And here comes the sequel nobody really asked for, Todd Solondz’s “Life During Wartime,” a part two to his pedophilia-rape-molestation-masturbation opus “Happiness.” We caught this film at TIFF last year and reviewed it, but decided to reevaluate it upon its release.
“Life During Wartime” picks up with Joy (played by the infinitely fragile Shirley Henderson) at the exact same restaurant with her new husband Allen (Michael K. Williams from “The Wire“), feeling overwhelmed and unsure of her life. As he gives her the same gold bracelet that her now-dead ex-boyfriend gave to her in the first film, she declares that she must leave New Jersey and get away for a bit, deciding to visit her family in Florida. Her sisters (now played by Alison Janney and Ally Sheedy) welcome her in their own ways and we’re let in on their lives, particularly Trish’s (Janney), who rebuilds her life after her husband was jailed for molesting her son’s friend. Also given focus is her husband Bill, now free (and now played by a haunting Ciaran Hinds), her older son Billy, living with the memory of what his father did, and her younger son Timmy, who has no knowledge of his father’s actions and believes him to be dead.
The picture brings a solid critique of society, but Solondz is smart enough to do it comically. What could’ve been extremely dry and preachy is actually a very well made comedy that actually has something to say. He’s not overly serious, but even the more bizarre narrative inclusions — such as ghosts appearing and disappearing throughout — are oddly effective and rather hilarious. One instance has Andy (played by a fantastic Paul Reubens) visiting Joy in a restaurant and practically begging her to rekindle their romance even though he’s dead (and this scene contains one of the funniest lines in the film), while another scene features a dead lover ordering Joy to commit suicide to atone for her mistakes. These scenes are incredibly delicate, but as usual, Solondz knows exactly when to crank up the silliness and when to allow the actors to get vulnerable with one another. The film is not all funny business, though, and as already mentioned, the filmmaker takes aim at overdrugged families, overprotective parents that lie to their children (which proves disastrous later on), the ineffectiveness of running away from your problems, and forgiveness. He’s careful not to be preachy and smart enough to round each character and problem.
There’s a lot of attention to the cast, mostly because all of the returning roles were playing by different people in “Happiness” (notably, Dylan Baker and Philip Seymour Hoffman). It’s quite an odd thing to do (though, seeing as they do it all the time in Theater, it’s not so weird), with the new cast often not even being the same race or age as the original actor. However, the new cast shouldn’t be discredited because of the entire overhaul, as they are phenomenal in this film. The portrayals must be careful, because at their worst, these characters can be terrible ignorant. They are, however, human, and they are treated as so and they don’t feel like one-note characters created solely to make a statement, they feel like real people. There’s also the added weight of the new actors, such as Ciaran Hinds playing Bill. The original Bill, played by Dylan Baker, was a good father plagued by his lust for little children. He was sent away to jail, and “Life During Wartime” picks up upon his release. Because of Hinds’s difference in appearance, we get a feeling of how destroyed Bill really is. Hinds plays Bill has a shell of a man, deeply troubled and affected by what he has done. There’s a lot going on in his sullen look, and yes Baker could’ve knocked this out of the park if he were given the chance, but few can replicate Hinds’s looming presence.
The film also marks an interesting step in cinematography for the director, as nearly every shot is gorgeous whether its a scene in a tropical resort or a character at a chain restaurant. With a major emphasis on a certain color for each new location, the film finds beauty in even the most bland places. Whereas the director’s previous films were relatively grounded visually, “Life”‘s camera work is much more ambitious and, in turn, the film seems much more cinematic. Solondz understands and acknowledges the off-screen space (if only more directors did), one scene grazing a group of friends as they joke around, and only until we get to Billy do we realize they’re teasing him about his father. The friends continue to joke, eventually apologizing, but we don’t see them again: the camera lingers on Billy until he eventually gets fed up and leaves. The director simplifies the scene by not giving time to superfluous characters and keeps it centralized on Billy, allowing the viewers to completely connect with him. Any attempt at cutting back to the friends would have been amateurish and destroyed any flow that was built up from the start of it.
As much as this writer loves the movie, its hard to see how much a new viewer will get out of this, if anything. It plays like a long epilogue to “Happiness,” and while the entire idea of it is completely bizarre and interesting, its audience remains fairly limited. Despite Solondz’s improved skill in nearly every department, certain scenes require knowledge of the previous movie and he makes little attempt to clue in new audiences. There’s plenty to appreciate, but some will be too lost to even be able to follow the narrative. As brilliantly funny as the opening scene is, those who haven’t seen “Happiness” will not get certain little things and may be immediately thrown off, which probably isn’t the best way to start a movie. Even those who haven’t seen the first film in awhile might be thrown off by the cast changes (some which are very drastic). It’s kind of a double-edged sword: should he have drowned the film in flashbacks and exposition in order to fill newbies in, or should he risk alienating many to make the better film?
The picture brings a solid critique of society, but Solondz is smart enough to do it comically. What could’ve been extremely dry and preachy is actually a very well made comedy that actually has something to say. He’s not overly serious, but even the more bizarre narrative inclusions — such as ghosts appearing and disappearing throughout — are oddly effective and rather hilarious. One instance has Andy (played by a fantastic Paul Reubens) visiting Joy in a restaurant and practically begging her to rekindle their romance even though he’s dead (and this scene contains one of the funniest lines in the film), while another scene features a dead lover ordering Joy to commit suicide to atone for her mistakes. These scenes are incredibly delicate, but as usual, Solondz knows exactly when to crank up the silliness and when to allow the actors to get vulnerable with one another. The film is not all funny business, though, and as already mentioned, the filmmaker takes aim at overdrugged families, overprotective parents that lie to their children (which proves disastrous later on), the ineffectiveness of running away from your problems, and forgiveness. He’s careful not to be preachy and smart enough to round each character and problem.
There’s a lot of attention to the cast, mostly because all of the returning roles were playing by different people in “Happiness” (notably, Dylan Baker and Philip Seymour Hoffman). It’s quite an odd thing to do (though, seeing as they do it all the time in Theater, it’s not so weird), with the new cast often not even being the same race or age as the original actor. However, the new cast shouldn’t be discredited because of the entire overhaul, as they are phenomenal in this film. The portrayals must be careful, because at their worst, these characters can be terrible ignorant. They are, however, human, and they are treated as so and they don’t feel like one-note characters created solely to make a statement, they feel like real people. There’s also the added weight of the new actors, such as Ciaran Hinds playing Bill. The original Bill, played by Dylan Baker, was a good father plagued by his lust for little children. He was sent away to jail, and “Life During Wartime” picks up upon his release. Because of Hinds’s difference in appearance, we get a feeling of how destroyed Bill really is. Hinds plays Bill has a shell of a man, deeply troubled and affected by what he has done. There’s a lot going on in his sullen look, and yes Baker could’ve knocked this out of the park if he were given the chance, but few can replicate Hinds’s looming presence.
The film also marks an interesting step in cinematography for the director, as nearly every shot is gorgeous whether its a scene in a tropical resort or a character at a chain restaurant. With a major emphasis on a certain color for each new location, the film finds beauty in even the most bland places. Whereas the director’s previous films were relatively grounded visually, “Life”‘s camera work is much more ambitious and, in turn, the film seems much more cinematic. Solondz understands and acknowledges the off-screen space (if only more directors did), one scene grazing a group of friends as they joke around, and only until we get to Billy do we realize they’re teasing him about his father. The friends continue to joke, eventually apologizing, but we don’t see them again: the camera lingers on Billy until he eventually gets fed up and leaves. The director simplifies the scene by not giving time to superfluous characters and keeps it centralized on Billy, allowing the viewers to completely connect with him. Any attempt at cutting back to the friends would have been amateurish and destroyed any flow that was built up from the start of it.
As much as this writer loves the movie, its hard to see how much a new viewer will get out of this, if anything. It plays like a long epilogue to “Happiness,” and while the entire idea of it is completely bizarre and interesting, its audience remains fairly limited. Despite Solondz’s improved skill in nearly every department, certain scenes require knowledge of the previous movie and he makes little attempt to clue in new audiences. There’s plenty to appreciate, but some will be too lost to even be able to follow the narrative. As brilliantly funny as the opening scene is, those who haven’t seen “Happiness” will not get certain little things and may be immediately thrown off, which probably isn’t the best way to start a movie. Even those who haven’t seen the first film in awhile might be thrown off by the cast changes (some which are very drastic). It’s kind of a double-edged sword: should he have drowned the film in flashbacks and exposition in order to fill newbies in, or should he risk alienating many to make the better film?
Though, it’s honestly hard to think of many who will see this film and not already know Solondz and his repertoire (though IFC is trying, as shown by the trailer which makes it seem like a cute-quirky comedy). If anything, the fact that a work this bizarre (an extended epilogue to a film that made $2 million domestically) even exists and has distribution is a good sign. This is definitely the director’s most accomplished work, he’s grown as a filmmaker and it shows. [A]