old, Celia. A concatenation of events draws Paul into knots of suspicion and trust, which the film juxtaposes with increasingly frequent flashbacks explaining shadowy glimpses of shame beneath façades of uprightness.

The beauty that first struck me about In My Father's Den was how it brought back to me the quietude of New Zealand, the untainted landscape where you can almost hear your own thoughts - and also the Kiwi ability to express much (for good or bad) without saying much. Having sat through a mainstream film immediately before this one, I had to do a 'gear shift' to concentrate enough to follow what was happening. This has it's own reward, and one of the reasons why art house movies have such impact – the *active* attention and listening that is required (as opposed to the spoon-fed nature of Hollywood movies) means a greater investment of one's own energy, and the result, when worthwhile, becomes internalised to a greater degree. Perhaps there should be a word such as 'internalism' to mean the opposite of 'escapism', for that is what we also do when we make the effort to understand, to achieve an active empathy, and so find qualities in a film that resonate more deeply with us than can entertainment alone.

What I found rather sad is what has happened to the film even with the present day's more relaxed attitude to censorship. The British Board of Film Censors website entry on this movie reports: "The distributor chose to remove a scene which showed consensual asphyxiation in a sexual context in order to achieve a '15'. An uncut '18' was available to the distributor." So UK law and our film censors would allow adults to see an uncut a work of artistic merit (one that was part financed by UK Lottery money) but UK financial interests (distributors with an eye to maximising ticket sales) will not.

In My Father's Den is not without faults – the intercut flashbacks towards the end come with such alarming rapidity that it is almost confusing, and some of the characterisation (like a 16yr old girl who writes world class poetry), however moving, can seem far-fetched. But overall the flaws are worth overlooking to enjoy the painting.

See this New Zealand film - it probably won't make you laugh, it might bring you close to tears but see it anyway. This is small town New Zealand with a huge web of intrigue showing how through misunderstandings wrong conclusions with tragic consequences can occur. The breakdown of family relationships through communication problems is also highlighted, and I could relate it to my own experience where the death of a family member did not serve to bring the family closer together but broke us further apart.

But on the upside it's also about sharing dreams and goals and looking for something better than what your current setting can offer, whether that be small town Otago or middle Eastern trouble spots. There is some beautiful rugged New Zealand scenery to be enjoyed, although don't expect it on the same scale as in LOTR, it's more just the icing on the cake here.

Definitely see it if you can handle a moderate amount of swearing, violence, sex and drug use. If you're just looking for a laugh, don't see it.

As an old codger who doesn't usually express himself on the internet this comment is a bit out of character. We saw the film recently while holidaying in NZ, nothing to do one Sunday evening and thought a local film might be interesting. Came out gobsmacked and argued and discussed it with my partner late into the night. Wanted to see if I could get a DVD, not realising it hadn't been released in the UK, and fell into this site.

The film is a bit like a jigsaw, at first it has no shape but as bits are added it starts to make sense and the enormity of the problem Paul has inadvertently got himself into becomes clear. The story is totally believable and all the actors, even the bit parts, are brilliant and convincing. The discontinuity of the story line means you have to work to understand it, but that adds to the interest.

The scenery is great (well, it is NZ). There is a little swearing and small sex scenes but they are also well done and not overplayed, and are necessary for the plot.

Am looking forward to seeing it again

This film was Brad McGann's debut feature as director, and sadly, as it turned out, his last. The screenplay by McGann uses Maurice Gee's 1972 novel as a starting point but goes off in a different direction. In the book we are aware at the outset that a girl has been found murdered and that her sympathetic teacher is under suspicion. In the film the possibility of a crime does not arise until half-way through. In the book "father" the owner of the den was a nice elderly man who had died many years previously. In the film he has just died, and turns out to have been a lot less nice. In the book Andrew the stitched up pious brother turns out to be a very dangerous person, in the film he is not much more than a fall guy. The book has Paul (Matthew MacFadyen), the principal character as an unknown schoolteacher in an outer suburban school; the film has him as a minor celebrity returning to the scenic rural home of his youth. In both stories, however, he becomes involved with one of his pupils, Celia (Emma Barclay).

Does any of this matter to the film's entertainment value? Well, the film is beautifully photographed, and wonderfully acted, yet it ultimately fails to make any sense of the events depicted. Maurice Gee on the other hand explores the dark recesses of his character's minds and his readers get to understand why things have happened the way they have. Character-based thrillers are tricky; there is a trade-off between action and insight. Here we have some interesting characters who somehow have got lost in the plot – a mistake not made in Ray Lawrence's "Lantana" for example, although "Jindabyne" ran close to the edge.

At the end of the film there is a complete stuff-up – the final scene should been the second to last scene. The director did it on purpose, according to the DVD commentary, through a reluctance to bump off his favorite character.

This film was Emma Barclay's first. She has gone on to a real triumph in "Suburban Mayhem" but you can see the talent here already. Matthew MacFadyen as Paul was doing his first feature too, though he has had considerable TV experience ("Spooks"). His English accent is a bit out of place in the land of the long lost vowel but the moodiness is right on. Miranda Otto as Andrew's distracted wife was like a sleepwalker but that was what the part requires. Colin Moy as Andrew was very impressive – his animus towards Paul was palpable even before he opened his mouth.

Maurice Gee set his novel in semi-suburban West Auckland in the late sixties and the film-makers have used present-day Central Otago, mostly in and around Alexandra, as their setting. This is fair enough, and Central Otago is a very photogenic part of NZ, but it does tend to overplay the return of the prodigal element. Again, Maurice Gee makes it clear that the semi-rural past that Paul grew up in has well and truly gone, but in the film it seems not to have changed at all.

If I were Maurice Gee I would be in two minds about this film. On the one hand the filmmakers have handled the central story – the relationship between Paul and Celia – very sensitively. On the other hand much of the careful characterization of the novel has been lost, and the "backstory" has been made incoherent. If I hadn't read the novel (which I did before and after seeing the film) I still would be complaining about the ending. But I guess most viewers won't be doing that and will still find this an evocative piece.