Well...what can I say about this one? To be honest, after watching it I was left sitting there dumbly, my mouth half agape, trying to pick out what I had just seen. I don't think I could give a very good review/recommendation for this, but I would like to comment on the film. From here there are severe spoilers, so read on at your own risk.
Symbolism:
Dark Harbor is the brain child of Adam Coleman Howard, a meticulous writer/director with a critical eyes for detail and meaning. Some people feel he puts too much thought into his details. One gentlemen, in a DH review said "...the couch was suppose to have symbolism? I didn't get it..." Personally, I think great attention to details, especially the ones no else would notice, is one of the most important aspects of being an artist. Another is understanding and accepting the fact that most people will not notice these additions. For needless symbolism, I must give Howards props.
Plot:
The film was interesting in its use of an old plot with a new twist. The cheating lover kills the wife/husband so they can be with the person they love. Very used, yet still equally as effective at plucking the strings that make up humankind. The homosexual twist of the plot doesn't really change the meaning, just makes the slap the audience gets at the end even harder--not a bad thing in my opinion.
Sexuality:
Several people have critiqued DH as an attempt to bait "proper" viewers into an intriguing world just to slam them with an attack on modern society's politics and issues. I think these people are just homophobic. Alan Rickman has also been accused of being gay due to this role. All I have to say for that is this: Can you say acting? Try it with me...act-ing. Act-ing. Now together: acting. Very good. I think it's shallow, insecure people who find issues with films that use real life to make a point about real life. I apologize to all the delusional folks out there, but there are gay people in this world.
Nudity:
Hmm... This is one of the reasons I am not sure how I feel about the film. I am not opposed to the use of nudity as symbolism or for shock value, as long as its ultimate intention is to make a point, not just to see someone waving themselves out in the wind. In this particular instance, I can see where the use of the scene would add to the movie. However, I think it would have benefited the entire screen usage if it had been done with a slightly larger bit of reflection. There was a hasty de-robing, followed by a "transitional" swim to shore, and a self-realizing ascension of the stairs. All of this is well put together and effective. I only think it would have been more of a, "That was in depth," than a, "He was naked!" if Howard had allowed Rickman to think to the camera a little more before he started stripping. Obviously symbolizing his internal transition, the scenario left out the crisis, making it spontaneous and unrealistic for an interpretation of his emotional change. What we end up with is nude Rickman jumping off a boat followed up by a generously lengthened back-end sequence: effective and useful if you can get over the "He was naked!" thought quickly enough. This is defiantly a scene better taken in by an audience who already knows it's going to happen.
The Players:
Alan Rickman: Rickman does a wonderful job of melding with the other two actors to create a believable film. There are some small problems with his character, but I think those are more of a directorial issue. Whether he himself added to them by suggesting these direction incidents, I cannot say. There were several points at which he dropped his dull, flat American accent for a moment of his usual speech. These happenings only added to the blandness of all American speakings. Though robbed of his usual vocal power, Rickman proves that there is more to him than voice as his acting maintains its high standard.
Polly Walker: Walker shows her own talent in Dark Harbor as she swings from the critical wife to the wronged lover, and then back, and to several other places along the way. She holds most of the character action together as Rickman and Reedus rarely interact with each other on screen, but through her. The only issue I have with her character is the struggling indifference to the acts of the others. Alexis seems to fall out of character a few times, going from the seemingly assertive business type to a passive observer, most notably in the scenes she shares with the young stranger.
Norman Reedus: I had never seen Reedus act in anything prior to watching to this film. He did well, I think, for the part he was supposed to play. The "sexy mushrooms" scenes were a bit of a stretch, but I think Reedus has found a way to make fungus appealing, even if only because the viewer associates it with rolling drunkenly in fern saplings with a dark stranger--a fantastical thought which had, until present, never entered my mind. There are parts where one must wonder if the part was poorly written for a line or two, or if Reedus just wasn't in the mood to work that day, but these are relatively easy to over-look as the film is swept along to another angle.
Overall:
On the whole, I think Dark Harbor was an interesting film full of visual usage that I can not say was always effective. But, learning from Dave, I find crass generalizations are often better left by the wayside when it comes to something as varied as human nature, a heavily running theme in this movie. DH is best served on a warm plate, so I would suggest checking reviews and venturing a few spoilers, unless you are the type who can watch a long, jerky film and comfortably say, "Let's go back for another try; it may be different if I watch it again."
Symbolism:
Dark Harbor is the brain child of Adam Coleman Howard, a meticulous writer/director with a critical eyes for detail and meaning. Some people feel he puts too much thought into his details. One gentlemen, in a DH review said "...the couch was suppose to have symbolism? I didn't get it..." Personally, I think great attention to details, especially the ones no else would notice, is one of the most important aspects of being an artist. Another is understanding and accepting the fact that most people will not notice these additions. For needless symbolism, I must give Howards props.
Plot:
The film was interesting in its use of an old plot with a new twist. The cheating lover kills the wife/husband so they can be with the person they love. Very used, yet still equally as effective at plucking the strings that make up humankind. The homosexual twist of the plot doesn't really change the meaning, just makes the slap the audience gets at the end even harder--not a bad thing in my opinion.
Sexuality:
Several people have critiqued DH as an attempt to bait "proper" viewers into an intriguing world just to slam them with an attack on modern society's politics and issues. I think these people are just homophobic. Alan Rickman has also been accused of being gay due to this role. All I have to say for that is this: Can you say acting? Try it with me...act-ing. Act-ing. Now together: acting. Very good. I think it's shallow, insecure people who find issues with films that use real life to make a point about real life. I apologize to all the delusional folks out there, but there are gay people in this world.
Nudity:
Hmm... This is one of the reasons I am not sure how I feel about the film. I am not opposed to the use of nudity as symbolism or for shock value, as long as its ultimate intention is to make a point, not just to see someone waving themselves out in the wind. In this particular instance, I can see where the use of the scene would add to the movie. However, I think it would have benefited the entire screen usage if it had been done with a slightly larger bit of reflection. There was a hasty de-robing, followed by a "transitional" swim to shore, and a self-realizing ascension of the stairs. All of this is well put together and effective. I only think it would have been more of a, "That was in depth," than a, "He was naked!" if Howard had allowed Rickman to think to the camera a little more before he started stripping. Obviously symbolizing his internal transition, the scenario left out the crisis, making it spontaneous and unrealistic for an interpretation of his emotional change. What we end up with is nude Rickman jumping off a boat followed up by a generously lengthened back-end sequence: effective and useful if you can get over the "He was naked!" thought quickly enough. This is defiantly a scene better taken in by an audience who already knows it's going to happen.
The Players:
Alan Rickman: Rickman does a wonderful job of melding with the other two actors to create a believable film. There are some small problems with his character, but I think those are more of a directorial issue. Whether he himself added to them by suggesting these direction incidents, I cannot say. There were several points at which he dropped his dull, flat American accent for a moment of his usual speech. These happenings only added to the blandness of all American speakings. Though robbed of his usual vocal power, Rickman proves that there is more to him than voice as his acting maintains its high standard.
Polly Walker: Walker shows her own talent in Dark Harbor as she swings from the critical wife to the wronged lover, and then back, and to several other places along the way. She holds most of the character action together as Rickman and Reedus rarely interact with each other on screen, but through her. The only issue I have with her character is the struggling indifference to the acts of the others. Alexis seems to fall out of character a few times, going from the seemingly assertive business type to a passive observer, most notably in the scenes she shares with the young stranger.
Norman Reedus: I had never seen Reedus act in anything prior to watching to this film. He did well, I think, for the part he was supposed to play. The "sexy mushrooms" scenes were a bit of a stretch, but I think Reedus has found a way to make fungus appealing, even if only because the viewer associates it with rolling drunkenly in fern saplings with a dark stranger--a fantastical thought which had, until present, never entered my mind. There are parts where one must wonder if the part was poorly written for a line or two, or if Reedus just wasn't in the mood to work that day, but these are relatively easy to over-look as the film is swept along to another angle.
Overall:
On the whole, I think Dark Harbor was an interesting film full of visual usage that I can not say was always effective. But, learning from Dave, I find crass generalizations are often better left by the wayside when it comes to something as varied as human nature, a heavily running theme in this movie. DH is best served on a warm plate, so I would suggest checking reviews and venturing a few spoilers, unless you are the type who can watch a long, jerky film and comfortably say, "Let's go back for another try; it may be different if I watch it again."