Things We Lost in the Fire (2007)

thingswelostinthefireposter.jpg

Jerry (Benicio Del Toro) lives in what appears to be a one room dormitory with a sink and a lover that, for all we see, may have died the night before. Jerry shows up for his very committed best friend, Brian’s (David Duchovny) funeral wearing a suit that was clearly cut for him when he was a different size. Jerry tucks cigarettes behind his ear and when he smokes them he clutches them until they reach the butt, the smoke wafting beautifully between his fingers and tortured face. Jerry has a habit of calling friends out on their mistakes with a little “mwaw mwaw” sound that he most likely borrowed from a game show that ran during his youth. Jerry is also a heroin addict and, in relapse, he asks for a Snickers bars and ice cream to sooth his Hellish return to proper consciousness. If you had to be a heroin addict, you’d want to be Jerry. Hell, if you’re hung-over, you’d still want to be Jerry, to look half as mysteriously, glamorously ravaged as Jerry at his worst.

People have called Benicio Del Toro’s work in Things We Lost in the Fire brilliant, and the performance is, undoubtedly, quite an achievement. But is it the sort of achievement this particular picture desperately needs? Del Toro gives the viewer all sorts of bits and pieces to chew on, the little slipping on the woman’s white glove ticks that people respond to because they can be identified so confidently as “acting”. As memorable as Del Toro’s portrayal of Jerry is, it still represents a bit of treading water for the actor. Note the word “glamorous” above, how glamorous should an unstable heroin addict be? Things We Lost in the Fire, as its Book of the Month club title indicates, is a self-improvement Oscar fantasy. We wish the Jerry’s of the world were this likable, and we wish that we could help them, while compromising our own lives as little as possible.

Del Toro’s Jerry is fascinating and alive but he doesn’t feel like a fascinating and alive drug addict. This is the film that could use a shitting of the pants. Allan Loeb’s rigid and unwavering screenplay has no room for that sort of thing though, he’s too busy stating his theme (which is repeated three times at the end in case you went to the bathroom for, I don’t know, 110 minutes). Susanne Bier’s direction only further highlights the script’s obviousness, this thing needs to be played loose and dingly dangly, Bier instead cuts many of the major scenes into a series of close-ups, with characters staring into space for prolonged moments as the score does an instrumental number that all but broadcasts SERIOUS.

Normally I probably wouldn’t have even bothered to review Fire, you get what you pay for after all, but the film continues to show frustrating signs of promise only to dash them time and again. Jerry eventually accepts an offer from Audrey, Brian’s widow, (Halle Berry) to stay with her and her two children in a joint effort to stitch together a few threads of their lives. Jerry and Audrey have a palpable sexual tension, and for a moment my hopes rose; as a love story that blossoms in one the more inappropriate situations imaginable, this picture had a chance. I normally don’t buy Berry in her bids for award winning actress, but she fares surprisingly well here and with material that’s considerably weaker than Del Toro’s. On the page Audrey is a noble suffering wife, but Berry imbues the part with a ripe, ambiguous sexuality that she didn’t manage in her over-praised performance in Monster’s Ball. Audrey and Jerry look one another over, with varying degrees of hate, arousal and distrust, and for a few moments I forgot which picture I was watching.

Bier and Loeb soon reminded me, and so the film remains stuck, never to diverge too far from the message, never to acknowledge that the characters might, for a moment, be fallible, or (perish the thought!) unlikable. The Audrey/Jerry story remains safe and the children remain photogenic and largely untroubled. Even a less controversial but appealing friendship that Jerry develops with Audrey’s neighbor Howard (John Carroll Lynch), is cut distressingly short.

And what of everyone’s immediate taking to Jerry anyway? The dangers of choosing a drug addict you barely directly know as a surrogate friend, husband or father is never elaborated upon much either, nor is the guilt that could arise from immediately grasping on to someone else in the wake of another’s death. As in most films that deal with drug or mental abuse, Jerry’s problem is just a means to a dramatic short-cut, a healing that would probably, outside of fantasy, be safer to seek elsewhere. There’s no room for any inconvenient feeling or messiness in Things We Lost in the Fire, it wants us to simply “take the good with the bad.” This film could use quite a bit more of both.

★★½

Posted on March 8th, 2008 in 2007, Reviews, Drama |

9 Responses to “Things We Lost in the Fire (2007)”

  1. Daniel Says:

    That is an excellent review, and we agree on the mediocrity.

    “As memorable as Del Toro’s portrayal of Jerry is, it still represents a bit of treading water for the actor.”

    I didn’t want to admit to this right after I saw it, but it’s true, especially when one considers 21 Grams.

    “And what of everyone’s immediate taking to Jerry anyway?”

    Another great point, and a major weakness in the writing. Aside from not exploring/elaborating on this issue, some of the dialogue was so bad I still remember it, especially the first scene with Duchovny and son at the pool.

    One positive I found, though, was John Carroll Lynch in yet another overlooked 2007 performance along with his work in Zodiac.

  2. cjKennedy Says:

    I never had a good feeling about this one, but a few people I respect liked it.

    Interesting that you didn’t even buy into the highly praised Del Toro performance all that much.

  3. Chuck Says:

    Thanks guys.

    I didn’t have a good feeling either, but I was curious about Del Toro. The movie is actually better than I thought it would be, its not a hard movie to watch (and this is the sort of thing I sometimes fail to finish) but, yeah, its almost exactly what you’re expecting it to be.

  4. Alexander Says:

    I really, honestly couldn’t agree with you more here, Chuck. I wanted to like it, kind of, because there seemed to be a groundswell online that Del Toro gave a great performance, even if the film itself was quite flawed.

    Ultimately, I thought it was kind of a recycle of his 21 Grams performance as noted above. And Halle Berry continues to fall into the same acting habits, over and over, and I find it stale and uninvolving.

    Susanne Bier is a fine filmmaker whose Danish films are fabulous, but I thought this was uncharacteristically rote and uneven.

  5. Chuck Says:

    Bier’s Danish films have been on “meaning to get around to” status with me for some time. I’m hoping to correct that oversight soon.

    I was kinder towards Berry in this film, but I’m not a fan either, she keeps trying to prove something with these down and out characters and I just don’t buy it. She needs to embrace the fact that she’s a very beautiful woman, with an identifiable charisma and play movie star parts but, no, the movie stars always have to try to hog it ALL, the glamour and the respect, and that leaves some of the pros out in the cold.

    That’s probably a bit simplistic of me, but this is the comments section, hopefully I’m allowed a bit of leeway here.

  6. Alexander Says:

    I’d like to see Berry mix it up somehow. Play a variation on the femme fatale model or something. Anything.

    I think you can definitely let your hair down a bit and be more frank in the comments section, Chuck. :-)

  7. cjKennedy Says:

    Is it fair to say the online swell of enthusiasm for Del Toro was mostly spearheaded by one Jeffrey Wells?

  8. christian Says:

    Jeff has a record for being wrong about shit like dat.

  9. Chuck Says:

    Couldn’t have said it better myself Christian.

Leave a Reply

© Copyright 2007 Bowen's Cinematic.
Site Designed by Ben Markowitz.
Bowen's Cinematic is powered by WordPress.