I rented and watched "Henry Fool" last night and spent much of this evening tracking down reviews of this extraordinary film. I'm surprised that none of them invoked Dickens, or at least John Irving.
There's a constancy in Hartley films: beautiful photography, disciplined design, and (usually) extraordinarily attractive actors who mouth almost excruciatingly gassy dialogue in a deadpan style that seems to serve as ballast. "Henry Fool" is no different. But this film delves so deeply and sympathetically into the Big Issues -- love, obligation, and most of all ART -- that it delivers a wallop that reminds me of how I felt at the end of Irving's "Owen Meany". And I mean that as a high compliment.
"Henry Fool" is imperfect, at moments even ridiculous, but you just might be changed by it. Not bad for a movie.
There's a constancy in Hartley films: beautiful photography, disciplined design, and (usually) extraordinarily attractive actors who mouth almost excruciatingly gassy dialogue in a deadpan style that seems to serve as ballast. "Henry Fool" is no different. But this film delves so deeply and sympathetically into the Big Issues -- love, obligation, and most of all ART -- that it delivers a wallop that reminds me of how I felt at the end of Irving's "Owen Meany". And I mean that as a high compliment.
"Henry Fool" is imperfect, at moments even ridiculous, but you just might be changed by it. Not bad for a movie.