Skip to main content

To Brooklyn and Back


  Brooklyn is an Irish, a British, and a Canadian production, which I think is an appropriate parallel to the multiple cultural identities portrayed and at odds in this film. In some ways Brooklyn is a paint-by-numbers romance just with an immigrant angle, but in other ways it’s surprisingly engaging and immersive.
The story is set in 1952 when Eilis Lacey (Saoirse Ronan) who’s spent her whole life in Enniscorthy, a town in southern Ireland, emigrates for a better life in New York. She arrives and settles in Brooklyn where she takes up in an Irish boarding house and works at a department store. She spends a while being homesick, but it alleviates when she meets an Italian blue-collar guy Tony Fiorello (Emory Cohen). Their romance blooms, but there are soon problems when something happens back home and Eilis is torn between two worlds.
This film reminds me a lot of last year’s The Immigrant, a slightly underrated movie starring Marion Cotillard. And even though this film is tonally different and has a much more significant emphasis on the romance, what really makes Brooklyn stand out are the performances. I’ve been waiting for years for Saoirse Ronan to be given a role like this (especially after The Host) and she kills it! The film really does hinge on her and she delivers. You feel her homesickness, her acceptance of her new situation, and all her other emotions once later events take place. It’s certainly an Oscar calibre performance. Emory Cohen for a relative newcomer is also really good and his character makes for a nice ethnic contrast to Eilis. And Domhnall Gleeson just has to be in everything this year! He plays Jim Farrell a love interest of Eilis’ in Ireland making for a minor love triangle. But he’s very likeable too and like in Ex Machina, The Revenant, and to a different extent Star Wars, Gleeson gives his all to the role. The supporting cast also includes Jim Broadbent and Julie Walters putting on Irish accents but performing decently enough.
Even though the story is fairly pedestrian, it does do a few things interestingly. It captures pretty adequately the experience of immigrating in the 1950s. My father’s family immigrated to Canada a few years after this film takes place and the depiction of the cross-Atlantic journey feels very real. Director John Crowley does a good job of placing you in the situation. Brooklyn does feel alien, and you identify more with Eilis especially as we’ve all been in a similar situation at some point. The relationship between Eilis and Tony also feels real if maybe a bit too modern. And though the film is a romance, Eilis is definitely the focus and especially in the latter half, it becomes an emotional conflict and character piece. The last third does take a couple turns from what you’d expect and there’s even a somewhat eerie Invasion of the Body Snatchers analogue to it. And by that point I was surprised how much I was invested in Eilis.
So though not sensational, Brooklyn is definitely a surprise. I was surprised by how it absorbed you into its world, how the emotional conflict and character drove an otherwise dull narrative, and mostly how good of a performance Ronan gave. It’s not one of the best films of the year as there are some of those more formulaic romantic devices and it struggles at times to keep your interest; but it is a decent film that’s well-plotted and well-performed, and deserves a degree of the acclaim its receiving. 


Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....
1 comment
Read more

Back to the Feature: New York, New York (1977)

New York, New York  is a two hour forty minute musical movie largely about a toxic relationship and I understand why it was Martin Scorsese’s first big flop. Some have blamed its poor reception on the kind of movie it was, of a style and tone Scorsese wasn’t known for, but I find that hard to believe. Even after only five films, he’d proven himself an extremely versatile director, and Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore  found an audience. Sure this jazz musical love letter to New York City was following up Taxi Driver and its’ far more cynical take on the city, but then it’s also ‘from the director of Taxi Driver ’ which itself was a big hit. Was it a matter of public appetite for musicals, or mere word of mouth and early critical reception that dissuaded viewers? Irrespective of that, I was stunned to discover this movie was the origin of the titular song, which I’d assumed was much older (it’s definitely got the sound of something that might have come out of the Jazz sce...
Post a Comment
Read more