Summary:
A private detective with Tourette’s syndrome in 1950s New York tries to solve the murder of his mentor and friend.
My Thoughts:
I generally like Edward Norton (“The Painted Veil”), so I knew that at some point I would go out of my way to see this film, Norton’s first time directing in almost twenty years (his directorial debut was a film called “Keeping the Faith”- I’m unfamiliar with that film, but it looks like a run-of-the-mill romantic comedy).
I think this film is very competently made: Norton clearly knows how to direct a scene and get from the actors he’s working with what he needs, and he also was able to adapt this story in a relatively compelling way. That being said, this film is just decent; it’s not great or terrible- if anything, it’s just a smidge above middling, but it’s elevated by Norton’s very solid performance, and his ability to create a captivating world that’s easy to sink into.
“It’s like having glass in the brain. I can’t stop pickin’ things apart… twistin’ ‘em around, reassembling ‘em.”
Lionel Essrog (Edward Norton) is a private detective with Tourette’s syndrome living in NYC in the 1950s. After Lionel’s mentor and friend Frank Minna (Bruce Willis, “12 Monkeys”) is murdered, Lionel and the other detectives in his agency, Tony (Bobby Cannavale, “The Irishman”) and Gilbert (Ethan Suplee, “The Wolf of Wall Street”) begin to investigate, and as he does he finds himself wrapped up in a complex web involving the City Planner Moses Randolph (Alec Baldwin, “Glengarry Glen Ross”), a mysterious man named Paul (Willem Dafoe, “The Lighthouse”), and an African American woman fighting gentrification named Laura Rose (Gugu Mbatha-Raw, “The Cloverfield Paradox”).
There’s a lot to like about this film. The acting from almost everyone involved is commendable, but Edward Norton is easily the standout. I’m not saying I’m an expert on Tourette’s, by any means, but I have known a few people with it, and I’ve been around them enough to get a sense of how it affects their daily lives. I feel like in popular culture, Tourette’s can be used as a kind of punch line, or as a kind of way to cripple your character and make them incredibly sympathetic. The thing that I liked about this film was that the disease was portrayed respectfully; Norton’s character struggled, yes, but he was still able to move forward with his life and have meaningful relationships with people. I thought Norton was able to almost perfectly capture the little ticks- verbal phrases uttered multiple times or physical flinches- in a way that seemed incredibly realistic, and still respectful. I didn’t think Bruce Willis’ acting was that great, honestly; it felt like he just showed up and read his lines, but other than him, everyone gave solid performances.
The story is pretty interesting as a whole, though, honestly, it’s somewhat predictable as far as a mystery goes. Once we start to cut away from Norton’s character to focus on Moses Randolph, the viewer sort of has to ask themselves: why are we being shown this man if he has nothing to do with the murder plot which our protagonist is so bent on solving? Likewise, why does the mysterious Paul continually show up unless he has something to do with the plot? I feel like even the best noir films sort of have this issue- over informing the viewer too early on (I.E. In “Chinatown”, Noah Cross’ run in with Jake Gittes seems to hint at Cross’ involvement pretty early in the film; in “Vertigo”, Hitchcock reveals Judy Barton’s involvement with Madeleine’s murder before the climax).
I have no problem with noir films being slightly predictable, because it’s fun to play detective along with our sleuth protagonists. I think great noir films really arise from the small details of the mysteries- the incest subplot in “Chinatown” or the tragic love story of “Vertigo”- and though this film had some great characters and ideas, the details weren’t quite flushed out enough to make this film stand too far out in front of the other half-dozen noir films that are released each year. Norton’s character and the relationships he forms with other people are what made this movie memorable; almost everything else is average or slightly above average.
The biggest problem this movie has is its length and pacing. Again, I have no problem with lengthy movies, but the film has to earn it’s length; you can have a movie with a ton of good scenes that totally falls apart simply because it’s too ambitious and ends up saying nothing coherent (see my review for Bertolucci’s “1900”). This movie comes close to feeling like one of those movies that rambles, because there are plenty of scenes that could’ve been trimmed or omitted. Why do we need two scenes with Frank’s widow (Leslie Mann, “The Cable Guy”) when one scene easily could’ve delved out the info we needed from her character? Is it really necessary to have nigh a half hour of the film devoted to Lionel and Laura’s budding relationship? Too many scenes about superfluous characters dragged out the film for thirty to forty minutes too long.
I had a few other nit-picky issues with this movie as well, and while none of those issues are worth dropping the rating, I do feel as if they’re worth bringing up. I already mentioned above that mental health has sort of always had a stigma around it in America; this film takes place nigh seventy years ago, and no one is ever really particularly rude to Lionel as he struggles with Tourette’s syndrome. There are a few small incidents where he gets lovingly made fun of, or told to keep it together, by his friends and partners, and there are other moments where he botches interactions, but no one makes fun of him to his face in earnest, no one makes fun of the way he talks until he can’t take it anymore. I thought that his disability would honestly be more of a hurtle for him to overcome throughout. Another issue I had was that a lot of the production design looked too clean; these are the gross and gritty streets of NYC. Where are the grease-stained newspapers being blown around, the bums on the street with holes in their shoes and socks, the weather-stained windows and grimy iodine colored lights? The film just looked too clean and polished, and when you’re entering a world that thrives on criminal activities and back-alley dealings, you sort of want the world to look as if it reflects that; it should look like a place I don’t want to visit.
Verdict:
“Motherless Brooklyn” is a solid film that could’ve been a lot better and could’ve been a lot worse. I think that those who like actors Edward Norton or Willem Dafoe could find plenty to like here; I think fans of noir films will be adequately satisfied with this film; and I think that film shows Norton is a promising director. “Motherless Brooklyn” is no classic, but it is certainly a decent film worth watching.
Review Written By: