A HOME AT THE END OF THE WORLD
Directed by Michael Mayer; written by Michael Cunningham based on his novel; cinematography by Enrique Chediak; editing by Andrew Marcus and Lee Percy
With: Colin Farrell, Dallas Roberts, Robin Wright Penn, Sissy Spacek, Ryan Donowho, Wendy Crewson, Matt Frewer, Erik Smith, Harris Allan, and Andrew Chalmers. Rated R for strong drug content, sexuality, nudity, language, and a disturbing accident. Running time: 99 Minutes



Reviewed by Joel Johnson

One of the big critical hits of 2002 was the film The Hours, based on a 1998 novel by Michael Cunningham. Undoubtedly, the success of The Hours helped Mr. Cunningham get his script based on his 1990 novel, A Home at the End of the World, made into a film. He and director Michael Mayer were also able to get A-lister Colin Farrell for one of the leads and recruit two fabulous actresses, Robin Wright Penn and Sissy Spacek, for supporting roles. So what can we say about the film?

The most burning questions about A Home at the End of the World seem to be if cutting footage of Colin Farrell’s exposed manhood improved the film, and for what reason was this done. The official explanation is that it was cut because it was distracting to test audiences, and it was rumored that this was because of its magnificence (i.e., size). Skeptics may feel that an opposite appraisal of the size may have likewise been found to cause “distraction.” While this controversy could bolster sales of an upcoming DVD edition—perhaps not the initial edition released, but the super-special uncut and added features version—one has the idea that basing the film’s success on footage with or without a penis is the equivalent of basing the success or failure of the Red Sox on some quality attributed to their batboy. Maybe there’s another reason for the reference to “distraction.”

That reason may be to distract people from noting that A Home at the End of the World isn’t a very good movie. Yet, it’s not really a bad movie either. The film starts in 1967 Cleveland with nine-year-old Bobby Morrow (Andrew Chalmers) awaking to strange sounds in the night. His investigation leads him to his big brother Carlton’s (Ryan Donowho) bedroom where he discovers him in flagrante delicto with his girlfriend. Amazingly, the older brother is totally nonplussed by the interruption that sends the girlfriend skittering out the window. It is the imprint of the personality of Bobby’s free-spirited (though some might shudder at his potentially dangerous influence) older brother that pervades the entire film. In short order, Bobby’s idyllic 60s home begins to collapse. Inadvertently, he causes the accidental death of his beloved brother. Off-camera, his mom (Wendy Crewson, in a cameo appearance) passes away. The film makes a time-jump, and Bobby’s now a fourteen year old (Erik Smith) living with his heretofore offscreen dad. He makes friends with geeky classmate Jonathan Glover (Harris Allan) and cuts through his friend’s mother’s (Sissy Spacek) parental veneer to befriend her as well. The boys have some furtive sexual escapades with each other. When Bobby’s father suddenly dies in his sleep, the orphan Bobby becomes a member of the Glover family. Bobby fits so well into his new reconstituted family that his friend/brother Jonathan feels displaced by the late-coming sibling. The film jumps another several years ahead to the early 80s, and Bobby (Farrell) is being told by his surrogate father (Matt Frewer) that he and Alice (Spacek) are going to retire to Arizona. The not-so-subtle hint is that Bobby needs to start establishing a life on his own. He decides to move to New York City to move in with Jonathan (Dallas Roberts). What he and the audience find out is that Jonathan is gay, living in a platonic relationship with leftover hippie hat-maker Clare (Robin Wright Penn). Wright Penn’s beauty is well hidden beneath hair selectively dyed with colors not normally within the human hair color spectrum and under clothes that even a thrift store would have to put on the discount rack. Despite their sexual misorientation, Clare and Jonathan talk about having a child together. The three start living together. However, while Jonathan is active in the gay scene, the impatient Clare discovers that sexual novice Bobby is appropriately oriented to be interested in her. The story then takes off to Arizona before ending up in upstate New York. Typically, nearly every triad devolves into a dyad plus one. Will this happen, and who will stay connected?

The writer takes us on a strange journey with these people as families are lost, found, lost, and found again. One watches with curiosity as the events unfold, but one doesn’t have much emotional investment in the outcomes for any of the characters. Is one rooting for Bobby and Jonathan? Bobby and Clare? Jonathan and Clare? Or for the trio to beat the odds and stay intact? Sadly, the answer is that one feels basically indifferent. One senses that everything that has occurred has happened because the writer willed them to occur and not because the characters and the events have an organic inevitability. The actors are doing their best to make the story work, but the story itself is working against them. There are too many actions that cut against the expected response (starting with the interrupted tryst of Bobby’s brother and the teenaged Bobby inducing Jonathan’s mom to smoke pot) and too many things that are unexplained (how has an adventurous, seemingly cool Bobby—who looks like Colin Farrell—managed to avoid a sexual relationship with anyone until his midtwenties?) and unmotivated (exactly what is it that heterosexual Clare sees in homosexual Jonathan anyway?). The film alludes to the emergence of AIDS as a deadly disease affecting gay men (like Jonathan), but never directly introduces AIDS. There are no news reports about it, no friends who become sick, and no diagnostic workup. If one has forgotten that a skin lesion called Kaposi sarcoma is related to AIDS (a late-stage symptom of the disease) and that the time frame is the Reagan era, it may be possible to miss the AIDS reference altogether. Because the allusion to AIDS is so out of context, it is not clear what significance the audience should give it. Ultimately, the film doesn’t reach a resolution, it just simply stops. This type of ending is usually frustrating because the audience wants to know more about what happens to the characters, but for me this was okay because I was starting to get bored with them and didn’t really care.

That last sentence probably tells you just about all you need to know in assessing the film. This is a film full of unconventional people trying to find a sense of belonging—a place to call home. It is not particularly painful to walk alongside these folks even if one feels that elements of the journey are purely naked constructs of the writer. One doesn’t truly feel involved with them nor is one enlightened by accompanying them. However, if one has paid for full-price admission at the movie theatre, one may feel somewhat cheated, and this might cause some pain. Better to wait for the video/DVD release—the rental will be cheaper than a movie ticket, and there the inquiring minds may just find out what’s so distracting about Colin Farrell’s manhood.  

 

5 1/2" x 5" 2009 Wolf Moon Calendar just $11.00 each
More Info

More Info

© Wolf Moon Press 2002-2008 all rights reserved.

Submission Guidelines