The Healer
Dec. 3rd, 2008 09:49 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
out_thereI promised to report back on "The Healer" and I am. Overall, it was an interesting film and very watchable. The ending was a bit bittersweet; not entirely unexpected but... hmm. I sort of expected the film to end that way, but I hadn't expected the plot twists that got us there. So, enjoyable film but the ending seemed a touch... off. But it was one of those films all about the characters emotional journey (I tend to think of them as "European" type films, due to the way that the dramas shown on SBS in French or Italian or Dutch seem to have that focus on emotions and individuals without the ... without the moralising, the emphasis on karma, the underlying narrative idea of things being deserved that shows up in Hollywood epics. I mean, you could just as easily think of them as "Indie films" or "Arthouse" because it tends to be the arty, small-budget, unusual films that focus on feelings instead of story, but by this stage, I'm sure you get what I mean.), so the plot was more of a vehicle to allow us to look at people, at how people respond to relationships, to betrayal, to mortality, to faith.
Basic story goes like this: we have a family, a couple with eight year old twins (boy and girl). The mother (Miranda Otto) is on holiday with the kids and cuts the vacation short to come home early, and finds the father (William Fitchner) in bed with another woman. They start to seperate, but during this, the little boy collapses and we find out that he has cancer. He reacts badly to the chemotherapy, and out of desperation, the mother takes him over to Poland/Russia to visit a faith healer. There's a little more to the plot, but telling would spoil it. I liked the casting. I like Miranda Otto; she always seems believable in her roles and she was a very sympathetic character.
All in all, the film reminds me of Little City. For those of you who aren't Josh Charles fans, let me explain. While Josh Charles may be a favourite of mine, he's done some terribly not-good films, films that I only watch because he's in them. Little City is an enjoyable, watchable film in it's own right but rated as a Josh Charles vehicle, it's outstanding (because it has him and has a reasonable level of storyline). The Healer is the same. On it's own, it's a watchable, interesting film; as a William Fitchner film, get thee to a video store and rent it, fangirls.
The reasons you should watch it:
1) It's a tightly focused drama on the family, on the faith healer, and this means that WF does get a lot of screen time and an interesting role. He's the cheating husband, but he's also an intelligent man, academically smart but still common-sense-stupid enough to try to intellectually rationalise cheating under the "men are biologically incapable of being monogamous" reasoning. He does what WF does best: plays all sides of the character. He's loving and kind of charming, but he's also obnoxious and hurtful when he lashes out. It's an interesting contradiction, but for a lot of the movie you can't help feeling for the guy (he's done wrong, and sometimes you want to slap him upside the head, but he perfectly portrays the anxiety of life spinning out of your control, the fear of losing your child). So, yeah, yay for WF's acting skills.
2) I'm one of those people who finds good fathers ridiculously sexy, and the number of times you get to see WF around the eight year old kids is a good reason for me to watch. Hugging and talking gently to reassure them (and, okay, being a bit of a passive-aggressive jerk and trying to use the kids to guilt-trip the wife into giving it another shot, but still forgiveable) and I have to admit that due to PB, I have an absolute fondness for watching WF talking to an eight year old boy and calling him "buddy boy" so affectionately. It makes me happy, and leaves me wanting to write ridiculous domestic Alex/Michael/Sara futrefic where they live as a big happy family and have a couple of kids.
3) On a purely shallow note: WF's arms. There is one scene, where the couple have settled into being sort-of-back-together and WF gets into bed shirtless, and starts trying to seduce her with light kisses and slowly working a hand under her top. It's very hot, and I have to say, the man has fantastic biceps. (I'm planning to spend a reasonable amount of time on Friday night trying to screencap that scene because it really should be shared. It really, really should.)
Basic story goes like this: we have a family, a couple with eight year old twins (boy and girl). The mother (Miranda Otto) is on holiday with the kids and cuts the vacation short to come home early, and finds the father (William Fitchner) in bed with another woman. They start to seperate, but during this, the little boy collapses and we find out that he has cancer. He reacts badly to the chemotherapy, and out of desperation, the mother takes him over to Poland/Russia to visit a faith healer. There's a little more to the plot, but telling would spoil it. I liked the casting. I like Miranda Otto; she always seems believable in her roles and she was a very sympathetic character.
All in all, the film reminds me of Little City. For those of you who aren't Josh Charles fans, let me explain. While Josh Charles may be a favourite of mine, he's done some terribly not-good films, films that I only watch because he's in them. Little City is an enjoyable, watchable film in it's own right but rated as a Josh Charles vehicle, it's outstanding (because it has him and has a reasonable level of storyline). The Healer is the same. On it's own, it's a watchable, interesting film; as a William Fitchner film, get thee to a video store and rent it, fangirls.
The reasons you should watch it:
1) It's a tightly focused drama on the family, on the faith healer, and this means that WF does get a lot of screen time and an interesting role. He's the cheating husband, but he's also an intelligent man, academically smart but still common-sense-stupid enough to try to intellectually rationalise cheating under the "men are biologically incapable of being monogamous" reasoning. He does what WF does best: plays all sides of the character. He's loving and kind of charming, but he's also obnoxious and hurtful when he lashes out. It's an interesting contradiction, but for a lot of the movie you can't help feeling for the guy (he's done wrong, and sometimes you want to slap him upside the head, but he perfectly portrays the anxiety of life spinning out of your control, the fear of losing your child). So, yeah, yay for WF's acting skills.
2) I'm one of those people who finds good fathers ridiculously sexy, and the number of times you get to see WF around the eight year old kids is a good reason for me to watch. Hugging and talking gently to reassure them (and, okay, being a bit of a passive-aggressive jerk and trying to use the kids to guilt-trip the wife into giving it another shot, but still forgiveable) and I have to admit that due to PB, I have an absolute fondness for watching WF talking to an eight year old boy and calling him "buddy boy" so affectionately. It makes me happy, and leaves me wanting to write ridiculous domestic Alex/Michael/Sara futrefic where they live as a big happy family and have a couple of kids.
3) On a purely shallow note: WF's arms. There is one scene, where the couple have settled into being sort-of-back-together and WF gets into bed shirtless, and starts trying to seduce her with light kisses and slowly working a hand under her top. It's very hot, and I have to say, the man has fantastic biceps. (I'm planning to spend a reasonable amount of time on Friday night trying to screencap that scene because it really should be shared. It really, really should.)
