Red Riding Trilogy (2010)
Red Riding Trilogy (Jarrold, Marsh, Tucker, 2010)
8/10
Individual films:
1974: 8.8
1980: 7.5
1983: 7.4
The Red Riding Trilogy, as it was released here in the US, is an epic tale of widespread corruption and the different people caught up in it, fighting against it or both. Told in 3 parts, each taking place in a different year, with a different focus but all being part of the same story is one hell of a bleak ride. Each film had a different director with Julian Jarrold striking a stunning atmosphere on 16mm film, James Marsh grounding the proceedings in a procedural approach on 35mm film and Anand Tucker striking a sort of balance between the two on digital. The plot is quite complex and is not entirely comprehensible until the final pieces are put together and even then it feels somehow unresolved.
This is not entirely a bad thing. While clarification would have been appreciated considering the length and genre, the films are more focused on its themes then on its plot or even characters at times. The focus is on corruption and the idea that one can either be a victim or a participant. Some of the confusion aids the film in that the idea of corruption can run so deep and so wide that it feels more like an unstoppable force because of that ambiguity. The films focus on two main series of murders. The first, which takes place in 1974, involves 2 missing girls and 1 dead girl. The second involves efforts to find the Yorkshire Ripper and the third involves another missing girl, potentially related to the 1974 murders as it strongly harks back to both 1974 and 1980 as everything comes to its conclusion.
The first film, Red Riding: 1974, directed by Julian Jarrold and starring Andrew Garfield, Sean Bean and Rebecca Hall is the most captivating of the three and the best as well. Jarrold creates a consistently fascinating and beautiful atmosphere with the 16mm film making every scene automatically engaging on a visual level. He is a confident filmmaker, ambitious but not overly so and he knows what he is going after in every scene. While all 300 minutes of the film would have been too much in this style, it works perfectly in the first 100 minutes and strikes a disturbingly bleak and hopeless tone. Each part involves someone investigating crimes taking place in Yorkshire and getting in over their head. Andrew Garfield who mesmerized in Boy A and was put in a painfully thankless role in Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus is top notch as Eddie Dunford. The events of this first part resonate through parts 2 and 3. Rebecca Hall puts forth her best performance yet as Paula, a mother of one of the victims, who Eddie becomes involved with. Paula is drowning in sadness and the combination of apathy and somehow present hope that Hall plays her with really strikes hard. Several players who appear in all three parts are introduced here with their later importance unknown to viewers at this point.
The second film, Red Riding: 1980, directed by James Marsh and starring Paddy Considine first came off as the weak link of the trilogy for it’s on the surface, straightforward directing and its slow pacing. However, in hindsight I liked it more than the last part even if I’m not quite sure which part was better. Paddy Considine as Hunter and Sean Harris as Bob Craven are the standouts here and they are what elevate the already good material into a fully engaging piece. Their combined presence is what made this so interesting to watch. There were definitely flaws; Helen Marshall’s (Maxine Peake) interactions with Hunter felt out of place and ultimately irrelevant. It started out interesting and went to some potential places but it never felt as important as it first set out to be. The biggest surprise of the trilogy came at the end of this part which served to give it a strong and substantial ending. Overall the end of this was superb as were specific scenes and moments but overall it could not match up to the first film.
The third film, Red Riding: 1983, directed by Anand Tucker was my least favorite mainly because of the ending. By the time everything had ended, it somehow felt underwhelming. The last 10 minutes still contains some pretty powerful stuff and it is more satisfying than 1980in that it links so strongly back to the events of 1974 making everything really feel part of one epic story. The most interesting arc of the trilogy comes in the character of Jobson played by David Morrissey. He is featured in the first 2 films but events are shown from his perspective here. Morrissey in the standout performance of the bunch (no easy feat) has a difference role than that of Andrew Garfield, Paddy Considine and Mark Addy who all investigate the different cases for one reason or another. Jobson is the only main character of the 4 who is a reluctant but willing participant in the corruption. Seeing his perspective in 1983 which includes new flashback scenes to some of the events of 1974 shows the guilt that forms from long standing corruption and how someone lives with being a part of something that extreme. The film does ask for sympathy but it never shies away from what he was a part of, making his ultimate redemption somewhat impossible. The lacking sense of finality that came out of this piece is what was so alluding about it. Since it was the final part, it is burdened with bringing everything to a close. The way it did that did not have the epic feel that the piece as a whole did and therefore, while I technically liked it more than the second part, it is probably my least favorite of the bunch. There is a ton of compelling stuff here, particularly the flashback scenes and finally getting to see the corruption from the inside as opposed to being an outsider for the first two films.
This is not a film to be seen once. Between missing bits of dialogue because of the Yorkshire accents and not being able to make sense of much of the first and second parts because of all the missing pieces at those points, a second viewing should bring to light a much more complete sense of what this trilogy was and what it was ultimately doing. While not a masterpiece, the Red Riding Trilogy is a wholly immersive and rewarding experience with a particularly stellar first part that combines actual historical events in a completely fictional setting, disturbingly linking reality with corruption through its interpretation of history.
Note: The first two could potentially function as standalone films but it is not recommended in the slightest. Also it will count as one film that came out in 2010 as it was released in the US in February of 2010 as one film titled Red Riding Trilogy.
8/10
Individual films:
1974: 8.8
1980: 7.5
1983: 7.4
The Red Riding Trilogy, as it was released here in the US, is an epic tale of widespread corruption and the different people caught up in it, fighting against it or both. Told in 3 parts, each taking place in a different year, with a different focus but all being part of the same story is one hell of a bleak ride. Each film had a different director with Julian Jarrold striking a stunning atmosphere on 16mm film, James Marsh grounding the proceedings in a procedural approach on 35mm film and Anand Tucker striking a sort of balance between the two on digital. The plot is quite complex and is not entirely comprehensible until the final pieces are put together and even then it feels somehow unresolved.
The second film, Red Riding: 1980, directed by James Marsh and starring Paddy Considine first came off as the weak link of the trilogy for it’s on the surface, straightforward directing and its slow pacing. However, in hindsight I liked it more than the last part even if I’m not quite sure which part was better. Paddy Considine as Hunter and Sean Harris as Bob Craven are the standouts here and they are what elevate the already good material into a fully engaging piece. Their combined presence is what made this so interesting to watch. There were definitely flaws; Helen Marshall’s (Maxine Peake) interactions with Hunter felt out of place and ultimately irrelevant. It started out interesting and went to some potential places but it never felt as important as it first set out to be. The biggest surprise of the trilogy came at the end of this part which served to give it a strong and substantial ending. Overall the end of this was superb as were specific scenes and moments but overall it could not match up to the first film.
The third film, Red Riding: 1983, directed by Anand Tucker was my least favorite mainly because of the ending. By the time everything had ended, it somehow felt underwhelming. The last 10 minutes still contains some pretty powerful stuff and it is more satisfying than 1980in that it links so strongly back to the events of 1974 making everything really feel part of one epic story. The most interesting arc of the trilogy comes in the character of Jobson played by David Morrissey. He is featured in the first 2 films but events are shown from his perspective here. Morrissey in the standout performance of the bunch (no easy feat) has a difference role than that of Andrew Garfield, Paddy Considine and Mark Addy who all investigate the different cases for one reason or another. Jobson is the only main character of the 4 who is a reluctant but willing participant in the corruption. Seeing his perspective in 1983 which includes new flashback scenes to some of the events of 1974 shows the guilt that forms from long standing corruption and how someone lives with being a part of something that extreme. The film does ask for sympathy but it never shies away from what he was a part of, making his ultimate redemption somewhat impossible. The lacking sense of finality that came out of this piece is what was so alluding about it. Since it was the final part, it is burdened with bringing everything to a close. The way it did that did not have the epic feel that the piece as a whole did and therefore, while I technically liked it more than the second part, it is probably my least favorite of the bunch. There is a ton of compelling stuff here, particularly the flashback scenes and finally getting to see the corruption from the inside as opposed to being an outsider for the first two films.
This is not a film to be seen once. Between missing bits of dialogue because of the Yorkshire accents and not being able to make sense of much of the first and second parts because of all the missing pieces at those points, a second viewing should bring to light a much more complete sense of what this trilogy was and what it was ultimately doing. While not a masterpiece, the Red Riding Trilogy is a wholly immersive and rewarding experience with a particularly stellar first part that combines actual historical events in a completely fictional setting, disturbingly linking reality with corruption through its interpretation of history.
Note: The first two could potentially function as standalone films but it is not recommended in the slightest. Also it will count as one film that came out in 2010 as it was released in the US in February of 2010 as one film titled Red Riding Trilogy.
Horrorphile
I reviewed all three movies too; here
I think Ridley Scott is involved in doing a US remake condensing all three movies into one feature (!!)
Thoughts from a Cinephile
Thoughts from a TV Watcher
I just read your review! Nice job! Totally agree with everything and I'm glad the first one was your favorite as well! Not that Ridley Scott's a bad filmmaker, because he's not but this just does not bode well at all.