tfdill

It is impossible to speak of the central fact of the plot of this lovely film without spoiling it, but it is worth mentioning that it draws on (and asks to be compared to) Alpine folktales. The isolation of the family is an aspect of many Swiss and other montagnard tales; in this film, the tension between the lure of the modern world (it happens in 1984, after all) and the traditional ways of the mountain is constantly there, but somewhat subdued. The choice of the family to keep their deaf son at home (rather than institutionalizing him) leads to dramatic complications and precipitates the startling conclusion (not "inadequate," in my view, but definitely open to varied interpretation). That the son breaks rock--both as punishment and as a kind of affirmation of his connection to the natural world--while the mother continues prayers to the Blessed Virgin that seem never to have been answered, nor likely to be--also link the story to traditional folktales. Overall, it has that in common with John Sayles's Secret of Roan Inish and perhaps Julie Dash's Daughters of the Dust, but there is very little reverence for the past in this film, as contrasted with those others. It is definitely a film worth renting and viewing. Slow, yes, but intense.

"Innocence" is uncompromising in its effort to explore a plausible human drama, refusing to offer simple or gratifying solutions. The conclusion of the film might seem a cop-out, but it is moving and credible (and had been dramatically prepared in earlier dialogue), and even the final voiceover avoids pat answers. The photography is particularly beautiful and the direction reminded me (this might seem farfetched) of Carl Theodor Dreyer--the close attention to facial expressions and the careful placement of the characters within meaningful environments especially evoke that master's style. This is a film that probably could not be shown successfully in any multiplex in the US, but if you can find it at an independent theater (or on video sometime) be sure to see it. I was particularly pleased to note that at least half the audience with whom I saw it at our local independent theater was under 30,and they gave every evidence of valuing it as much as the more senior members, though perhaps for other reasons. This is a great film.

I liked this movie enough to encourage friends to see it if they have nothing better to do--and if they are real Woody Allen compleatist fans. I have a feeling most other folks will stay away--for good reason. Allen provides familiar material, sporadically very funny, but even during the film I kept thinking about opportunities he had missed--not for conventional yuks but for developments that would have been truly unusual, characterization and plot twists that should have been there, but seemed lost to a general lack of energy. The result--a bunch of ideas for funny scenes that are never realized. There was, for example, a step toward using music for good effect (as he has done so often before), but then it was dropped. As usual, problems of communication at all levels provide the plot movement and much of the comedy, but there was precious little sense of exploration of the reasons for those failures. On the whole, except for Treat Williams, the acting was not particularly effective (not unusual in Allen films); Tea Leoni seemed to hope she would be mistaken for Annette Bening; all the actors, of course, adopted (or were infected by) the rhythm and style of Allen's own speech, so almost all lines were delivered as though Allen were ventriloquizing. Not a disaster, but not entirely fortunate, either. Because there was a lot in the film about camerawork, the viewer was very aware of what was on the screen--and probably purposely, it was often hard to tell if we were looking at a real place or a painted set. This one is neither a hit or a miss--just a mid-range Allen film, worth seeing but probably not memorable for most folks.