While the acting is great, I found the characters themselves weren’t defined by anything other than their drug use. The only thing we know about the main pair, aside from their addiction, is that Candy is a painter and Dan is a poet (neither activity we see much of during the movie). This severely confines the performances from being more effective. For one, it limits any redeeming characteristics Ledger’s character may have. It’s no mystery why Candy would fall for him (a.k.a. he looks like Heath Ledger and can recite romantic poetry), but for the majority of the movie Dan is just a worthless guy who sits around while his girl sells herself to support them. Secondly, it makes it much easier to sympathize with Candy’s parents over the main couple. If my daughter threw her life away for some unemployed crackhead, I’d probably be pissed off too.
The result is a well-executed film that lacks enough development and distinctiveness to make it stand out from other drug movies like TRAINSPOTTING or REQUIEM FOR A DREAM.
Commentary by director Neil Armfield and writer Luke Davies: Two soft-spoken Australians with nothing much to say makes for a rea…Zzzzzzzzzzzzz
Writing on the Wall: Candy’s Story in Motion (2:20): At one point in the film, the titular character goes a little crazy and writes a narrative poem on the walls of her house. It’s presented here in it’s entirety with glorified subtitles.
Candy: The Path to Wild Abandon (8:40): Just your average behind-the-scenes feature with cast and crew interviews.
A Theatrical Trailerand some Previews.
Extra Tidbit: At one point in the movie, Ledger’s character argues that there’s no way he can work as a gay crackwhore, because he’d “be hopeless at that gay stuff.” I think Jake Gyllenhaal would beg to differ, Heath…