Hereafter
Hereafter
Directed by Clint Eastwood
Runtime: 129 min.
Too bad the trailer for Hereafter doesnt reveal how grindingly torpid this movie is. It opens with a CGI action scene in which Marie (Cecile de France), a French woman vacationing in South East Asia, is killed when her resort is swamped by a tidal wave. After she revives, the death experience leaves her freaked out. I think most viewers will experience the remaining two-plus hours as something like stillbirth.
Director Clint Eastwood stages that out-of-the-blue tsunami so that it moves like a glacier. (His F/X team devise an apocalyptic tableau in which people attempt out-running the giant wave.) Its creeping pace and gruesome details are just the beginning of Eastwoods crushingly dull fatuousness. He gives a drab, realistic tone to the next plot strandthe central story of George (Matt Damon), a reluctant clairvoyant in San Francisco, who shirks his ability to talk to the dead. Very slowly, Eastwood alternates between scenes of Georges skepticism and Maries bewilderment. He then adds a high-pathos third plot: Marcus (George McLaren), an inarticulate English boy who longs to communicate with his dead twin brother.
Between Georges religious doubt, Maries befuddlement and Marcus despair, Hereafter takes its characters spiritual confusion about whats on the other side of life and uses it to wax sentimental about loneliness and grief. As freaky-creepy as Changeling where Eastwood combined mother-love with serial killing, its a lugubrious version of that old Saturday Night Live routine Deep Thoughts.
But Hereafter is really full of half-thoughts. As with Woody Allens You Will Meet a Tall, Dark Stranger, its difficult to tell if this film confronts belief or if disbelief simply is being given the upper hand. Clint and Woody are not wide-eyed, hopeful zealots; they both ridicule occult practitioners and seem to share fashionable, anti-religious cynicism. And it spreads to their misuse of actors. Georges doubt about his special ability (Its not a gift, its a curse!) merely seems ornery; playing a common, blue-collar mans crisis of faith brings out the most condescending acting of Damons career so far. Maries career woman chic recalls Julie Christie's exotic alertness yet every scene knocks her about physically or emotionally, punishing de Frances beauty. Little Marcus must be the saddest looking child in the history of movies: he has droopy eyes and a perpetual pallor. Theres no spark of childhood sensitivity or longing; McLaren simply mopes.
Pretending profundity, Eastwood piles on bleak thoughts. His solemn heavy-handed method is so artless and inexpressive it's almost primitive. The English twin-brothers death scene repeats the same crane-rising camera movement and forlorn look to the sky that turned Mystic Rivers funeral scene into a joke. Eastwoods self-composed tinkly piano score (not subtle, just amateurish) embarrassingly accompanies Marcus separation from his drug-addict Mom. Scenes of Maries adultery with her married TV producer (Thierry Neuvic) imply a moral judgment yet Peter Morgans script neglects her spiritual awakening; shes more lost than everuntil a depressed Cupid effects a hoary Hollywood ending. All these calculated convergencesshowing everyones common fate--suggests Claude Lelouch without charm.
Theres no mystical quality to Eastwoods drab depiction of spiritual searchingits emptiness is deliberate. Despite the global storyline, Eastwood and cinematographer Tom Stern make Asia, England, France and America all glum-looking. Its that unvaried, bland realism of Eastwoods other hackneyed, unimaginative films (especially the war diptych Flags of Our Fathers and Letters From Iwo Jima); that same green-plus-shadow visual scheme: color photography so lackluster it looks black and white. Only the brief opening shot, containing the image of a pink tropical flower, has any bit of liveliness. Eastwoods such an unimaginative hack, in love with his own obstinacy, that he keeps this pretense at exploring higher consciousness horror-movie dark.
Have critics forgotten everything they valued in moviespace, beauty, cogency, feelingwhen it comes to Eastwood? Treating this dirge as a profound event demonstrates the cinema establishments willingness to stunt their own expectations and dreams by accepting Eastwoods paltry cliches, his secular piety. Georges visions, like Maries experience of the afterlife, resemble cartoon metaphysics: bright light clouded by fuzzy silhouettes. It looks like a Ron Howard imitation of Spielberg. Given a subject that should be thrilling and full of awe, Hereafter is cornball whenever it isnt plain dull.