Director burns with over-sentimentality

By Frank Visco
Collegian Editor
October 17, 2007

Things We Lost in the Fire is likely the most frustrating film of the year. Although the plot seems a little too Lifetime, all the pieces are actually in place for a great film, but director Susanne Bier never pulls it together. Despite some great stand-alone scenes and an amazing performance by Benicio Del Toro, this film falls far below its potential, delivering too many moments that seem out of place, emotionally, structurally or both.

The plot is pretty basic. After her husband (David Duchovny) dies defending an attacked woman, Aubrey Burke (Halle Berry) is left to tend to her two children alone. Aubrey invites her husband’s drug addicted best friend Jerry Sunborne (Del Toro) to stay in her garage, despite having hated him while her husband was alive. Eventually Jerry recovers from his addiction, emerging from his shell to help the family cope with their issues. However, Aubrey’s grief panics complicate everything.

In summary form, the movie sounds really good, and although I’ve heard great things about Bier, a Danish filmmaker who supposedly has a keen sense of naturalistic, uncalculated intimacy, she’s missed the mark here. Despite the praise of several early-bird critics, many of the film’s scenes seem 100 percent calculated. I don’t have a problem with calculation when it works; I liked Crash and there’s no doubt that Paul Haggis used manipulation in that film, but here it just doesn’t play.

The scene that keeps jumping to mind shows Aubrey asking Jerry to cuddle with her so she can finally get some sleep. The point is that Jerry is a piece of her late husband that she wants to hold on to, but, while that is interesting in several scenes, it plays awkwardly here. Cuddling up to Jerry, Aubrey requests that he pull on her ear lobe, because it always made her fall asleep when her husband did it. He does this, and she immediately falls asleep.

This may sound nice on the written page, but it doesn’t work in the film. For one, Aubrey’s proposition comes so early on, so awkwardly out of nowhere that I was literally taken aback. When I had seen the beginning of this scene in the trailer, I assumed it came later in the film, after Jerry had proven himself to Aubrey in some way (any way), but, nope, there it is, placed right after he moves in. Second, the whole ear lobe thing is just stupid—when she falls asleep in two seconds, it reeks of calculation.

The idea that Aubrey is both comforted and threatened by Jerry’s presence is the film’s masterstroke idea. Scenes in which she gets angry that the kids shine to Jerry are potent on an idea level, but are handled awkwardly. Much of the blame for this lies with the Aubrey character. I’m not sure if it’s Berry’s performance or the way the role was written, but Aubrey comes across so fake, so intensely over-the-top, that it’s impossible to take her emotional leaps in stride.

Maybe it’s because the film spends so much time on Jerry that I couldn’t buy into Berry’s character; I don’t know. Whatever it is, most of the scenes with her come across as emotionally forced and structurally out of place. Berry has some good moments (especially in a scene at the kitchen table with her kids), but, despite predictions, is not Oscar-worthy. It may be her best performance since Monster’s Ball, but that’s more of a backwards compliment than anything else.

On the other hand, Del Toro deserves any and all credit that comes his way for his work here. Imbuing Jerry with tremendous soul, humor and gravitas, Del Toro turns in some of the most vulnerable, twitchy work of his career, and considering his filmography, that’s saying something. Although the film doesn’t live up to its potential, Del Toro once again proves why he is one of the best actors around.

Aside form the soundtrack, which nicely utilizes tracks from Velvet Underground, tech aspects are assured but unmemorable. Supporting work is great across the board. Duchovny is perfect as the fallen husband, displaying excellent chemistry with Del Toro while radiating decency and charm. Meanwhile, John Carrol Lynch is hilarious as a family friend who offers Jerry a fair chance and a high profile job (something that would seem to put a lot of pressure on a recovering druggie, but I digress).

Before closing, I should note that this film will starkly divide critics. Just as with Spielberg’s Munich, there are some people that are going to think this film totally misses the mark, while others will call it a masterpiece. I jived on Munich two years ago (last scene excluded), so now I guess it’s my turn to play for the dissenting team.

This film could’ve been one of the year’s best, but it’s hampered by too many problems to succeed. Unless a repeat viewing alters my perception and makes me see it in a completely different way, I’ll remember this film as an interesting failure that nevertheless featured a standout performance from one of the finest actors working today.

viscof1@lasalle.edu