PDA

View Full Version : (Video) "Before and After"


Fergus
02-01-2002, 07:53 PM
Before and After
Director: Barbet Shroeder
Cast: Meryl Streep, Liam Neeson, Edward Furlong, John Heard, Alfred Molina.
PG13/1996/106 minutes.

"Your whole life can change in a second, and you never even know when it's coming."

Things change, people change, and obviously, movie plots never change. That is the problem that plagues Barbet Shroeder's Before and After. Furlong is a good kid. He does well in school, and is well trusted by his parents. One night he doesn't come home, and instead of their son returning, the police show up telling the parents that their son is the main suspect in the death of a local girl; the local girl was his girlfriend, and only a few people knew about it. The father, played by Liam Neeson, immediately tries to cover-up any evidence relating to the supposed murder. The motives of the father are still confusing, and are not backed up by later scenes in the film. The father hadn't been getting along well with his son, and that makes it more puzzling as to why he covered up evidence to protect his son. The reason why Schroeder picked such a troubled script is beyond my thinking, because he made such a great film, Reversal of Fortune, years before.

The story wishes to convey this mystery and show the aftermath of the family's mistakes. The scenes are compelling but, based upon believability, they fail miserably. Liam Neeson is a decent actor, but his part is incredibly one-dimensional, underwritten, and overplayed. Furlong's acting abilities are considerably lacking, and didn't work because he sounds like he is still stuck in puberty (which he probably was), and made me want to laugh each time he talked. His performance her is nowhere near the performance in American History X. Also, the daughter is terribly cast, and underplayed. However, Streep is the one actor who succeeds in playing her character with the right amount of depth and believability; the only character I actually liked.

There is one really great scene in the middle of the film, when Furlong reveals to his parents the events that led up to the death of his girlfriend. It is especially creepy, set agains the backdrop of a snowy landscape. For some reason, Schroeder succeeds very well in creating effective flashback sequences; if you need a better example, go watch the aforementioned Reversal of Fortune. As for the rest of the film, it only succeeds halfway in believably creating this family, their struggles against the rest of the town, with themselves, and the law. However, the realistic conclusion redeems itself for the many mistakes made throughout the course of the film. Schroeder doesn't succeed in creating a believable film, but he tries, and that leaves me somewhere, stranded in the middle of the road, as to what to think of it.

*** out of five.



[This message has been edited by Fergus (edited 02-06-2002).]

Kavan
02-02-2002, 05:29 AM
"What is the nature of guilt?" "Does a parent have a duty to help their child avoid what could be an unjust punishment or a moral responsibility to teach them to face up to the aftermath of their decision?

These are some of the questions that haunt Before and After. Streep and Neeson are an upscale couple with two kids. The family is enduring strains but nothing prepares them for the night the police come to tell them a girl has died and their son is the main suspect.

The reactions of the parents are dramatically different. Neeson wants to hide his son and help him avoid the police and such. But Streep begins to be troubled. She feels it's detrimental to their son to encourage him to not make some sort of penance for what he's done.

I think the ideas in Before and After are very interesting. How does a family react to such a life alterting event? But the execution is somewhat muddled.

Neeson is a good actor but I really never got where his character was coming from. As Fergus said he and his son had been fueding. Was his help an effort to reach out to the boy or simply the normal actions of a parent? Edward Furlong was probably the right age in terms of the narrative but acting wise he really didn't have the goods at this point to carry the complexity of the script.

As Fergus says the main reason to see this is Meryl Streep. She gives a great and yet agnoized performance. She wants to help everyone and yet at times she doesn't know what's right or wrong. Her confusion and desire to do the right thing not just for her son but for everyone really saves the film.

6/10

ilovemovies
02-03-2002, 06:34 AM
I found the movie to be a pretty big disappointment. #1, I found the outcome of the story of what really happened to be absurd and implausable. And #2, although both Meryl Streep and Liam Neeson turned in strong performances here (Neeson in particular) but Furlong's work is a disappointment. All he does is frown and act grumpy the whole time without any real depth. It is a note performance
Grade: C+