There is a scene in this film which Dan comes home to find Candy, in drug induced insanity, has scribbled phrases all over the walls of their home. Candy is nowhere to be found; the house is empty except for her words. Dan, who before this moment seemed to be cleaning up his act, is so affected and distraught that he abandons concern for Candy´s welfare and gets high.
"Candy" is not the run of the mill love affair. It is not stuck in the boy meets girl, girl leaves boy, boy gets girl back formula. Like all good films there are layers here. But I think and fear that many audiences will never see past the surface layer into the subtext. And this is the key. The film not about addiction to the drug of our character´s choice as much as it is about the addiction of a young love. Now, that may sound cheesy, but it is true. This is not a drug story so much as it is a love story.
As for plot, all you need to know is that two young drug addicts, Candy and Dan, are in a deep love. They struggle through the usual: drug induced hazes, criminal activities, catastrophic events, and failed attempts at getting clean. But these struggles are not what make this a good and sometimes wonderful film. It is Candy and Dan´s relationship throughout this whole ordeal that keeps this movie from falling into the category of cliché.
Abbie Cornish and Heath Ledger are wonderful. They´re performances are nearly flawless, and their depth of character drives this film. Before seeing this film I had heard nothing of Abbie Cornish and had already made up my mind on Heath Ledger. In both cases this one movie has enlightened me and broken through my stubborn preconceived notions.
Abbie Cornish may be the best young actress in Australia. She deserved all the awards and nominations that she received for this performance. In this film she played a character—a young college girl from a respectable family—displaying traits of innocence and vulnerability. As the film progresses, she becomes an experienced, used up drug addict, but she never loses that vulnerability. She always has an aura of someone being controlled, not just by addiction, but her deep love for Dan.
Heath Ledger plays Dan, the point of view character in this film. It is through Dan´s eyes that Candy, the love affair, the drugs, and all the unfortunate events, unfold. I have seen Ledger in a number of films, and I have never felt that he was anything special as an actor. His Oscar nominated performance in "Brokeback Mountain" did little for me. This performance, though, is something worthwhile. Dan is a young poet turned to drugs seemingly in an attempt to forget a painful childhood. He unfortunately brings Candy into a life of drug addiction and from that point on shows regret for it.
Dan as a character is harmless and often weak. On the surface he gives the feel of the typical stoner found in film, but Ledger takes him deeper. Ledger contrasts moments of drug induced haze with crafty, smart actions. Dan is not a hollow shell in Ledger´s hands. Later in the film Dan makes a decision, maybe his first in the whole movie that is heartfelt, poetic, and tragic. This decision is something that Ledger builds up to the entire film.
There is one major limitation of the story, in my opinion. This is a film centered, maybe too, much on the moment. It would have been very interesting to have had a few detailed glimpses into the past—what brought Dan and Candy together? We know that they are in love, we see the extent of who they are in their relationship, but we never get to know them as separate entities. We get a little bit of Candy´s life before Dan, through the introduction of her parents, but little to nothing about Dan. What was Dan like before the drugs? Who was he before Candy?
Another issue I have with the film, which is not a deal breaker, is the director´s choice to rely on the obligatory scenes of drug use, scavenging for money, prostitution, and a failed attempt at getting clean. These are moments in film we have all seen before. There is a cadre of films that have put them on display from "Lost Weekend" to "Requiem for a Dream."
But the question that arises from this criticism is whether you can make a film about drug use that does not include these types of scenes. Maybe the best a director and screenwriter can do is to try and manipulate these scenes, looking at them with a new angle. By devising this film as love story or a narrative concentrating on the main characters´ relationship, Neil Armfield has mostly achieved. He has intermixed scenes of drug with moments of tenderness and daily life. These scenes are the brilliant scenes. They are the poetry of this film.
"Candy" is not the run of the mill love affair. It is not stuck in the boy meets girl, girl leaves boy, boy gets girl back formula. Like all good films there are layers here. But I think and fear that many audiences will never see past the surface layer into the subtext. And this is the key. The film not about addiction to the drug of our character´s choice as much as it is about the addiction of a young love. Now, that may sound cheesy, but it is true. This is not a drug story so much as it is a love story.
As for plot, all you need to know is that two young drug addicts, Candy and Dan, are in a deep love. They struggle through the usual: drug induced hazes, criminal activities, catastrophic events, and failed attempts at getting clean. But these struggles are not what make this a good and sometimes wonderful film. It is Candy and Dan´s relationship throughout this whole ordeal that keeps this movie from falling into the category of cliché.
Abbie Cornish and Heath Ledger are wonderful. They´re performances are nearly flawless, and their depth of character drives this film. Before seeing this film I had heard nothing of Abbie Cornish and had already made up my mind on Heath Ledger. In both cases this one movie has enlightened me and broken through my stubborn preconceived notions.
Abbie Cornish may be the best young actress in Australia. She deserved all the awards and nominations that she received for this performance. In this film she played a character—a young college girl from a respectable family—displaying traits of innocence and vulnerability. As the film progresses, she becomes an experienced, used up drug addict, but she never loses that vulnerability. She always has an aura of someone being controlled, not just by addiction, but her deep love for Dan.
Heath Ledger plays Dan, the point of view character in this film. It is through Dan´s eyes that Candy, the love affair, the drugs, and all the unfortunate events, unfold. I have seen Ledger in a number of films, and I have never felt that he was anything special as an actor. His Oscar nominated performance in "Brokeback Mountain" did little for me. This performance, though, is something worthwhile. Dan is a young poet turned to drugs seemingly in an attempt to forget a painful childhood. He unfortunately brings Candy into a life of drug addiction and from that point on shows regret for it.
Dan as a character is harmless and often weak. On the surface he gives the feel of the typical stoner found in film, but Ledger takes him deeper. Ledger contrasts moments of drug induced haze with crafty, smart actions. Dan is not a hollow shell in Ledger´s hands. Later in the film Dan makes a decision, maybe his first in the whole movie that is heartfelt, poetic, and tragic. This decision is something that Ledger builds up to the entire film.
There is one major limitation of the story, in my opinion. This is a film centered, maybe too, much on the moment. It would have been very interesting to have had a few detailed glimpses into the past—what brought Dan and Candy together? We know that they are in love, we see the extent of who they are in their relationship, but we never get to know them as separate entities. We get a little bit of Candy´s life before Dan, through the introduction of her parents, but little to nothing about Dan. What was Dan like before the drugs? Who was he before Candy?
Another issue I have with the film, which is not a deal breaker, is the director´s choice to rely on the obligatory scenes of drug use, scavenging for money, prostitution, and a failed attempt at getting clean. These are moments in film we have all seen before. There is a cadre of films that have put them on display from "Lost Weekend" to "Requiem for a Dream."
But the question that arises from this criticism is whether you can make a film about drug use that does not include these types of scenes. Maybe the best a director and screenwriter can do is to try and manipulate these scenes, looking at them with a new angle. By devising this film as love story or a narrative concentrating on the main characters´ relationship, Neil Armfield has mostly achieved. He has intermixed scenes of drug with moments of tenderness and daily life. These scenes are the brilliant scenes. They are the poetry of this film.
There is a scene in this film which Dan comes home to find Candy, in drug induced insanity, has scribbled phrases all over the walls of their home. Candy is nowhere to be found; the house is empty except for her words. Dan, who before this moment seemed to be cleaning up his act, is so affected and distraught that he abandons concern for Candy´s welfare and gets high.
"Candy" is not the run of the mill love affair. It is not stuck in the boy meets girl, girl leaves boy, boy gets girl back formula. Like all good films there are layers here. But I think and fear that many audiences will never see past the surface layer into the subtext. And this is the key. The film not about addiction to the drug of our character´s choice as much as it is about the addiction of a young love. Now, that may sound cheesy, but it is true. This is not a drug story so much as it is a love story.
As for plot, all you need to know is that two young drug addicts, Candy and Dan, are in a deep love. They struggle through the usual: drug induced hazes, criminal activities, catastrophic events, and failed attempts at getting clean. But these struggles are not what make this a good and sometimes wonderful film. It is Candy and Dan´s relationship throughout this whole ordeal that keeps this movie from falling into the category of cliché.
Abbie Cornish and Heath Ledger are wonderful. They´re performances are nearly flawless, and their depth of character drives this film. Before seeing this film I had heard nothing of Abbie Cornish and had already made up my mind on Heath Ledger. In both cases this one movie has enlightened me and broken through my stubborn preconceived notions.
Abbie Cornish may be the best young actress in Australia. She deserved all the awards and nominations that she received for this performance. In this film she played a character—a young college girl from a respectable family—displaying traits of innocence and vulnerability. As the film progresses, she becomes an experienced, used up drug addict, but she never loses that vulnerability. She always has an aura of someone being controlled, not just by addiction, but her deep love for Dan.
Heath Ledger plays Dan, the point of view character in this film. It is through Dan´s eyes that Candy, the love affair, the drugs, and all the unfortunate events, unfold. I have seen Ledger in a number of films, and I have never felt that he was anything special as an actor. His Oscar nominated performance in "Brokeback Mountain" did little for me. This performance, though, is something worthwhile. Dan is a young poet turned to drugs seemingly in an attempt to forget a painful childhood. He unfortunately brings Candy into a life of drug addiction and from that point on shows regret for it.
Dan as a character is harmless and often weak. On the surface he gives the feel of the typical stoner found in film, but Ledger takes him deeper. Ledger contrasts moments of drug induced haze with crafty, smart actions. Dan is not a hollow shell in Ledger´s hands. Later in the film Dan makes a decision, maybe his first in the whole movie that is heartfelt, poetic, and tragic. This decision is something that Ledger builds up to the entire film.
There is one major limitation of the story, in my opinion. This is a film centered, maybe too, much on the moment. It would have been very interesting to have had a few detailed glimpses into the past—what brought Dan and Candy together? We know that they are in love, we see the extent of who they are in their relationship, but we never get to know them as separate entities. We get a little bit of Candy´s life before Dan, through the introduction of her parents, but little to nothing about Dan. What was Dan like before the drugs? Who was he before Candy?
Another issue I have with the film, which is not a deal breaker, is the director´s choice to rely on the obligatory scenes of drug use, scavenging for money, prostitution, and a failed attempt at getting clean. These are moments in film we have all seen before. There is a cadre of films that have put them on display from "Lost Weekend" to "Requiem for a Dream."
But the question that arises from this criticism is whether you can make a film about drug use that does not include these types of scenes. Maybe the best a director and screenwriter can do is to try and manipulate these scenes, looking at them with a new angle. By devising this film as love story or a narrative concentrating on the main characters´ relationship, Neil Armfield has mostly achieved. He has intermixed scenes of drug with moments of tenderness and daily life. These scenes are the brilliant scenes. They are the poetry of this film.
"Candy" is not the run of the mill love affair. It is not stuck in the boy meets girl, girl leaves boy, boy gets girl back formula. Like all good films there are layers here. But I think and fear that many audiences will never see past the surface layer into the subtext. And this is the key. The film not about addiction to the drug of our character´s choice as much as it is about the addiction of a young love. Now, that may sound cheesy, but it is true. This is not a drug story so much as it is a love story.
As for plot, all you need to know is that two young drug addicts, Candy and Dan, are in a deep love. They struggle through the usual: drug induced hazes, criminal activities, catastrophic events, and failed attempts at getting clean. But these struggles are not what make this a good and sometimes wonderful film. It is Candy and Dan´s relationship throughout this whole ordeal that keeps this movie from falling into the category of cliché.
Abbie Cornish and Heath Ledger are wonderful. They´re performances are nearly flawless, and their depth of character drives this film. Before seeing this film I had heard nothing of Abbie Cornish and had already made up my mind on Heath Ledger. In both cases this one movie has enlightened me and broken through my stubborn preconceived notions.
Abbie Cornish may be the best young actress in Australia. She deserved all the awards and nominations that she received for this performance. In this film she played a character—a young college girl from a respectable family—displaying traits of innocence and vulnerability. As the film progresses, she becomes an experienced, used up drug addict, but she never loses that vulnerability. She always has an aura of someone being controlled, not just by addiction, but her deep love for Dan.
Heath Ledger plays Dan, the point of view character in this film. It is through Dan´s eyes that Candy, the love affair, the drugs, and all the unfortunate events, unfold. I have seen Ledger in a number of films, and I have never felt that he was anything special as an actor. His Oscar nominated performance in "Brokeback Mountain" did little for me. This performance, though, is something worthwhile. Dan is a young poet turned to drugs seemingly in an attempt to forget a painful childhood. He unfortunately brings Candy into a life of drug addiction and from that point on shows regret for it.
Dan as a character is harmless and often weak. On the surface he gives the feel of the typical stoner found in film, but Ledger takes him deeper. Ledger contrasts moments of drug induced haze with crafty, smart actions. Dan is not a hollow shell in Ledger´s hands. Later in the film Dan makes a decision, maybe his first in the whole movie that is heartfelt, poetic, and tragic. This decision is something that Ledger builds up to the entire film.
There is one major limitation of the story, in my opinion. This is a film centered, maybe too, much on the moment. It would have been very interesting to have had a few detailed glimpses into the past—what brought Dan and Candy together? We know that they are in love, we see the extent of who they are in their relationship, but we never get to know them as separate entities. We get a little bit of Candy´s life before Dan, through the introduction of her parents, but little to nothing about Dan. What was Dan like before the drugs? Who was he before Candy?
Another issue I have with the film, which is not a deal breaker, is the director´s choice to rely on the obligatory scenes of drug use, scavenging for money, prostitution, and a failed attempt at getting clean. These are moments in film we have all seen before. There is a cadre of films that have put them on display from "Lost Weekend" to "Requiem for a Dream."
But the question that arises from this criticism is whether you can make a film about drug use that does not include these types of scenes. Maybe the best a director and screenwriter can do is to try and manipulate these scenes, looking at them with a new angle. By devising this film as love story or a narrative concentrating on the main characters´ relationship, Neil Armfield has mostly achieved. He has intermixed scenes of drug with moments of tenderness and daily life. These scenes are the brilliant scenes. They are the poetry of this film.
No comments:
Post a Comment