This film is based on Tahichi Yamada’s novel Strangers. This film does not repeat the plot of the picture exactly as it was in the book. Therefore, if you read the book, and now decided to watch the film adaptation, you may be a little disappointed with what you saw.
But it is, just information so you understand that expectation and reality may be different.
So, Adam (Andrew Scott) lives in a large apartment building, which does not yet have many tenants. Among them is Harry (Paul Mescal). There’s more to the friendship between the guys (KHM, I think you know what kind of friendship it is), and Adam often goes to his parents’ house. But there are no parents.
Why this is so, you will learn from the viewing.
Andrew Hague's film is multifaceted. He talks about many elements of modern society, about the barriers we face. These barriers are completely different. Some build up over the years as a result of a very strong bond between parents and children. Other people build themselves, either intentionally or forced to withdraw from communication with others. Third barriers do not grow at the will of such a person, but at the will of other people. That is, some people do not accept others and the first become a kind of outcast.
As mentioned above, the film is based on the novel Strangers, but Hague used only a small fraction of the novel. The one that connects the main character with his parents. You need to be able to let go and move on. Life is one and must be lived in the present, not the past. Memories are naturally good and even important to all of us. But you need to be able to let go and move on.
In the book, what is clear in the film. Just as we understand the torment of Adam, who was left alone too early. He did not manage to communicate heartily with his father, he did not manage to be honest with his mother, he did not manage to taste the full joy of family holidays.
Returning to his parents’ home is an opportunity for Adam to “get” what he has been deprived of for years. What he never got, and what influenced his adult life.
The story of parents is what comes from the novel. The rest is very similar, if not the confession of the director himself, then it can reflect his own life, some life experience of either himself or someone close to him.
Andrew Hague is gay or, as the character of this picture put it, queer (oh, how it is popular to call things not by their proper names, but by pretentious words to either substitute concepts or mislead).
The events shown in the film are a kind of desire to squeeze a tear from the viewer by demonstrating how lonely and unhappy gay people can be. What problems they may face (as can be seen from Adam’s conversation with his mother), how they can suffer.
In my opinion, the director deliberately focuses on sexual orientation, consciously makes such a choice to show the imperfection of the modern world in relation to queers.
The fact that this world is not perfect for them, you can argue, right? But people of traditional orientation can also be lonely, unhappy, not finding support and understanding in society, right?
But the choice fell on queers. Again, I do not claim that the director pursued the goal mentioned above, this is only my assumption. And perhaps it is no coincidence that writer and director Andrew Hague, who not only directed the film, but also wrote the script for it, called it “his most personal film.”
Infinitely lonely can be not only queer, but also those who have learned the bitterness of unsuccessful relationships (maybe even repeatedly), which can lead to the fact that such a person simply does not want to let anyone into their lives. And that position is understandable. Such singles are represented in this picture.
Two men in an almost empty house, in a big city, the views of which open from the windows (by the way, the whole film was shot in the pavilion and the views outside the window are screens). It seems that loneliness screams stupid, breaks from the soul cell, which has become a permanent home for him.
And such a single person deliberately and voluntarily imprisoned loneliness in himself. Because he's so comfortable. He loves it so much. Be a loner. Loneliness settled in such a person against the background of the experience. And this experience can be much: the loss of loved ones, rejection in society, a creative crisis, finally - the bare walls of an apartment, located as if on another planet, albeit in a metropolis. In the case of Adam, he has accumulated many factors of loneliness.
Attention!
In this picture there are some very explicit scenes between men. Of course, there are no naked genitals, but to some extent these scenes can be called shocking (remember the "most personal film" director). I don’t think you’ll like these episodes.
To be honest, I did not fully master them and rewinded further, because to see two naked men in a hug - for me personally - is a pleasure.
***
The movie is good in itself. Actually. The fact that the main characters - queer - did not particularly like. Overall, the film is good.
But look at you. I do not impose my opinion on anyone.
From the beginning of the film, it would seem that all the cards are open, and the fact that Adam (Andrew Scott) regularly travels to the childhood home to his parents, who, in his own words, died in a car accident when he was a child, is somewhat shocking. Misunderstanding of this situation gradually comes to no, because you begin to immerse all your attention and interest in the long close-up plans of Scott and Mescal, listen to the sensual dialogues of Adam with his parents, who, like in none of the films I have seen, do not reveal so much emotional anguish and pain at the loss of parents.
The whole film is shrouded in warmth and tenderness, sadness, unspokenness between the child and parents, which goes away only because the worst thing happened - their death. There are no more chances of repentance and confession.
The film is candid with its sexual scenes, confessions of homosexuality, and at the same time heartbreaking with its dialogues between Adam and Harry, between Adam and his parents. Andrew Scott's incredible eyes seem to express any emotion, but in this film I saw only pain, anguish and loneliness in his eyes.
This film “foreheadedly” talks about death, homosexuality, loneliness, but reveals this in the piercing looks and monologues of the main characters.
And in one of the final scenes, Paul Mescal's character said, "Why wasn't anyone looking for me?" Where are my mom and dad?
A film about the loneliness of people of non-traditional orientation. How their unusualness (exceptionality) affects the state of the psyche. Deprived of openness, they live in a fictional world and communication with ghosts becomes the norm of their existence. Deprivation of this essence makes their physical existence impossible. You will see how this happens when you watch the movie. He is good in every way and deserves an Oscar.
I knew that at the heart of the film, which tells the story of TV screenwriter Adam, who begins to visit a childhood home and talk in visions with his deceased parents, while at the same time making contact with Harry’s broken neighbor, is a novel by Japanese writer Tahichi Yamada, Strangers. It was already filmed by director Nobuhiko Obayashi in 1988 under the title “Summer with Ghosts”, but I decided to start watching it with the version of Andrew Hay, who once gave us the wonderful “age” drama “45 years” to look at events from his point of view with an unobstructed eye. I ended up with a devastatingly sad, bitter and inexplicably devastating film about the true tragedy of loneliness and the inability to turn back time.
As a screenwriter, Haye perfectly adapted the book to European realities, while maintaining a piercing note of desperation that embraces a person, which creates phantoms that are designed to at least slightly ease the pain of a non-healing wound. Hay usually maintains an important balance between depth and ease, frankness and delicacy, easily penetrating into the hidden corners of someone else’s soul. Paul Mescal after “My Sun” again strikes with phenomenal subtlety in the depiction of deeply hidden tragedy, but I was simply struck by the magnificent Andrew Scott, who managed not only to make him empathize with his Adam, but also to experience some kind of internal catharsis. Thanks to his sensitive, emotional play, he made it possible to realize how traumatic experiences can await many of us in the future, especially those who did not have time to spend as much time with loved ones as possible or were afraid to let a new person into their lives for fear of intimacy. For even if there are defensive ways to work through the traumas of the past, find a semblance of peace with oneself and say goodbye to ghosts, the ruthless thought that things could have been different will be stabbed into consciousness with a sharp knife, repeatedly carving two words into the heart - too late.
The film according to the plot pattern resembles the kaleidoscope of Celine Syamma in “Little Mother”, but only here it is not dashed, but with pressure the internalization of the Society, a kind of leveling of the substructure of the cells, is prescribed. The film is well written with external, not infantile structures, but the conflict part here is weak. That's the main drawback of the painting. The film should be watched because of the original play of Paul Mescal and Andrew Scott. Plus interesting music. There is a metaphor here for Henry David Thoreau’s Walden, or Life in the Woods: If a man is out of step with his companions, it may be because he hears a different drum. Let him walk to the music that he hears, in whatever rhythm it sounds. Good movie. Test. You have to watch. An interesting approach to the problem of loneliness. 👧🧒
After watching the author’s drama Andrew Hay, I got the impression that I got acquainted with the director’s autobiography in the format of a full-length film. Surely there is a kind of background in this, understandable to a narrow circle of people, and therefore it is worth evaluating this work only “in itself”. In fact - quite fascinating, partly fantasy statement about the modern representative of the queer movement, suffering from PTSD and trying to close their "children's Gestalts".
Yes, for someone, such a synopsis, as well as the scenario as a whole, can push away, but the author’s segment is that radical and representative opinions are welcome here. Personally, I was not uncomfortable, and partly even interested in what will happen next in the plot. Chamber action within a semi-empty skyscraper, reflection on childhood traumas, loneliness, as well as reasoning on the topic of letting go of the past, even if it is emotionally and psychologically impossible. An exciting story on a deeply intimate topic that ultimately turns out to be melancholy and sad in the final credits.
The acting work is great: Andrew Scott and Paul Mescal are a beautiful duo that pushes the story forward in every way. Jamie Bell and Claire Foy – the characters of the third plan – dilute the story nicely and add a side branch with a personal loss that stays with you forever. The camera work and installation are good: smooth passages with the camera, the vast majority of close-ups, so that we can see the entire performance as closely as possible. Sound design and post-production ok.
“We are strangers to all” keeps pace with the times and without jackets “broadcasts” from its “Republican bell tower” on the topic of same-sex relations, as well as on modern representatives of the LGBTQ+ movement and their place in modern English society. Replete with a rhythmic script, a good "caste" in the frame, as well as a general bitter-dreary mood, the picture can give you a good pastime for almost two hours. In the regiment "Brokeback Mountain" replenishment, and it can not but rejoice.
Before watching the film, I didn’t know anything about director Andrew Haye, his merits, or his previous work. I was attracted by the mesmerizing views of London and the acting duo of the leading actors – Andrew Scott and Paul Mescal. They both have proven to be great dramatic artists. I began to look in complete ignorance of what awaits me.
From the very beginning, events throw the viewer into one of my favorite dramatic twists in cinema. A stranger comes to your house, who he is and what he needs is a mystery. We are put in an awkward position, making anxious fidgeting in the chair, squinting and embarrassed. Who you are, we don’t really understand either. This plot immediately forms the need to understand, track and get rid of suspense. Who these people are by profession, what they do, I think is not a very important factor, they can be anyone in the outside world. What matters is what they have inside. We don't get that right away. We see how the main character Adam analyzes his past, relationships with his parents, yearns and feels global loneliness. And in this difficult emotional period, he finds a friend. A friend who doesn’t ask questions, doesn’t hurt, listens, is there and offers attention. That's all. And so the conflict of the film ends in a super-short presentation.
In the course of viewing, it sometimes seems that you are watching some kind of film adaptation of Murakami. There is so much intertwining of sleep and reality, past and future. As it turns out, the script is an adaptation of another Japanese author. The Asian mystic-religious view of the world is very accurate here. This is a magical, but at the same time psychological and ethical realism. I'm very familiar with these states of reflection, of despair, of trying to get out of it. When you're just scared to be alone with yourself and your frightening thoughts. You just need someone who will not resist your nature, look and voice. With this role perfectly coped Harry, the hero of Paul Mescal.
Observing natural dialogues, doubts and passions to airy, sparkling and lyrical music, with the help of an accurate attentive camera, super-close-up plans, we make our way through narrow streets of memory and pain, which eventually open up broad hope for salvation in this terrible forgotten world. Thank you to all the filmmakers for showing us that there is a way out. We can handle grief.
The slow jaws of democracy continue to grind cultural values (in this case, eastern ones) and fertilize the soil with the products of their digestion. ' We are strangers to all' - remake of the film Nobuhiko Obayashi 'Summer with ghosts' The novel by Tahichi Yamada, a classic of Japanese literature (the basis of the script of the film), is called ' Summer with Strangers' ' Summer with Strangers' is based on the ideas of traditional Japanese culture, for which communication with ancestral spirits constitutes that connective tissue, the umbilical cord that binds the past and the present.
Hidemi, the main character of the film, a lonely man who lost his parents as a child, meets Fusaku, a girl whose appearance changes his life. The relationship with Fusaku allows Hidemi to break out of the total loneliness in which he found himself after the death of his parents. Obayashi masterfully immerses the viewer in the depths of the mind of the main character, skillfully manipulates the consciousness of the viewer, interfering with reality and dreams.
Director Andrew Haye makes his hero Adam a lonely, dreamy gay screenwriter. What kind of scripts Adam composes is unknown to us, and the director does not explain (you think it yourself, not small ones). Adam moves into a new multi-storey house. The London renovation is going well. There is another man in the house (besides Adam). Harry. Hidemi met Fusaku and Adam met Harry. It's like the Japanese. Almost. Adam and Harry indulge in innocent male pranks (playing ass, sniffing, drinking), and all would be well, only Adam begins to see the parents who died 30 years before the events described. . .
Despite the fact that the director is working on a subpoena (replacing the girl Fusaka with a bearded boy Harry), and the gay theme is not close to me, I liked the film. This movie is about total, cosmic loneliness (this explains the final scene). This movie is about how hard it is to open up to another person, to get close to someone. The pain we feel when we lose loved ones. It's about how we don't value them, immersed in our petty, everyday worries. How much we have to say to each other in the short time allotted to us on this earth.
The film genre is stated as 'fantasy'. From fantasy I expected: hairy men with swords at the top, dragons with huge eggs, masculine women with dragon eggs, the ringing of spears, the roar of slaying monsters, intrigue, promiscuity ... All the things that we love about this genre. And here is the story of a little scared boy who is desperately looking for some support in life, and gradually goes crazy with loneliness. Loneliness, loneliness, loneliness - this is the most used word of the characters of the film.
Adam does what the followers of Sigmund call transference. He associates Harry with the figure of his father. They even look alike. Adam not only needs a lover, he needs someone to replace his father. Fear of real life, the devastation of loneliness, the confusion of reality and hallucinations, the inability to distinguish reality from painful delirium - the director managed to create a piercing canvas, and convey the pain of the main character.
Andrew Scott is in good physical and acting shape. He is all so sweet, groomed, sporty, flaunts triceps and biceps, bronze tan and white teeth. Plays very well, with tears, feelings, tears. I believe him, I believe in this pain, and this horror of loneliness. Harry plays Mescal, a young Irish talent. Mescal has a lush (like a SA junior sergeant) mustache, and the oily eyes of the dining room attendant. Western critics have prophesied a statuette of a gilded dummy for this role, but I was more impressed by Scott. The director should take the role of Harry that guy with a gastronomic name, who played Sherlock. Am I the only one who felt the erotic tension between Moriarty and Sherlock? Moriarty would have had a chance to get revenge and fuck... I mean, take revenge for a third season.
Bottom line.
Very painful, very good. Despite the blind transfer of the Japanese novel to English soil.
