London...present day. A violent, desperate man breaks into an inner city church. With him, he brings the anxiety and anger of contemporary society. Once inside the church, he faces his ... See full summary »
London...present day. A violent, desperate man breaks into an inner city church. With him, he brings the anxiety and anger of contemporary society. Once inside the church, he faces his greatest opponent...a world weary Priest. The Fighter challenges the Priest, on the fundamental fabric of life...faith and death, belief and passion. The scene is set, in the fight for truth, redemption and forgiveness. Written by
Very stagey and theatrical but still well delivered to camera and well acted by Cadwell and Russell
The other commenter here says that this film would make a good play but for me it is hard not to see it as already being a play just one that was captured by cameras as it happened. The action plays out almost totally in a run-down church in the east end of London; a priest is locking up for the night when he is interrupted by a man who is angry and potentially violent. The man confronts the priest albeit not really about anything in particular, starting a conversation about loss, God, anger, the past and the future.
The reason it feels very much like a play is that it is written for two men to deliver, it uses one set and other things like this, but the main thing on the page is that the speeches and long sections of dialogue, with its poetic prose and occasional use of rhymes and clever language all makes it feel like it is a performance piece rather than a character. I am not sure if Cadwell did originally write it for the stage, but regardless it feels like a theatrical experience. An additional sense of this also comes from Cadwell because his performance feels like he is giving it in a theatre and not with the camera close to him. I thought he did well with the material, but at times the size of his performance would have worked much better in a theatre rather than with the camera so close to him where such projection and excess isn't quite as fitting. It isn't a massive problem because really you need to get into this mindset to approach the film and, once there, it works very well.
It is driven by the theatrical dialogue and performances from both men. I was surprised by how quickly the film went and how little it dragged for the whole time, and this was down to the two men. As writer Cadwell is ironically the slightly weaker of the two, although this may be that he wrote for the stage and thus acted for it too. I recently saw his opposite number Russell in short film North Atlantic and liked him even if he was very reserved in that film; here he has more to work with and does very well, with a performance that has emotional range but still works well in the confines provided by the camera. These two men hold the attention throughout and this is quite something. The film looks and sounds great as well; despite being mostly in semi-darkness, the lighting is very well done and captured well on camera, while the director Ukpo knows when to just let his camera settle and let the script play out. This is probably the best of all his films I have seen and it is the only one where he didn't write it and do lots of other roles as well something of a takeaway there perhaps.
The Fighter's Ballad is a film that few will ever see and where even fewer will know the names involved, however it deserves to be appreciated by more. It is very theatrical and dramatically delivered in a way that would probably work better on stage, but does still mostly work well here thanks to the good delivery by the crew to make it look and sound good, but mainly by the two actors, who sell their lines and keep you engaged throughout.
0 of 4 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?