Un hombre diferente

I found 'A Different Man' a very tough movie to get my head around just whether I enjoyed it or not. On the one hand I found it interesting and I was always curious what would happen next and how it would conclude. On the other hand, I rarely liked the choices it did make next and didn't love the way it did conclude.

I get the message the movie is trying to get across, but I'm not sure this was the way to hammer it home. I get that imposter syndrome is a real thing, but this seemed a little bit ludicrous and hard to buy into. But perhaps that's the point?

It is a very interesting film to look at though. The acting is great and it is shot in a lot of really interesting ways. There's also a grittiness about it that keeps you on your toes and has you unsure what is around the next corner. I'm really torn on this one, but I'll settle on 6.5/10.

I enjoyed A Different Man, but it fell a little bit short of my expectations because there was so much hype surrounding it. It was good, a very A24 type movie, but not the kind of movie I'll be revisiting very often.

Sebastian Stan is great, but I never admire an actor who has the task of playing a bad actor. He manages to pull it off well, while also doing some solid acting aside from that. Renate Reinsve also had the unfortunate task of playing an unlikeable character, which just seems to be her resume, but again she did well. It's hard to actually rate Adam Pearson as he is such a unique actor and the role was a little bit overbearing, but I certainly enjoyed his performance.

The story felt a little like Adaptation. (2002) at times and even a bit like The Shout (1978). I'm not quite sure how I feel about it on the whole yet, as the ending was somewhat interoperative. It's a movie that will take some digestion so my rating may change later.

From what I'm reading online, everyone except me seems to find this film a comedy, but for me, this felt like horror. This gave me a similar feeling to what I felt after watching Synecdoche New York even though they're very different. Both had the making of a play as a central plot point and both made me feel like I'm watching a psychological horror film.

The protagonist Edward may be very different from me but his insecurities about life, the way he hides from the past and acts through the present, only to be shown to him he can't really make it because of who he is, just hits close to home.

The way this movie nonchalantly shows how people are perceived due to how each person believes what they are is striking. Be it the person who you expect not to be popular being popular or the person you expect to be kind being not that, maybe even unbeknownst to themselves. It breaks the bubble of how such movies usually show these kinds of situations by making it very unsettling which can be perceived as darkly comical as well I guess.

Sebastian Stan is brilliant with his body language conveying all the insecurities. Adam Pearson being the charming positive force of the movie was such a surprise but it's great to see especially when it's Sebastian Stan on the other side.

One of the best movies of the year and something I won't revisit anytime soon.

"Edward" (Sebastian Stan) is a facially disfigured man, stuck in a rundown apartment, whose life isn't really going anywhere fast. Then he gets a new neighbour. "Ingrid" (Renato Reinsve) is a writer who befriends him and promises him a part in her play. Meantime, his doctors manage to get him on a radical course of treatment that gradually returns his face to a more normal visage. Returning to his flat, and with some fairly grotesque things emerging from his leaky ceiling, he realises that nobody recognises him anymore so he has to assume a different identity. That's when he discovers that "Ingrid" is, indeed, putting on a play - and that the old "Edward" is the title and the topic. He wants the part. It's his part. How to get it though without giving the game away? Add to his frustrations the arrival of "Oswald" (Adam Pearson) who is an ostensibly decent character but who also wants the role, and he has the aesthetics as opposed to the prosthetics. "Ingrid" has tough choices to make but where might this leave "Edward"? There's something quite circular about the way this story pans out. A sort of be careful what you wish for type scenario that gives and removes hope from "Edward" and almost creates a villain of the piece too! Is that merited or is that justified? The drama shines a light on the more shallow attitudes amidst society, on our intolerances and assumptions but it also swipes at the fickleness of friendships, fame and success - all rather engagingly delivered by both Stan and Pearson. It's the former man who positively exudes exasperation as the denouement (only vaguely) skirts the Chaplinesque. It's on that note that it's worth saying this is quite funny at times, too - the writing doesn't try to impose any morals on us, rather it presents us with some scenarios and lets us enjoy and evaluate as we go. It doesn't hang about, and right from the start we hit the ground running as the characters develop, the personalities emerge - for good or bad, and it's well worth a couple of hours in a cinema. I got more from it second time round as I was able to focus a little more on the nuance than the imagery.

Simply put, it just feels like a cheap shot when the film begins by presenting the undeniable struggles of the main character's life and has him pursue a cure for completely understandable reasons - and then effectively turns around and says "Actually, all of the problems in his life were his fault, he didn't really get better in ways which matter after that, and let us present a totally idealized version of someone with the exact same condition to prove why."

"Accept yourself for who you are and do not seek external fixes" message might come from the right place, but it is not so inspiring when his condition was effectively shown interfering with something as important as his eyesight and generally affect his quality of life even when nobody was watching.

Furthermore, this film also exhibits the same contrivance which brought down Challengers for me - the insistence that like a duckling, the lead MUST imprint onto the first remotely meaningful relationship shown in the narrative and fail to form anything offscreen even when all the conditions are there for it. It is worse here when that relationship effectively comes from a combination of pity and fetishism - as the film is at least honest enough to acknowledge.

For all of that, the first half is very strong in its depiction of the grime of main character's life, reinforced in a variety of unusual ways like the PSA he is part of. Even the second half has enough neat moments - whether in digging down to the details of stage productions or other smaller twists and turns - to avoid ever feeling like a total loss.

I suppose one reason I'm so disappointed is because this could have been a remarkable narrative of a climber who benefited from the system (in this case, the research breakthrough turning him into "A Different Man") only to pull up the ladder behind him for entirely selfish reasons. Instead, the film pretends the climb was never worth it in the first place and stalls around various meta layers instead of developing the point.