Um Homem Diferente

I was not sure when to laugh or look pensive while watching A Different Man but I went with the audience and laughed when they did and thought when they did. Although I'm not sure I agree we should have laughed when we did because the story is of identity crisis above anything else. In this film, a man with facial deformities assumes another life after a successful surgery but is overwhelmed by what his new life is failing to give him and what the old life in hindsight gave him. It's a surreal experience where you will end up thinking about your own life should given a chance to change it and reborn as a new man. A Different Man shows that changing to another person looks good but it's the case of grass is greener on the other side. Sebastian Stan is adorable here.

(Watched at the 2024 MAMI Mumbai Film Festival.)

Kudos to Sebastian Stan for committing 100% to a deeply flawed character living through a very complex situation, and for giving an intensely physical performance.

I wish I could say I liked the movie more than I did. It's a compelling premise and gets even more so once the actor Adam Pearson makes his appearance (Pearson also gives a wonderful performance, by the way). But I felt every minute of this film. It's not long, but it feels like it is. It overstayed its welcome for me by a good fifteen minutes or so.

But I liked the central question the movie asks of its main character -- where's the line between being unfairly held back by societal constructs because of our disadvantages vs. Voluntarily opting in to being a victim? Stan's character does some pretty reprehensible things by the time the movie is over, but your heart can't help but go out to the guy.

Grade: B.

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.