JOE'S SUMUP: visually stunning, descriptively daring
(1998) Richard Matheson wrote the bangsian fantasy "What Dreams May Come" in 1978. At the end of his highly successful career of some thirty novels, he wrote: "I think What Dreams May Come is the most important book I've written. It has caused a number of readers to lose their fear of death -- the finest tribute any writer could receive." I don't need to read the novel to know that the film doesn't likely match up. I do know though that it serves its own purpose.
Matheson's contention was that he did not tell this story as a work of fiction, but based on research. New Zealand Director Vincent Ward brought it to life in a way no other film on the afterlife ever was. It tells the story of two parents, Chris and Annie Nielsen (Robin Williams and Annabella Sciorra), who first lose their two young teenage children in a car accident. Then, a few years later (all within the first fifteen minutes), Chris is likewise taken in a car accident. We see things through his eyes as he begins his journey into the unknown, which seems intent on defying any convention or belief he as a Christian ever held. He is taken under the wing of Albert Lewis, a former-doctor whom he interned under in life. A lively performance by Cuba Gooding Jr., this man helps Chris gain his footwork in an existence which at first seems perfect, while explaining to him life and being in his new existence. Chris quickly comes to realize the power of the mind, seeing that "he thinks therefore he is" and that is all any person can in the end keep hold of. But it is not enough for him, not without his greatest treasures, his wife and children.
This is a daring movie. Cudos first to Interscope Communications for producing it, since producers generally steer far clear of this subject matter, let alone invest $85 million in it. It isn't without its flaws, I'll say first. The script is sometimes lacking and sometimes just pretentious (occasionally rendering language that sits uneasy in its contexts). It fortunately compensates for itself the rest of the time. Attempts to pull our heartstrings also occasionally seem forced, but it's worth looking past those moments. It isn't difficult to tell when things are contrived, and this film is thoroughly sincere. Know too, without giving anything away, the third act contains images that may frighten certain audiences. My advice, keep watching.
Woven together here is a story of people and of imagery. One of the great beauties of this story is its agreement with a statement I subscribe to saying: "...that same sociality which exists among us here will exist among us there..." The director understood that to make a movie about the life hereafter, it has to be about people. Even against its Academy Award winning imagery, this film's greatest achievements lie first in its explorations on self-identity. It discusses potential ramifications of choices we make in life, and how these things affect our status -- not with God or the world beyond -- but with ourselves. It displays ideas on how people and relationships may be weaved together from one sphere to the next---another bold move by the director. It's interesting that, theologically, this vision incorporates bases of many beliefs and ideologies, and not just in the ways that they agree. It bravely does not comply with only Christian nor Hindu nor Islamic views on the afterworld, and has in consequence often left its audiences with mixed feelings. Appropriately so. Any person of faith could dispute one point or other of its doctrine. But the audacity of the picture's objectives should gain the respect of anyone not trapped in their own dogma.
If there were one great challenge for the director, it was telling a fine story amidst the
backdrops he wished to create. This film is just stunning. Ward achieves it though, letting the plot shine atop a canvas so magnificent and aesthetic, bearing such vivid details, from what was then very new technology in computer imagery. He's here created entire worlds that give even the Star Wars saga a run for its money. If a film could ever be compared to the impressionist's painting, this would be it. The scenes in this story do not detract from its flow (as the Star Wars ones sometimes do, often deliberately so---apologies, Rob Bott), but rather enhance it. Casting Robin Williams was likewise daring, who has sometimes botched dramatic roles with comedic hyperbole. Here, he fits in, as both a levelheaded pediatrician and an insecure newly born spirit.
All in all, a good and convincing movie. It breathes freely, having no identity crisis, even as a romance/thriller/feelgood. I give "What Dreams May Come" the credit it deserves. Running time: 113 min.
2 comments:
Well-written review, Joe. I must say, I didn't make it through "What Dreams May Come." It captivated me, but you hit it right on when you said that it renders "language that sits uneasy in its contexts." That, coupled with some of the 3rd act images somehow was too much for me. Maybe it was my mood. Maybe I need to catch it with clearplay. But when watching it I felt how I feel while watching a Christopher Nolan film--albeit well aware of the differences between the two styles. Either way, you write a convincing review.
I looooved this movie. The colors, oh the colors! And I loved that it left me thinking.
Post a Comment