Because the first Whicher film was based on a true story, it was limited by the facts, and wound up anticlimactic. The filmmakers then made three fictional movies for Whicher, but this didn't really solve matters. They were a mix of melodrama, average content, and sensationalism trying to appeal to modern viewers (e.g. plots about incest or illegitimacy, and of course the burdened or "tragic" hero).
That brings us to the third of these, "Beyond the Pale." At least one critic complained that its lighting was too dark. The previous movies certainly had that problem--with investigation scenes, for instance, straining our eyes by being shot in dingy, dark rooms. But "Beyond the Pale" was the first that actually used dark lighting in a good way, creating some moody, well-crafted sequences.
I'm afraid that's all I can say in favor of this movie. Supposedly a detective story, its purpose is actually to pander to modern viewers' politics. It does this by taking the social justice wars of today and staging them in the distant past so we can watch righteous Victorians fight for 21st century liberal values in the Victorian Age. Unlikely to say the least, and eye-rolling TV, but it's a common mistake these days.
As the pun in the title indicates, darkness and lightness prove central to "Beyond the Pale" in another way, as the plot examines issues of racism. The conflict comes down to a custody battle between a white man living in England, and the Indian woman who wants to bring the kids back to her home country. He's a politician from a rich, powerful upper class family, but he has wronged her in various ways. The film starts to portray him as a complex character, but soon throws this away by turning him into a criminal weirdo.
I checked the Spoilers box as a formality, but you'd call the ending anyway. (What, you didn't really think the kids were going to stay with their English dad, did you?) Sure, the mom is powerless and has no legal rights, being a non-citizen. The Brits hold all the cards, and the dad is an upper class white male politician powerful enough to treat the Indian woman callously and get away with it. But for these same reasons, a 21st century TV thriller is guaranteed to make him lose. The Indian wins over him and her in-laws by giving a liberal righteous speech, in which the filmmakers all but paint a halo over her head. What a fantasy!
The cold truth is that in real life, all the English characters--Whicher included--would do everything they could to keep the kids in England, no exception. Why wouldn't they? They have the power. And with or without racism, they'd be nationalist enough to choose England. From their POV, there's no reason to throw away the privileges of raising the kids in England with their rich, powerful white upper class family, with an English education and a promising future in the English elite.
These Whicher movies are mediocre, a waste of Paddy Considine, an excellent actor with great presence.
That brings us to the third of these, "Beyond the Pale." At least one critic complained that its lighting was too dark. The previous movies certainly had that problem--with investigation scenes, for instance, straining our eyes by being shot in dingy, dark rooms. But "Beyond the Pale" was the first that actually used dark lighting in a good way, creating some moody, well-crafted sequences.
I'm afraid that's all I can say in favor of this movie. Supposedly a detective story, its purpose is actually to pander to modern viewers' politics. It does this by taking the social justice wars of today and staging them in the distant past so we can watch righteous Victorians fight for 21st century liberal values in the Victorian Age. Unlikely to say the least, and eye-rolling TV, but it's a common mistake these days.
As the pun in the title indicates, darkness and lightness prove central to "Beyond the Pale" in another way, as the plot examines issues of racism. The conflict comes down to a custody battle between a white man living in England, and the Indian woman who wants to bring the kids back to her home country. He's a politician from a rich, powerful upper class family, but he has wronged her in various ways. The film starts to portray him as a complex character, but soon throws this away by turning him into a criminal weirdo.
I checked the Spoilers box as a formality, but you'd call the ending anyway. (What, you didn't really think the kids were going to stay with their English dad, did you?) Sure, the mom is powerless and has no legal rights, being a non-citizen. The Brits hold all the cards, and the dad is an upper class white male politician powerful enough to treat the Indian woman callously and get away with it. But for these same reasons, a 21st century TV thriller is guaranteed to make him lose. The Indian wins over him and her in-laws by giving a liberal righteous speech, in which the filmmakers all but paint a halo over her head. What a fantasy!
The cold truth is that in real life, all the English characters--Whicher included--would do everything they could to keep the kids in England, no exception. Why wouldn't they? They have the power. And with or without racism, they'd be nationalist enough to choose England. From their POV, there's no reason to throw away the privileges of raising the kids in England with their rich, powerful white upper class family, with an English education and a promising future in the English elite.
These Whicher movies are mediocre, a waste of Paddy Considine, an excellent actor with great presence.