Post by Eddie Love on Sept 5, 2010 1:02:41 GMT -5
A hard-hitting trilogy of crime-fiction novels that gripped their European audiences, were adapted to the big screen and, just as the pictures reached U.S. shores, were already being readied by Hollywood heavy hitters for American-made remakes. No, I’m not talking about the “Millennium” Trilogy, but rather the RED RIDING TRILOGY. Based on a series of novels (actually a quartet) by David Peace that combine to create an epic roman noir set in Northern England and spanning the 70s and 80s. First shown on television in the UK, these were released here earlier this year and are now on DVD.
All three films are written by the same scenarist and cast members reprise their roles throughout, though each picture has its own director. This adds a fascinating element to watching the trilogy, as the same essential elements are rendered with a different texture in each outing.
The first film, referred to as 1974, involves a young reporter (played by the newly minted Spiderman – Andrew Garfield) returning to his home country in time for both his father’s funeral and his new reporting assignment – the abduction and murder of a young girl. His delving into the story brings him up against the power brokers of the North of England and the West Yorkshire Constabulary, a group that seems to be shot through with corruption. And more.
1974, as well as its companions, feature many of Britain’s most recognizable actors, if not stars, a list that includes David Morrissey, Peter Mullen, Eddie Marsden and Sean Bean. Everyone’s uniformly effective, though current “It” girl Rebecca Hall as a damaged widow the reporter becomes involved with brings some slightly mannered histrionics to her role. The filmmaking here also feels a little studied at times. There’s that technique, often employed in intimate scenes, where the scene and shot doesn’t change, but we periodically skip ahead a few seconds.
This first film is the most atmospheric in terms of the time period, and the look of it is rain-swept and dreary. And while the Yorkshire flavor is rich and palatable, the details and plot of the film feel pretty standard. We get a lot of the tropes of the crime thriller – the doomed colleague, the police cover-ups. Here and elsewhere, the source material would appear to be showing it’s debt to James Ellroy, and his LA Quartet casts a shadow over the trilogy. Also, the climax calls to mind TAXI DRIVER.
The second film, 1980, is smoother, more conventional and more accessibly entertaining. It’s more urgently acted, as well, and is the best directed of the three. The plot involves a police officer coming to Yorkshire at the behest of the Home Office for what amounts to an investigation into the then ongoing investigation of the savage serial killer the "Yorkshire Ripper" who was terrifying the region at the time. This same officer, we learn, had earlier been called in the aftermath of the prior film’s climax, and the repercussions of those events inform much of what takes place. We subtly delve deeper into the plot of the first film, but at the same time, the horrific true details of the Ripper case are explored. Of the three films, this is the only one that could really be enjoyed as a standalone.
The final film 1983, is in some ways the most impressive, while also being the hardest to sit through. In addition to the grisly subject matter of new child killings under investigation, the WYC are shown at times to be homicidal sadists. Like 1974, there are scenes of torture and, on top of that, this time around, they involve the mentally disadvantaged. The plot thrusts us head-on into the community of Yorkshire; we aren’t seeing things through the eyes of a prodigal or an outsider. The dual protagonists are one of the police officers we’ve seen largely in the background in the prior films, and a solicitor representing an accused murderer; both men seek redemption on behalf of themselves and their community. And SPOILER – this film does offer some semblance of hope when compared to the bleaker earlier films. It’s also beautifully shot; the cinematographer David Higgs bathes the screen with artfully composed streetlights and headlights that bisect the action. It’s almost literally dazzling.
It’s hard to whole-heartedly recommend any films as disturbing in their real-life content and imagery as these three are at times. Anyone seeking them out, should know what they’re getting in for. (Plus, if the WYC has any kind of anti-defamation league, their members should also take care when queuing this up.) I don’t think this is a revolutionary event as it it’s limited theatrical release seemed billed as. I don’t think the films of Steig Larsson’s books are either, but as character studies, those do offer a cohesive dramatic punch, that RED RIDING's more diffuse offering lacks. And the pictures don’t really convey much in the way of period atmosphere, though the first comes closest. They aren’t masterful period evocations in the manner of LA CONFIDENTIAL and ZODIAC. The concern is more with conveying the regional setting, and in that they’re successful, but not necessarily accessible.
But when a moment echoes from one picture to the next, it’s pretty exciting; in fact it’s thrilling. Those beats, and the distinctly flavorful cast and setting make this impressive.
Incidentally, I streamed all three films in HD to my TV set. Had I been watching it on DVD, I would most likely have turned the subtitle option on, as the accents are more than a little thick at times.
All three films are written by the same scenarist and cast members reprise their roles throughout, though each picture has its own director. This adds a fascinating element to watching the trilogy, as the same essential elements are rendered with a different texture in each outing.
The first film, referred to as 1974, involves a young reporter (played by the newly minted Spiderman – Andrew Garfield) returning to his home country in time for both his father’s funeral and his new reporting assignment – the abduction and murder of a young girl. His delving into the story brings him up against the power brokers of the North of England and the West Yorkshire Constabulary, a group that seems to be shot through with corruption. And more.
1974, as well as its companions, feature many of Britain’s most recognizable actors, if not stars, a list that includes David Morrissey, Peter Mullen, Eddie Marsden and Sean Bean. Everyone’s uniformly effective, though current “It” girl Rebecca Hall as a damaged widow the reporter becomes involved with brings some slightly mannered histrionics to her role. The filmmaking here also feels a little studied at times. There’s that technique, often employed in intimate scenes, where the scene and shot doesn’t change, but we periodically skip ahead a few seconds.
This first film is the most atmospheric in terms of the time period, and the look of it is rain-swept and dreary. And while the Yorkshire flavor is rich and palatable, the details and plot of the film feel pretty standard. We get a lot of the tropes of the crime thriller – the doomed colleague, the police cover-ups. Here and elsewhere, the source material would appear to be showing it’s debt to James Ellroy, and his LA Quartet casts a shadow over the trilogy. Also, the climax calls to mind TAXI DRIVER.
The second film, 1980, is smoother, more conventional and more accessibly entertaining. It’s more urgently acted, as well, and is the best directed of the three. The plot involves a police officer coming to Yorkshire at the behest of the Home Office for what amounts to an investigation into the then ongoing investigation of the savage serial killer the "Yorkshire Ripper" who was terrifying the region at the time. This same officer, we learn, had earlier been called in the aftermath of the prior film’s climax, and the repercussions of those events inform much of what takes place. We subtly delve deeper into the plot of the first film, but at the same time, the horrific true details of the Ripper case are explored. Of the three films, this is the only one that could really be enjoyed as a standalone.
The final film 1983, is in some ways the most impressive, while also being the hardest to sit through. In addition to the grisly subject matter of new child killings under investigation, the WYC are shown at times to be homicidal sadists. Like 1974, there are scenes of torture and, on top of that, this time around, they involve the mentally disadvantaged. The plot thrusts us head-on into the community of Yorkshire; we aren’t seeing things through the eyes of a prodigal or an outsider. The dual protagonists are one of the police officers we’ve seen largely in the background in the prior films, and a solicitor representing an accused murderer; both men seek redemption on behalf of themselves and their community. And SPOILER – this film does offer some semblance of hope when compared to the bleaker earlier films. It’s also beautifully shot; the cinematographer David Higgs bathes the screen with artfully composed streetlights and headlights that bisect the action. It’s almost literally dazzling.
It’s hard to whole-heartedly recommend any films as disturbing in their real-life content and imagery as these three are at times. Anyone seeking them out, should know what they’re getting in for. (Plus, if the WYC has any kind of anti-defamation league, their members should also take care when queuing this up.) I don’t think this is a revolutionary event as it it’s limited theatrical release seemed billed as. I don’t think the films of Steig Larsson’s books are either, but as character studies, those do offer a cohesive dramatic punch, that RED RIDING's more diffuse offering lacks. And the pictures don’t really convey much in the way of period atmosphere, though the first comes closest. They aren’t masterful period evocations in the manner of LA CONFIDENTIAL and ZODIAC. The concern is more with conveying the regional setting, and in that they’re successful, but not necessarily accessible.
But when a moment echoes from one picture to the next, it’s pretty exciting; in fact it’s thrilling. Those beats, and the distinctly flavorful cast and setting make this impressive.
Incidentally, I streamed all three films in HD to my TV set. Had I been watching it on DVD, I would most likely have turned the subtitle option on, as the accents are more than a little thick at times.