South Solitary
July 28th 2010 03:55
by Matt Shea
*This image is from South Solitary
The writer-director bug strikes again in South Solitary, a film that promises much in its first half but has ultimately delivered very little by the time the credits roll.
Shirley Barrett’s story of a 35-year-old spinster who ends up marooned on a desolate island with only a sullen and withdrawn assistant lighthouse keeper as company is beautifully mounted and crackles with an early humour, but some significant structural problems prevent it from ever being truly involving or convincing.
Miranda Otto plays Meredith, who arrives at the isolated lighthouse island of South Solitary in 1927 to assist her uncle Wadsworth (Barry Otto) in his newly appointed position as head lighthouse keeper. Meredith has never married, a fact she accepts with outward stoicism but inner embarrassment, and acts as her uncle’s faithful secretary despite his continual scorn and nonexistent affection.
On the island already are the roguish assistant keeper Harry Stanley (Rohan Nichol), his frosty wife Alma (Essie Davis), their three children, and also another assistant keeper, the withdrawn and fidgety Fleet (Marton Csokas). An awkward wallflower, Meredith struggles to find her place among these strangers, but when Stanley begins to show signs of being attracted to her it kicks off a series of events that will turn everyone’s lives upside down.
In its early scenes, South Solitary bubbles along in style, an engaging and well-chosen cast fitting into a pitch perfect representation of late 1920s Australia. There’s some fine technical work, courtesy of DOP Anna Howard and production designer Paul Heath, while Barrett’s script deftly sketches the key character points and relationships.
But everything comes to an ungodly halt at about the halfway point. The premise seems to suddenly change and the engagingly oddball nature of the early reels switches to a much more contemplative and claustrophobic second period.
It’s unclear as to what Barrett was trying to do with her screenplay: either she simply decided to switch things up or, more likely, the writer-director let her first act go on for far too long. The whole film seems to have a crisis of confidence, and while it throws the audience it also affects the character development, strong early work coming to naught as the arcs flatten out into nothing substantial at all. When South Solitary reaches some sort of point of climax, you’re beyond caring.
Shirley Barrett’s story of a 35-year-old spinster who ends up marooned on a desolate island with only a sullen and withdrawn assistant lighthouse keeper as company is beautifully mounted and crackles with an early humour, but some significant structural problems prevent it from ever being truly involving or convincing.
Miranda Otto plays Meredith, who arrives at the isolated lighthouse island of South Solitary in 1927 to assist her uncle Wadsworth (Barry Otto) in his newly appointed position as head lighthouse keeper. Meredith has never married, a fact she accepts with outward stoicism but inner embarrassment, and acts as her uncle’s faithful secretary despite his continual scorn and nonexistent affection.
On the island already are the roguish assistant keeper Harry Stanley (Rohan Nichol), his frosty wife Alma (Essie Davis), their three children, and also another assistant keeper, the withdrawn and fidgety Fleet (Marton Csokas). An awkward wallflower, Meredith struggles to find her place among these strangers, but when Stanley begins to show signs of being attracted to her it kicks off a series of events that will turn everyone’s lives upside down.
In its early scenes, South Solitary bubbles along in style, an engaging and well-chosen cast fitting into a pitch perfect representation of late 1920s Australia. There’s some fine technical work, courtesy of DOP Anna Howard and production designer Paul Heath, while Barrett’s script deftly sketches the key character points and relationships.
But everything comes to an ungodly halt at about the halfway point. The premise seems to suddenly change and the engagingly oddball nature of the early reels switches to a much more contemplative and claustrophobic second period.
It’s unclear as to what Barrett was trying to do with her screenplay: either she simply decided to switch things up or, more likely, the writer-director let her first act go on for far too long. The whole film seems to have a crisis of confidence, and while it throws the audience it also affects the character development, strong early work coming to naught as the arcs flatten out into nothing substantial at all. When South Solitary reaches some sort of point of climax, you’re beyond caring.
It’s a pity, because the film has plenty in its favour. Besides the technical achievements, the filmmakers managed to collect a fantastic cast. Barry Otto is terrific as Wadsworth and Nichol gets his tone just right as the slippery Stanley. Csokas should at this point need no introduction, the kiwi actor bringing all his intimidating charisma to bear on the role of the damaged Fleet. Miranda Otto too provides a nice reminder of her quality as a performer, although she can’t quite topple the flaws written into her character.
If South Solitary had seen a few more revisions at the scripting phase it could have been something truly special. Even a clever editing job might have saved the film. As it is, however, this is the work of yet another Australian filmmaker who’d do well to at least share the screenwriting duties with someone else.
I say: A film with plenty of technical craft on display but one that’s ultimately sunk by a wonky screenplay.
See it for: Csokas, who could pick his nose and still be fascinating to watch.
If South Solitary had seen a few more revisions at the scripting phase it could have been something truly special. Even a clever editing job might have saved the film. As it is, however, this is the work of yet another Australian filmmaker who’d do well to at least share the screenwriting duties with someone else.
I say: A film with plenty of technical craft on display but one that’s ultimately sunk by a wonky screenplay.
See it for: Csokas, who could pick his nose and still be fascinating to watch.
*This image is from South Solitary
| 179 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog


























Comment by Always Eighteen
Always Eighteen
Comment by David O'Connell
Screen Fanatic
To be honest mate I've never been one to subscribe to the theory about well-placed, high-profile Australian critics artificially pumping local product to salvage some dignity at the box office but after watching At the Movies the other night I'm finally starting to change my tune. Mr. Stratton is one in particular whose had cynics pointing the finger at him in the past on many occasions and well, to be honest, his review of this film was the most laugh-out-loud garbage I've ever heard. I know our reactions to films are highly subjective and all that but seriously, calling this film " very special, and in its way, quite a daring one".
Who the hell is he kidding? I know his rejection of modern sensibilities in films such as Kick-Ass and others has been glaring this year but he's either totally lost touch with the modern world or he's greasing somebody's pole here.
Apologies for the rant BTW.
Comment by JohnDoe
Film & TV on DVD
This one wasn't on my radar and doesn't sound like I need to rush and see it either.
Comment by Matt Shea
20/20 Filmsight
Dave - yeah, I probably didn't loath this quite as much as you, but I did come away from it totally baffled. Baffled too by Stratton's comments on ATM last week - I had tears when they cut to Margaret looking at him like he was Jeff Goldblum out of The Fly. As a friend of mine said, Neil Marshall's best work is probably behind him, but I will be checking out Centurion almost because Dave disliked it so much.
Cheers JD - yeah, steer clear, and check out Dave's (O'Connell... not Stratton) review here if you in any way feel like I need some back-up.
Comment by Anonymous
the photography is euphoria-inducing, and the length of the film is a great asset. funny how one reviewer complained that the first half was too long, yet the supporting cast departed to fast. which was it- after a long slow first half, or a too-brief sojourn?? inconsistent criticisms and poorly thought-out ones. like the numbskull who thought that the development of passion for miranda's character by nichol's was unconvincing... THAT WAS THE POINT, dufus.
this film is very honest, psychologically flaying almost, not so easy to watch, and i think it's that that is the main sticking point. it's not the sort of film for people who are in the headspace where 'not on my radar' could possibly sound convincing. dig a lot deeper why don't you. and go and demolish some 3 act hollywood shite. why subject this beautiful film, a real labour of love, to your complacent, facile bullshit?
Comment by Mountain Fog
Actually, I have no personal opinion on the matter, as I have not seen it, but, I admit I find anon's command of caustic wit rather attractive.
However, anon, I do not agree that you can slag off two dedicated and intelligent reviewers just because they disagree with your own opinion, for it makes you appear a just a tad puerile and neurotic.
At the end of the day, if you have such strong opinions, why post as 'anonymous'? Or are you a regular and you usually correspond with these Orblers on friendly terms? If so, then show some gumption and post under your moniker.
That's all I have to say, pity, feeling like a good spat at the moment, just drove two and a half hours through traffic, after seeing a preview which did not live up to expectations.... sigh...
cheers
fog
Comment by David O'Connell
Screen Fanatic
And "Anon", you gutless nameless wonder, many thanks for the biggest laugh I've had all week!
"this film will be as a soul mate spotted in a multitude of morons"
"euphoria-inducing"
Some gold there friend amongst your facile ranting, none of which can alter the fact that South Solitary is indeed a painfully mediocre, bordering on awful film - though, yes, undoubtedly a labour of love I have no doubt.
You must be related to somebody involved with the film, yes?
Comment by Mountain Fog
and I didn't think of that, I think you are right, it must be someone connected with the film!
Hmmm...makes me vewwwy tempted to review it myself... feel just in the mood to vent some bile! tee hee!!
cheers
fog
Comment by David O'Connell
Screen Fanatic