There are several movies I want to see that hit theaters this weekend. One that crept into the theaters with little fanfare is a film called Wonderstruck. As frequently as I visit the theater, you would think I might have seen the trailer for this film. But I have not. The film is an Amazon Studios production based on a book by Brian Selznick (who also adapted the screenplay).
Wonderstruck tells two parallel stories over a fifty year gap. Rose Kincaid (Millicent Simmonds) is a deaf child who lives just across the river from Manhattan. The years in 1927. Her prized possession is a scrapbook of magazine photos of silent film star Lillian Mayhew (Julianne Moore). When Rose runs away from home to search the actress out, the direction of her future is altered. Ben (Oakes Fegley) is a young man growing up in Flintlake, Minnesota in 1977. As if the loss of his mother in an auto accident isn't enough, Ben loses his hearing in a freak lightning strike. The events spur Ben to strike out for New York in search of his father, who he has never met. The adventure ties two together the two narrative arcs into a tale as unlikely as it is predictable.
I did not read the book Wonderstruck. However, the author of the book also wrote the screenplay. So I would imagine details are left out for the sake of time, but I am fairly certain the film remains true to the original story. The film wants to be a heartwarming tale. A feel-good movie in at time when we can use films that make us feel good. The film succeeds on that level. However, the story is incredibly contrived and difficult to believe. The characters are interesting, which is what this film relies upon. It does so at its peril, but it accomplishes the task nonetheless. Which felt rewarding enough to me to justify spending two hours watching it. Had they picked up the pacing a bit, the contrivances wouldn't have seemed so tedious.
The central theme in Wonderstruck is deafness. It is a common thread between the two narratives. That was one of the factors that drew me to this film. Many years ago I attended night school at a school for the deaf and blind. I wanted to learn sign language. And I did. With no deaf friends or family members, I have forgotten most of what I learned. The alphabet is one of the few things I still have a strong grasp on. I did receive an incredible honor, receiving my "sign name" from a child who was attending class with her grandparents who wanted to learn so they could communicate better with her. It is a high honor to receive a sign name. Mine is the first letter of my name (very common) combined with another gesture that involves my occupation. It was interesting to see a couple of personalized sign names indicated in the film. So I did feel a connection to this film on another level.
This film marks the debut performance of Millicent Simmonds, who became deaf in infancy. Much has been made about her performance in this film. I though she was very good. I wasn't blown away by any of the performances, to be honest. The cast was solid. The performances didn't take anything away from the film. But it was just solid. I wasn't moved to tears by anyone. In fact, some of the most potent storytelling was drawn out too long, missing the opportunity to have the impact it could have. There are some award winning actors in this film, to include Julianne Moore, who I have enjoyed in many films. This one included. But I wouldn't expect any real awards coming out of this film. There will probably be some targeted awards.
One other topic I want to touch on briefly is the sensory aspects of this film. I watched this film on the heels of You Are All I See. That film dealt with blindness. I think directors like to enhance the other sensory aspects of a film when dealing with this type of topic. The use of sound was heavy handed in this film, in an attempt to emphasize the disabilities. The film also relied on some strong visuals, which were decently done. The most impressive visual aspect was the recreation of 1970s New York, which looked incredible. A great deal of work and attention to detail went into those scenes. I did not notice any anachronisms. The soundtrack also remained true to the era, which offered some good throwback listening during the film. The film also alternated between black-and-white and color to distinguish between eras, which isn't original, but it is effective in avoiding confusion.
Wonderstruck is a 116 minute film from Amazon Studios. Amazon has put out some decent films in recent years. This one was okay, although I was not blown away by it. The MPAA gave this film a PG rating. It is definitely PG. You don't have to worry about watching this film with youngsters. In fact, with juvenile leads, this film is really geared towards younger viewers (tweens). The subject matter of death is a prevalent theme, but it is handled discretely.
I wanted to like Wonderstruck more than I did. I liked the subject matter and I liked the converging narrative arcs. My two primary complaints about this film were the pacing (torrid) and the predictability. I had the plot figured out ten minutes into the film. The contrivance was a lesser factor that may not have felt so forced with better pacing. Although I probably would have complained about it anyway. The film is worth waiting for streaming. 7/10.
