Review: Hereafter

Matt Damon stars as a man with apparent psychic abilities (and a fondness for Charles Dickens). His brother (a surprisingly low-key Jay Mohr) wants him to use his abilities to make money, but Damon has tired of it. It especially makes life difficult for Damon when he wants to have a ‘normal’ relationship, such as with his cooking class partner Bryce Dallas Howard, who quickly disappears once Damon’s psychic readings hone in on childhood abuse at the hands of her father. Meanwhile, French TV presenter Cecile De France undergoes a dramatic change when she has first-hand experience with a tsunami. She goes under the water, starts to see some vague images of shadowy figures and a bright light as she comes dangerously close to death. Or perhaps momentarily ‘crosses over’, before being resuscitated. She subsequently struggles to come to grips with just what it is she experienced, and it starts to affect her work and her relationship with Thierry Neuvic. Frankie and George McLaren play British kids with a drug-addicted mother, whom they are about to be taken from by child welfare. A cruel twist of fate (and hooligan violence) sees one of the boys dead, and the other left with questions he’s having a hard time getting answers to. Stephen R. Schirripa (the loveable butcher father on “Secret Life of the American Teenager”, which I swear I don’t watch every week) plays the cooking class teacher, Richard Kind is a grieving widow whom Damon does a reading for, Derek Jacobi has a bizarre cameo as himself at a book signing, and Marthe Keller (where the hell has she been lately?) is a doctor at a Swiss hospital, who tells of people with similar visions and possible afterlife experiences to De France’s.

I’ll sometimes admire a film that tries for something grand or different and doesn’t quite pull it off, to the point where I’ll actually give it a recommendation. Such is the case with this 2010 offering from the increasingly eclectic and surprising filmmaker Clint Eastwood (“Play Misty for Me”, “White Hunter, Black Heart”, “Million Dollar Baby”). Even though the film ends in a disappointing fashion, even though I’m a pretty staunch agnostic atheist, I still found most of this film interesting, reasonable, and thoughtful enough for the rest of the film’s length that I couldn’t live with myself if I taxed it too much. Let’s face it, no one really knows what happens when we die, so one person’s guess is as valid as the next person’s (So long as they don’t try to pressure someone into accepting it as fact when it is unknowable one way or the other).

The real surprise to me was how Eastwood and screenwriter Peter Morgan (“The Queen”, “Frost/Nixon”, “The Last King of Scotland”), the latter an apparent sceptic of the afterlife, treat Damon’s supposed ‘gift’ in the film. Aside from one moment in one scene where it appears that Damon is faking his abilities for a good purpose, his psychic abilities are treated as though they are real. Eastwood even offers up a bunch of ‘phony’ psychics, suggesting that Damon’s character is nothing like them. Having said that, the film does not offer any explanation or even any real details about them. Hell, he stops short of actually confirming that Damon is for real, just strongly suggesting it. Nor is there any definable religious connotation to what Damon reportedly sees (nor anyone else in the film for that matter). An afterlife doesn’t need to have anything to do with heaven, necessarily. The former is necessary so that the protagonist can be seen as likeable enough to spend two hours with and invest in his story, and the latter is important in making the whole thing palatable to even sceptics and atheists such as myself.

A good cast helps. Matt Damon is one of the best actors of his generation and is utterly believable (even if I don’t believe in psychics), and completely sympathetic as this man who’d sooner forego his ‘gift’ in favour of being able to actually have a normal life and human intimacy. It’s good casting because Damon doesn’t give off any ‘psychic medium’ vibes in his screen persona or performance, he plays the role somewhat straight and (not sure if this is the right word but I’ll go with it) honest. I liked that, because it grounded what could otherwise be extremely silly stuff. Cecile De France is terrific as a woman who starts out sunny and vibrant, then after encountering tragedy, near-fatality, and a possible glimpse of the hereafter, is a slightly changed woman. De France enacts that transition perfectly. The McLaren twins also make a strong impression as Marcus and Jason, especially Frankie McLaren as the brother left behind. His near-silent interpretation of a grief-stricken young boy looking desperately for closure is absolutely heartbreaking. There’s also an unforgettable appearance by Bryce Dallas Howard (never better) as a potential mate for Damon’s, who ends up regretting asking him for a psychic reading. It’s an extremely sad scene (Even though, when you think about it, Damon should’ve seen it coming and prevented it from happening, not to mention he should’ve filtered his psychic findings before telling Howard verbatim). The way the relationship is set up, you’re expecting one thing, and then Eastwood and Morgan cruelly pull the rug right out under you, and it really hurts, just as it must hurt Damon.

Special mention must be made of the film’s opening scenes which depict the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami in such a convincing and vivid way that it is much more effective and affecting than your typical Hollywood natural disaster scene (Maybe because it’s based on something that really happened, or maybe it’s just bloody well done).

The film definitely has its flaws, I cannot deny that. One relatively minor, but still shocking complaint is when De France goes to a Swiss hospital, and for a brief time, looks into a room and watches as a family are surrounding their ill-stricken loved one in their dying moments. This scene, whilst extremely brief, angered me. I have no idea why Eastwood included this scene, but I find it an abhorrent invasion of privacy for De France to sit there and view such a private moment of loss, something that momentarily took me out of the film, because I didn’t believe anyone in their right mind would do such a thing. I’m shocked that none of the reviews I’ve read of this film, nor the IMDb message boards have taken notice of this. It doesn’t negatively impact on the entire filmic experience, but I honestly couldn’t believe my eyes for a moment there.

I also found the cameo by Derek Jacobi as himself to be...hell, I don’t know what that was meant to be about. Maybe he and Clint are old pals? Either way, it was a very clunky and awkward cameo that stood out like a sore thumb. It just didn’t seem necessary or organic to the story.

The way the film is structured is an issue. It at first appears to be so leisurely paced that by the time Morgan and Eastwood try to connect the three story strands, there’s not enough running time left to come to a satisfying conclusion for all three parties and the audience. However, at a moment’s thought, I think it’s really the audience’s satisfaction (or lack thereof) which is the problem. Everything leading up to the climax is definitely satisfying, which is why I’m willing to give it a good score for having worked for ¾ of its length. But we’ve come to like and care about the main characters in each of the three story strands, to the point where the resolution for all three just doesn’t satisfy the audience. One of the three main characters is left without any real closure, whilst the other two end up in something more befitting a romantic comedy. For a heavy drama about the afterlife, grief, and loss, it’s not nearly enough. Not only that, but because those two characters only come into contact right at the end, the supposedly satisfying (and presumably soon-to-be romantic) payoff isn’t warranted, plausible, nor satisfying at all.

So I’m left unsure whether to read the film as having a structural flaw that renders the entire film unsuccessful, or simply that Eastwood and Morgan don’t follow through all the engaging build up with a satisfying denouement, and thus it’s merely a good film with a dud ending. I’ll go with the latter, because I enjoyed the film more than not, so it seems kinda wrong to look at it from a ‘glass half empty’ stance.

If there’s anything that really does disappoint, it’s that after getting to the end of the film that one has thus far enjoyed, I was left not really knowing what the point was or what was really being said. It’s as if Eastwood and Morgan had this great idea and lots of interesting themes, but never quite got around to finding an ultimate raison d’être, but decided to go ahead and make the film anyway. Maybe it was the right decision, as the journey for me was enjoyable enough to ultimately forgive the unsatisfying destination, but I can’t imagine this film having much replay value. I’m not sure I could go through the journey time after time, only to be continually disappointed and unsatisfied by how it ends. Still, it’s an interesting film, especially given its usually macho source. Eastwood, in his 80s now, is turning into a much more interesting, and varied filmmaker than actor, if you ask me.

Rating: B-