Peacock (2010)
Peacock (2010)
6.5/10
There are few films these days that can offer a synopsis that is new. No matter how well or how poorly these films are executed they automatically hold interest. Since there has not been a film like it, seeing how said film plays out is a treat because while it might commit to the basic accepted structure, it is not marred down by preconceived clichés that can bring other films down (Chloe anyone?). Peacock, written by director Michael Lander and Ryan Roy,is a film that went straight to DVD this year. It is stimulating and unique guided by a lead performance by Cillian Murphy that represents the best work I have seen from him. The premise however, is not supported by an interesting enough situation to support it and is thus brought down from being a potentially great film to merely a decent one.
The premise of Peacock is as follows. The film is set in 1960’s Nebraska in a very small rural town called Peacock. John Skillpa is an unsettlingly shy bank clerk who stays out of people’s way and avoids prolonged human contact. John has split-personality disorder. What the film tells us is that John’s mother who recently died was extremely troubled, giving John a disturbing existence filled with abuse. Since his mother’s death, John created another personality whose name is Emma. He becomes Emma every morning and cooks breakfast, leaves notes for himself, does the laundry and dishes and other chores. He then goes back to John and gets ready for work finding his food cooked for him and everything. One morning a train caboose crashes into his backyard as he does laundry as Emma (stay with me). The townspeople come over and discover Emma who they think is John’s wife. The film spends the majority of its time then dealing with two separate issues that draw drastically different wished outcomes from John and Emma, pitting them against each other. One involves a mayor (Keith Carradine) and his wife Fanny (Susan Sarandon) hoping to use the crash site of the train, John’s backyard as a political tool. The other involves Maggie (Ellen Page), the mother of John’s child through disturbing circumstances involving his mother. She is a struggling single mother who relies on waitressing and hooking to pay the bills. She wants out of Peacock and after a year of waiting, calls on John for the money his mother supposedly promised her.
See what I mean about a plot you’ve never heard of? This all might sound completely ridiculous and it is; to some degree. This all could have been very over-the-top, melodramatic, campy and absurd. The split-personality premise, which has become something of a novelty in film through both great and dreadful examples, could have come off gimmicky. Instead, Peacock takes itself seriously and presents itself as a drama and not a thriller despite the decided genre categorization. It has a patient pace about it and takes time to set an unsettling tone. Another problem that potentially arises is the suspension of disbelief on the part of the audience as the townspeople cannot recognize that Emma is John. While it does ask a little suspension from the audience, Cillian Murphy settles all small quibbles which bring us to his performance.
This film is worth seeking out for Cillian Murphy’s work alone. The reason it is easier to handle the leaps of plausibility found in Peacock is because John and Emma are completely different people. John is barely a person; his mother’s impact has left him a hollow shell. His stance, undistinguished face and constantly turning away body language show this. Emma is cleaned up, friendly and growing in confidence. Breakfast on Pluto proved, if nothing else, that Cillian Murphy makes for a convincing woman. The two completely different performances allow the film to feel more plausible. Murphy throws himself into this and pulls of a carefully constructed performance that takes away any gimmick to be had. By year’s end this will go down as one of the best performances of 2010.
The issue with the film involves the character of Maggie played by Ellen Page. Maggie wants money to get out of Peacock. John wants to give her the money. Emma does not because she liked Maggie and wants to be her friend, attempting to get her a job at the bank and convincing her to stay at a women’s shelter. Once she enters the film, the main plot makes itself clear. The problem is it is not very interesting. The film stays on one note too long because of it. The back and forth of it all offers nothing new after a while despite slowly escalating. Maggie is not an interesting enough character to care about very much. Also, her very presence feels forced. We are told the circumstances of their relationship but a small discussion about it is all the audience has to go on, making her importance feel forced and necessary to push John and Emma where they need to go. Seeing Emma come out of her shell is what keeps these scenes relevant. Far more interesting are Emma’s scenes with Fanny Crill, the mayor’s wife. Emma’s slow friendship with Fanny is touching and unexpected, giving the film another reason to be proud of its subtlety considering the subject matter.
Peacock does not ultimately amount to much though. It refuses to go where everyone assumes it is going and thankfully does not fall into third-act thriller pitfalls despite a couple of plot developments. However, once the film ends it has neither gone to the places one would hope it does, nor does it fill in enough blanks to feel satisfactory for what it is trying to do. Peacock is far from perfect but its refusal to be the type of film the cover or premise suggest is admirable. The result is a film filled with potential and while it does not deliver the way it wants to, it is interesting from start to finish. The problem lies in Maggie who ultimately drags down the film by not giving John/Emma an interesting situation within a well handled premise. It is a shame this was delegated to be straight-to-DVD. Besides thoughtful and moody direction by Michael Lander, Cillian Murphy steals the film away even from its unique synopsis giving a disturbing portrayal of a man deeply troubled.
6.5/10
There are few films these days that can offer a synopsis that is new. No matter how well or how poorly these films are executed they automatically hold interest. Since there has not been a film like it, seeing how said film plays out is a treat because while it might commit to the basic accepted structure, it is not marred down by preconceived clichés that can bring other films down (Chloe anyone?). Peacock, written by director Michael Lander and Ryan Roy,is a film that went straight to DVD this year. It is stimulating and unique guided by a lead performance by Cillian Murphy that represents the best work I have seen from him. The premise however, is not supported by an interesting enough situation to support it and is thus brought down from being a potentially great film to merely a decent one.
The premise of Peacock is as follows. The film is set in 1960’s Nebraska in a very small rural town called Peacock. John Skillpa is an unsettlingly shy bank clerk who stays out of people’s way and avoids prolonged human contact. John has split-personality disorder. What the film tells us is that John’s mother who recently died was extremely troubled, giving John a disturbing existence filled with abuse. Since his mother’s death, John created another personality whose name is Emma. He becomes Emma every morning and cooks breakfast, leaves notes for himself, does the laundry and dishes and other chores. He then goes back to John and gets ready for work finding his food cooked for him and everything. One morning a train caboose crashes into his backyard as he does laundry as Emma (stay with me). The townspeople come over and discover Emma who they think is John’s wife. The film spends the majority of its time then dealing with two separate issues that draw drastically different wished outcomes from John and Emma, pitting them against each other. One involves a mayor (Keith Carradine) and his wife Fanny (Susan Sarandon) hoping to use the crash site of the train, John’s backyard as a political tool. The other involves Maggie (Ellen Page), the mother of John’s child through disturbing circumstances involving his mother. She is a struggling single mother who relies on waitressing and hooking to pay the bills. She wants out of Peacock and after a year of waiting, calls on John for the money his mother supposedly promised her.
See what I mean about a plot you’ve never heard of? This all might sound completely ridiculous and it is; to some degree. This all could have been very over-the-top, melodramatic, campy and absurd. The split-personality premise, which has become something of a novelty in film through both great and dreadful examples, could have come off gimmicky. Instead, Peacock takes itself seriously and presents itself as a drama and not a thriller despite the decided genre categorization. It has a patient pace about it and takes time to set an unsettling tone. Another problem that potentially arises is the suspension of disbelief on the part of the audience as the townspeople cannot recognize that Emma is John. While it does ask a little suspension from the audience, Cillian Murphy settles all small quibbles which bring us to his performance.
This film is worth seeking out for Cillian Murphy’s work alone. The reason it is easier to handle the leaps of plausibility found in Peacock is because John and Emma are completely different people. John is barely a person; his mother’s impact has left him a hollow shell. His stance, undistinguished face and constantly turning away body language show this. Emma is cleaned up, friendly and growing in confidence. Breakfast on Pluto proved, if nothing else, that Cillian Murphy makes for a convincing woman. The two completely different performances allow the film to feel more plausible. Murphy throws himself into this and pulls of a carefully constructed performance that takes away any gimmick to be had. By year’s end this will go down as one of the best performances of 2010.
The issue with the film involves the character of Maggie played by Ellen Page. Maggie wants money to get out of Peacock. John wants to give her the money. Emma does not because she liked Maggie and wants to be her friend, attempting to get her a job at the bank and convincing her to stay at a women’s shelter. Once she enters the film, the main plot makes itself clear. The problem is it is not very interesting. The film stays on one note too long because of it. The back and forth of it all offers nothing new after a while despite slowly escalating. Maggie is not an interesting enough character to care about very much. Also, her very presence feels forced. We are told the circumstances of their relationship but a small discussion about it is all the audience has to go on, making her importance feel forced and necessary to push John and Emma where they need to go. Seeing Emma come out of her shell is what keeps these scenes relevant. Far more interesting are Emma’s scenes with Fanny Crill, the mayor’s wife. Emma’s slow friendship with Fanny is touching and unexpected, giving the film another reason to be proud of its subtlety considering the subject matter.
Peacock does not ultimately amount to much though. It refuses to go where everyone assumes it is going and thankfully does not fall into third-act thriller pitfalls despite a couple of plot developments. However, once the film ends it has neither gone to the places one would hope it does, nor does it fill in enough blanks to feel satisfactory for what it is trying to do. Peacock is far from perfect but its refusal to be the type of film the cover or premise suggest is admirable. The result is a film filled with potential and while it does not deliver the way it wants to, it is interesting from start to finish. The problem lies in Maggie who ultimately drags down the film by not giving John/Emma an interesting situation within a well handled premise. It is a shame this was delegated to be straight-to-DVD. Besides thoughtful and moody direction by Michael Lander, Cillian Murphy steals the film away even from its unique synopsis giving a disturbing portrayal of a man deeply troubled.
