Murky waters

300269_278309402189996_219695098051427_982296_845210711_n

Paul Clarke reviews a Brit film that poses all sorts of moral dilemmas

A lot of British film is depressingly unoriginal but maybe having only 25 grand to play with made the team behind Black Pond produce a movie that is moving and morbidly entertaining.

It is up there with the best of American indie film making, yet still remains resolutely British as it brutally deconstructs the simmering rage of our nation’s middle class and attitudes to death.

The plot revolves around a chance meeting between Tom Thompson (Chris Langham) out walking his three legged dog and a confused man called Blake (Colin Hurley). For some reason he invites Blake home for tea to meet his troubled wife Sophie (Amanda Hadigue).

The twist is that Blake ends up dead at a family dinner involving the couple’s pathetic layabout daughters and the whole family get accused of murder after they dump his body in the local wood.

The biggest risk the filmmakers take is employing Langham who served a prison term for downloading child pornography that ruined his career. It does create a massive problem for celluloid fans. Has the man served his time, or should we boycott the film due the gravity of the offence?

The problem is made much worse by Langham, who is typically mesmerising as the confused Tom who seems to find comfort – with his family disintegrating around him – as a kindred spirit to the unbearably lonely widower Blake. Colin Hurley in a breakout role effortlessly makes us sympathetic to a strangely dignified Blake as he hurtles towards his doom.

The casting is spot on throughout, but none more than Hadigue as failed poet Sophie, seething with resentment at her ineffectual husband without realising their endless rowing has fucked up their kids.

Buzzcocks host Simon Amstell pops with for a very funny cameo – as a bizarre shrink who exposes the family’s ‘crime’ in disposing of Blake.

This is the first feature by co-directors Will Sharpe and Ben Kingsley, and it is a minor miracle that they made such a limited budget stretch to make a film that looks so good. But their real strength is drawing out painfully raw performances suggesting they are destined for great things with much bigger budgets.

If you can stomach Langham’s comeback then this is a film that restores some faith that independent film making in this country has a bright future.

* Hyde Park Picture House hosts a Q&A with directors Will Sharpe, Tom Kingsley and Chris Langham on Monday 21st October at 20:30.

2 comments

  1. Film sounds fantastic, although I don’t think it’s a case of having to “stomach Langham’s comeback”; it’s a case of separating art from artist.

    Gary Glitter’s career obviously stopped completely once his, erm, preferences became common knowledge – people were happy to stop buying his music, or attending his shows. But what if it had been someone who actually *mattered*? If it transpired that John Lennon was a paedophile, should that have any bearing on his artistic achievements? Would people burn their Beatles records? Probably not.

    There are plenty of examples of brilliant things being made by people who’ve done terrible things, or who have objectionable opinions – Eric Gill (designer of the Gill Sans typeface, which is what BBC uses) did some awful things which I won’t mention here, but it’s a great typeface nontheless. Walt Disney was a misogynist, strike breaker, government informant, the list goes on. But I wouldn’t stop my kids from watching Snow White.

    Will knowing about Phil Spector’s handiwork with a shotgun stop us all enjoying his Christmas album this December? Not at all.

    As I say, it’s about being able to separate a piece of art from who made it. I can still watch Langham in The Thick of It and be blown away by his amazing performance. What he’s done away from the film sets doesn’t change that.

  2. Dean

    Thanks for your thoughtful comment and you are right about this film making it very difficult to separate the artist from his art.

    It is made worse because Langham is perfect in the role.

    He is – of course – in a differnt league from Glitter both as an artist and in the scale of his offence. Glitter is someone who acts on his depraved urges whereas Langham downloaded disgusting images. But it is worth remembering a child has been raped in each of these images so it is not a victimless crime.

    My oldest daughter won’t watch The Thick Of It with Langham in it and I respect her choice. I had to think long and hard before watching Dark Pond.

    I’d hoped I’d made it clear there are difficult choices in watching this film. They are exactly the sort of complex decisions art should throw up.

    In a way I admire the two directors for taking such a huge risk with potential footfall but they have certainly made a film worth seeing.

    All I wanted to do was make sure people were aware of the complex issues around this film and film lovers will make their minds up.

Comments are closed.