What is the point of a movie where every character is despicable and aimless, where the emotional sky is permanently cloudy with a chance of rain, and where every scene is shot slightly out of focus? I have only ever experienced one other film that scraped the bottom of the moral barrel: Manic, with Joseph Gordon-Levitt. As with Manic, the cast of Son of the Sunshine is strong but cannot create interest or character identification out of a poor, dislocated script and the bleakest view of humanity. There are movies that are depressingly beautiful (see The Believer); then there are movies like Son of the Sunshine that exist solely to rub the audience's nose in the excrements of humanity.
There are good elements in the movie, such as the actors who, for the most part, offer strong performances. The basic idea behind the film--of a young man with Tourette's who can heal living creatures--also offers tremendous potential but, unlike the TV show Carnivàle, Son of the Sunshine simply does not know how to exploit it. The main character spends his time swearing loudly in public places and apologizing for it; healing crippled animals in the dreary rural landscape he inhabits; and escaping the screaming matches with his family to land in the arms of one of cinema's most hateful characters: a version of the main character's mom whose sole aspiration in life seems to be to emulate Britney Spears. There's screaming, physical violence toward the old "boyfriend", more screaming, and a characterization waltz between total carelessness and a motherly authoritative attitude toward the protagonist which never makes sense. There are more enjoyable and believable characters on reality television, and that is saying something.
To add insult to injury, the movie, shot in Super 16 mm according to IMDb, is completely out of focus. Every single scene lacks any definition: even close-ups of signs we are meant to read render them illegible. Given the slew of good-looking movies shot on Super 16 (The Believer springs to mind again, and also The Constant Gardener and Half Nelson), I am hoping there was a problem with the projection at the Montreal Film Festival. If the movie was indeed shot out of focus, it is simply inexcusable. Moreover, the cinematography is quite sub-par, with a number of sequences in near darkness, where the faces of the actors are completely unresolvable. A particularly ironic extension of this weakness comes toward the end, when the protagonist's sister remembers the look in her brother's eyes when they were kids, and we are treated to the backlit shot of a young boy, his eyes completely hidden in shadows. The role of a DP is to ensure the movie is lit properly; whoever photographed this movie was clearly asleep half the time.
While the music editing is amateurish and the cinematography deficient, the score is good and displays strong production values, while not being particularly original (once again a piano and strings score for an indie drama). The strength of the original score and of the performances pales, however, when compared to the deficiencies of the film. One action sequence in the film was greeted by sighs from some audience members: not only was the film medium unable to keep up with the rapidity of the action, but the sequence was bleak and pointless, featuring an unlovable protagonist fighting a caricature of evil.
Rarely have I ever wanted to walk away from a movie, but the temptation was strong on this one. There should be someone at the door to hug you on your way out and remind you that the world is not that bad.
2 out of 14 found this helpful.
Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
