Well, it is arty in some ways (and I mean VERY arty) but, at its heart, it's a reasonably straightforward tale of conflict between locals and incomers in a Cornish village - but that's about the only thing about this film that I could describe as straightforward.
The source of the conflict isn't always what you'd expect and, although I'd struggle to say any of the characters are fully fleshed out, they don't always act as you might expect. The vast majority of the film takes place (as we're helpfully told by a screen title) "BEFORE", so you know (or at least suspect) that the tension is going to spill over at some point and you are given hints as to how that might happen, but in a very unexpected fashion these happen via "timey wimey" flash forwards - however, some of these flash forwards never seem to actually happen in the timeline we see, which is an odd choice. Either that or they did, and I missed them - which was just as confusing for me!
So when the denouement does finally come to pass, you're not 100% convinced that it's actually happened and the aftermath isn't explored in the slightest, so I was very confused - I think in a good way, but I'm still not entirely sure. The film also ends in a particularly bizarre way, with the "action" (which is a close up on a man's face) just stopping abruptly - so much so that I thought my iPad had frozen.
So how else is this film confusing? The sound style is very reminiscent of a WW2 public education film - all very stilted and not always aligned with the characters' mouths, which Wikipedia explains as being the result of all the lines being re-recorded and dubbed in afterwards ("non-diegetic", The Guardian tells me). And when I say "all the lines", I also have to tell you that there are vast swathes of this film with no dialogue at all - you don't always notice it immediately, but you do find yourself going "I wonder who's going to speak next?".
So that's covered plot and dialogue - what about the film style? Yup, there's some interesting choices made there as well! The whole film is shot in black and white, which adds a certain style but given that there are a lot of shots of the sea and the countryside in this, then maybe colour might have been a better option at times. That's not the weirdest thing though because the film has been developed in such a way that there are scratches and glitches throughout and, of course, is uses a weird aspect ratio (16mm) - all of which very much adds to the feel of a WW2 public education film.
So, in the midst of all of this confusion, how do the actors do? Pretty well, I'd say - provided they've been given a role they can work with. Edward Rowe plays it well as Martin, a local fisherman (without a boat, so he's somewhat down on his luck) and he is a well written character with a strong sense of both fairness and frustration - you root for him, but he's certainly no angel. Isaac Woodvine as Neil, his nephew, is also an interesting role providing a bridge between the two worlds. The newcomers are less well positioned for our sympathy but Mary Woodvine as Sandra does at least show some consideration for the locals.
So, we've established it's all very confusing, with some interesting style choices - but does that ruin the film? No, I don't think it does because I found this surprisingly watchable and I wanted to know what happened at the end, especially after I'd watched it all and still didn't really know what had happened (the good news is that the internet isn't entirely sure either).
It makes quite a few choices I wouldn't have made and it's very clear where its sympathies lie, but I can accept these as artistic choices by the director and I enjoyed the journey he took me on. I struggle to imagine it would be for everyone, but if you fancy an arty film then this does at least have some plot and some decent performances which make it watchable. At time of writing, it's available to stream on BPIPlayer (whatever or wherever that is) or to rent at all the other, more normal, channels.
The source of the conflict isn't always what you'd expect and, although I'd struggle to say any of the characters are fully fleshed out, they don't always act as you might expect. The vast majority of the film takes place (as we're helpfully told by a screen title) "BEFORE", so you know (or at least suspect) that the tension is going to spill over at some point and you are given hints as to how that might happen, but in a very unexpected fashion these happen via "timey wimey" flash forwards - however, some of these flash forwards never seem to actually happen in the timeline we see, which is an odd choice. Either that or they did, and I missed them - which was just as confusing for me!
So when the denouement does finally come to pass, you're not 100% convinced that it's actually happened and the aftermath isn't explored in the slightest, so I was very confused - I think in a good way, but I'm still not entirely sure. The film also ends in a particularly bizarre way, with the "action" (which is a close up on a man's face) just stopping abruptly - so much so that I thought my iPad had frozen.
So how else is this film confusing? The sound style is very reminiscent of a WW2 public education film - all very stilted and not always aligned with the characters' mouths, which Wikipedia explains as being the result of all the lines being re-recorded and dubbed in afterwards ("non-diegetic", The Guardian tells me). And when I say "all the lines", I also have to tell you that there are vast swathes of this film with no dialogue at all - you don't always notice it immediately, but you do find yourself going "I wonder who's going to speak next?".
So that's covered plot and dialogue - what about the film style? Yup, there's some interesting choices made there as well! The whole film is shot in black and white, which adds a certain style but given that there are a lot of shots of the sea and the countryside in this, then maybe colour might have been a better option at times. That's not the weirdest thing though because the film has been developed in such a way that there are scratches and glitches throughout and, of course, is uses a weird aspect ratio (16mm) - all of which very much adds to the feel of a WW2 public education film.
So, in the midst of all of this confusion, how do the actors do? Pretty well, I'd say - provided they've been given a role they can work with. Edward Rowe plays it well as Martin, a local fisherman (without a boat, so he's somewhat down on his luck) and he is a well written character with a strong sense of both fairness and frustration - you root for him, but he's certainly no angel. Isaac Woodvine as Neil, his nephew, is also an interesting role providing a bridge between the two worlds. The newcomers are less well positioned for our sympathy but Mary Woodvine as Sandra does at least show some consideration for the locals.
So, we've established it's all very confusing, with some interesting style choices - but does that ruin the film? No, I don't think it does because I found this surprisingly watchable and I wanted to know what happened at the end, especially after I'd watched it all and still didn't really know what had happened (the good news is that the internet isn't entirely sure either).
It makes quite a few choices I wouldn't have made and it's very clear where its sympathies lie, but I can accept these as artistic choices by the director and I enjoyed the journey he took me on. I struggle to imagine it would be for everyone, but if you fancy an arty film then this does at least have some plot and some decent performances which make it watchable. At time of writing, it's available to stream on BPIPlayer (whatever or wherever that is) or to rent at all the other, more normal, channels.