In 2002, the tense thriller Phone Booth (2002) was centred around, you guessed it, a phone booth. Now, 22 years later, Robert Zemeckis’ new drama Here is centred around a lounge room. It’s about the people who lived and roamed in that space dating back to the formation of Earth. It features a volcanic eruption, the Ice Age and dinosaurs roaming the planet. Successive generations later made a home there, in particular one from 1900. Here follows some of their stories – particularly those of Richard (Tom Hanks) and his wife Margaret (Robin Wright); and Richard’s parents, Al (Paul Bettany) and Rose (Kelly Reilly).
It’s also about their predecessors, including Pauline (Michelle Dockery), who plays the fretful wife of a pilot in the early 20th century.
Al fought in WWII and came back partially deaf with shrapnel in him after a shell exploded nearby. Suffering with undiagnosed PTSD, he self-medicates with alcohol. Al and Rose bought the house (with that lounge room) when Rose was three months pregnant (with Richard) in 1945. Richard was one of their three children. Margaret moves in with Richard and his parents after she falls pregnant to Richard. Richard aspires to be an artist, but with financial stability a major concern, ends up taking a finance sector job. Rose is desperate to move out, but circumstances see otherwise; and as time goes on marital pressures mount.
Here reunites the director, writer and stars of Forrest Gump (1994). Co-writer (along with Eric Roth and Richard McGuire) and director Zemeckis have adapted a graphic novel by Richard McGuire. It’s a whole-of-life – or in this case, whole-of-lives story – incorporating highs and lows, love and loss, joy and sorrow. The film moves back and forth in time through a series of vignettes, some short, others extended. It pieces together the various family stories, some better told (with more detail) than others.
I must say I didn’t think we needed to get back to the formation of the planet. As a device, I thought that went too far and didn’t really work. It looked clunky. So, too, a representation of Benjamin Franklin.
Some of the acting, too, was less than convincing. It felt forced. I’m not suggesting all the actors were like that though, but I recognised unevenness in the performances. What did work remarkably well was turning Hanks back into a young man. Wouldn’t it be nice to be able to reverse the ageing process so readily?
It took me some time to get into the rhythm of the film. In fact, at first, I was quite frustrated by its bitsy nature. But I found myself warming to it more as time passed.
Overall, I see Here as a bold undertaking that doesn’t quite hang together as well as it might have. Still, it certainly captures the transitory nature of our relatively short time here (hence the title).
Alex First
Other reviews you might enjoy:
Alex First is a Melbourne based journalist and communications specialist. He contributes to The Blurb on film and theatre.
