What Richard Did

johnny_ultimate

I think Abrahamson and Reynor do an excellent job at making Richard a likeable character. Apart from his relationship with Lara - which, from their first meeting, is clearly a mutual attraction that's inevitably going to go somewhere - there's very few sequences in the opening half that illustrate him as anything other than a friendly, considerate person. Indeed, he acts as a loyal 'big brother' figure to at least two younger characters, and enjoys a happy family and social life. He's well liked, and the evidence suggests it's with good cause. Apart from his troublesome love triangle and his growing (albeit not entirely unwarranted) jealousy - which are character 'flaws' you'd find in many, many adolescents - he's clearly a character who wants to do right. It's only after (and during) the 'incident' that he makes some stupid mistakes he would never have made previously. Like the best protagonists, he's a flawed individual. But the stellar work the director and actor do to get us on his side make subsequent events genuinely heartbreaking and affecting.

deisebhoy17

left feeling very frustrated at the ending. Overall was very slow moving and at times found myself asking where is this actually going.

The idea was there but the execution wasnt imo.

Wasnt for me

Neeson

jackal wrote: »

The ending, I quite liked but 90% of the people sat in their seats expecting it to come back as the credits were rolling and say what really happened.

Same thing happened when I saw it!

lc180

I didn't have high expectations of this film so I was surprised how much I enjoyed it. I can see it doing well at the IFTA's next year, you make what you want of that!

One gripe I had was when I was leaving the cinema, a D4 type girl behind me on the stairs said to her mate "OMG loike thats was amazeballs, kind of loike a real tale of our generation". Jaysus....

Neeson

lc180 wrote: »

One gripe I had was when I was leaving the cinema, a D4 type girl behind me on the stairs said to her mate "OMG loike thats was amazeballs, kind of loike a real tale of our generation". Jaysus....

Maybe she was taking the piss. A gripe I had is the lead character saying "noice" about 3 times in the first few scenes.

In all fairness I don't think people around here say that.

Miguel_Sanchez

Neeson wrote: »

Maybe she was taking the piss. A gripe I had is the lead character saying "noice" about 3 times in the first few scenes.

In all fairness I don't think people around here say that.

I don't know about that. I've been on the 46a a good bit recently and that's a pretty common word for kids to use.

And given that Reynor himself is from that sort of background I think Abrahamson wouldn't have forced him to speak in anyway that felt unnatural.

Much as I hate the word and wis people would either pronounce it properly or not at all it is fairly common to hear during certain buses journeys in Dublin. When it came to writing the dialogue Abramson and his writer cast the film a whole year before shooting started and used the time to get to know the kids and how they spoke. He said that if any line in the script seemed fake or the kids told him they'd never use that word it was rewritten.

Neeson

Jeff_Lebowski wrote: »

I don't know about that. I've been on the 46a a good bit recently and that's a pretty common word for kids to use.

And given that Reynor himself is from that sort of background I think Abrahamson wouldn't have forced him to speak in anyway that felt unnatural.

I would myself every week but I just thought the "noice" thing was exaggerated. As soon as I heard it I just turned to the person beside me. I'd be hearing them saying the "likes" and all. "Man" was also frequently used, but I thought it was used a bit much.

johnny_ultimate

I'd actually commend how well the director and actors handled the dialogue - came across as naturalistic and believable IMO. When dealing with D4 accents and slang, there's a tendency to veer into Ross O'Carroll Kelly style exaggeration. But that exaggeration is heavily based on the way people from the area speak, and this film did a great job capturing the mannerisms without descending into the parody of ROK or any number of other satirists.

If it's annoying, well that's because the way privileged Blackrock teenagers talk can be annoying. I genuinely was never distracted by the way characters spoke or interacted with each other though.

When I originally heard that it was going to a protagonist and his bunch of friends from D4, my worry was that it was going to focus on that and descend into some Ross O'Carroll Kelly style farce, which would have completely alienated me and a lot of other people too, I would imagine.

Instead what we are given is normal teenagers; they go out, they party, knacker drink, fall in love and have sex. This is where it massively worked, I think. The cast were all natural (you could tell for the most part that barely any of them were actors) and there was a lot of a lot of genuinely touching and harrowing moments.

I found it interesting how the first half of the movie was portraying Richard as a good guy - he was someone that people wanted to introduce their friends to, someone that they were all proud of - who just happened to make an incredibly bad choice in the heat of the moment, instead of someone vile and despicable, like other movies might do. The incident was vile and despicable yes, but the person that did it was not.

It was one of the few movies in recent memory that I felt a pang of anguish in my chest - you genuinely felt what the character was feeling. It's hard to believe that this was one of Jack Reynor's first movies, because he was so good in it. His performance was quite understated,

making his breakdowns, like the one in the summer home that bit more harrowing

.

Really hope he gets more leading roles.

e_e

I wasn't as enamored with this as some others here, but it's very pleasing to see an intelligent, contemplative and ambiguous Irish drama do so well at the box office.

Barna77

Saw it a few weeks ago, i relly liked it, though at the same time it felt there was something missing there. The scene in the beach house

when he breaks down.... been there, felt the pain myself... well done

And it was good to see Michelle Doherty

blue note

I saw this last night and thought it was great. I get what people are saying about it missing an opportunity to go into more, but I was content that the film was about Richard and it didn't bother me that we didn't see too much more of the father / girlfriend or anyone else.

I do think that the film dipped a bit shortly after the actual incident. The tension of knowing what was going to happen really grabbed me from the outset.

I'm living in a rugby area of Dublin (feckin' Leinster flags everywhere), and I think it's very true to life. The teenagers could have been my neighbours.

And finally, I wouldn't agree with most people's views on Richard before the incident. While I thought Richard played the part he was meant to, I got the impression that he didn't fully enjoy being the perfect son / friend and the pressure of maintaining that. He struck me as someone who wasn't fully content and who also had an unhealthy sense of entitlement which certainly focused on the girlfriend, gave rise to jealousy of the former boyfriend and ultimately resulted in his death.

And just to stress, while I am saying that Richard was far from a perfect teen, he was probably as close as any to perfect and still was very "normal". The film certainly did show how something dreadful can almost just happen. These fights are common and almost innocent, even though something like this can happen.

Fysh

I saw this tonight as part of an Irish film festival, with a Q&A afterwards with the screenwriter.

overall I thought it was good - very much from Richard's POV, which might explain to some extent why most of the other characters except Richard's Dad aren't really fleshed out beyond what you see in the first five minutes of them. I thought Reynor did a good job in his role.

I have to disagree with everyone saying that Richard was fundamentally decent, though - as far as I could tell, the character's a great big purple bellend! He

has crap discipline (can't stick to his training regimen of not drinking or smoking), he actively pursues girls he knows to be involved with his friends, his only instinct after he discovers that he's killed someone through being an alpha-male bellend is to figure out whether he can get away with admitting it, and he doesn't even learn from his mistakes!

To find him likeable and sympathetic after all that requires a much greater, perhaps Buddha-like, love for all mankind than I can muster - I didn't see anything that elevated him beyond being a privileged upper-middle-class twat. An interesting character, certainly, but not one I empathised with or liked.

interestingly in the Q&A the point was made by the screenwriter that he had tried not to judge his characters, which I found fascinating. Knowing that the characters are mostly obnoxious airheads and that the screenwriter had worked on Skins before, I can't help wonder if the screenwriter and director were pulling in different drections.

All in all, I thought it was good but not great. I wouldn't bother watching it again as I don't think the script is likely to reward repeat viewings, though, and I certainly don't think it's as good as either Adam and Paul or Kisses, which I saw at the same festival a few years ago.

Edited to add:

One thing that occurs to me about the different reactions to Richard's action; Irish drinking culture in particular promotes a particular type of abdication of responsibility that I find vile (it's one thing that I don't miss about Ireland since moving to London), and given the circumstances in the film I wonder if that plays into it at all.

On a separate note, knowing that the screenwriter also worked on Skins has me wondering how much Richard is based on Tony - the two have plenty in common after all...

tennessee time

found the film cringe-worthy at times, i can't believe people like this actually exist and they are not a section of irish society i have encountered.

kraggy

I moving home in March. Any chance this will be out on Dvd by then? Dying to see it. Love Abrahamson's previous works.

johnny_ultimate

kraggy wrote: »

I moving home in March. Any chance this will be out on Dvd by then? Dying to see it. Love Abrahamson's previous works.

Yeah should be. Element handle the Irish distribution and they're good for prompt local DVD releases. The film's only coming out in UK cinemas now, though, so you'll probably have to source it from Irish retailers as the UK DVD will probably be a little later.

kraggy

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Yeah should be. Element handle the Irish distribution and they're good for prompt local DVD releases. The film's only coming out in UK cinemas now, though, so you'll probably have to source it from Irish retailers as the UK DVD will probably be a little later.

Thanks.

Corholio

Saw it the other night and was disappointed with it. There's something strange about it that I can't put my finger on, but the best way I can describe it is that the dialogue's sound is turned up too high, it bothered me throughout the film, sounds weird I know just found it unusual. The film itself, I didn't think was all that great. I think there's a lot of quietness and isolated moments that try to make certain scenes more profound, but doesn't add anything to it really. Reynor was decent but I wouldn't be eager to see him in something else or anything. The story you can twig from early on and it's a bit predictable throughout, especially the

copping off with the young girl scene

A so so film.

rob316

Remember seen this in the cinema. Very good acting but man what a boring boring film. The plot just couldn't warrant a movie I felt. Me and my OH genuinely wanted to walk out and ive seen some crap down the years.

Its weird everyone raves about it. Surely we are not the only ones who hated it?

jackal

rob316 wrote: »

Remember seen this in the cinema. Very good acting but man what a boring boring film. The plot just couldn't warrant a movie I felt. Me and my OH genuinely wanted to walk out and ive seen some crap down the years.

Its weird everyone raves about it. Surely we are not the only ones who hated it?

Didn't hate it, didn't love it either, but I agree with you about it being boring with large stretches of silence/ambient noise/detached landscape shots.

I thought the reviews were a bit too gushing, perhaps because of the really good performance by Reynor, and glossed over the basic fact than audiences want to be entertained. Perhaps this is just one of those films that critics love and audiences do not. I thought Larry & Paul, and Garage were better films from this director.

johnny_ultimate

jackal wrote: »

I thought the reviews were a bit too gushing, perhaps because of the really good performance by Reynor, and glossed over the basic fact than audiences want to be entertained. Perhaps this is just one of those films that critics love and audiences do not.

Correction: some audiences just want to be entertained. Many of - as evident from this thread - very much appreciate these kinds of subdued, understated character dramas. The considered pacing, the lack of cheap storytelling tricks, the strong performances, the tightly controlled direction... Ones that don't feel the need for cheap drama just to entertain.

If people felt that it didn't work on its own terms or was subject to critical exaggeration, that's more than fair. But plenty of audience members seemed happy to engage with and appreciate the film's low-key storytelling. Film for many of us is so much more than disposable entertainment. What Richard Did is hardly beyond criticism - I can easily see how people could feel it was low-key to a fault, or were less than fond of the protagonist - but it's unfair to dismiss all its fans as operating on some level of blind hyperbole.

Fysh

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

If people felt that it didn't work on its own terms or was subject to critical exaggeration, that's more than fair. But plenty of audience members seemed happy to engage with and appreciate the film's low-key storytelling. Film for many of us is so much more than disposable entertainment. What Richard Did is hardly beyond criticism - I can easily see how people could feel it was low-key to a fault, or were less than fond of the protagonist - but it's unfair to dismiss all its fans as operating on some level of blind hyperbole.

I think there's a certain problem in terms of the film's reception within Ireland, in that some reviewers who tend towards the hyperbolic have come out with nonsense statements like "The most important Irish film this century" when describing it, which is to my mind a load of nonsense. I mean, yeah, to some extent any Irish film that isn't complete muck gets this sort of thing, but to read some reviews you'd be forgiven for thinking that WRD was going to revolutionize cinema. Certainly I can understand being disappointed if someone saw the film after reading this review, being that the film described there (and in the trailers) is frankly much better than what we actually saw on the screen.

The film itself has flaws, a significant one being that in focusing entirely on a bunch of self-obsessed & mostly spoilt D4 brats, it can be a struggle for the audience to engage to any great extent with the characters. (It's not so much that the characters are spoilt brats, as that they are uninterestingly spoilt brats). Most folks I know who've seen it have found this to be a substantial issue with it, and when combined with the script's desperate fear of having an opinion on Richard's actions, it feels like a wasted opportunity.

The screenwriter himself has expressed a concern that a number of teenage viewers who he would consider a key part of the audience found the title frustrating in the context of the second half of the film (as in "What Richard Did? F*ck-all!").

johnny_ultimate

I agree with Tara Brady's review being completely OTT. I remember seeing the trailer in the cinema for the first time, when the noisy soundtrack builds up and shuts down as "THE MOST IMPORTANT IRISH FILM OF THE CENTURY" pops up in bold lettering, lingering for a second too long. Even before I saw the film it came across as ludicrous, even if - given the very limited competition - it might not be completely unjustified

I do think its D4 setting and non-judgemental approach worked well for me. I can understand how it might have alienated many, but TBH after years of silly Ross O'Carroll Kelly pastiches it was a welcome change of pace to see a much-mocked subculture receive a balanced contextualisation. For them, privilege is a given, and their world view is inevitably restricted. From Richard's POV, we kind of need to see it all the way he sees it. Sure, the film could have easily been harsher - shooting fish in a barrel, really - but I don't think that's the film Abrahamson wanted to make.

jackal

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Correction: some audiences just want to be entertained. Many of - as evident from this thread - very much appreciate these kinds of subdued, understated character dramas. The considered pacing, the lack of cheap storytelling tricks, the strong performances, the tightly controlled direction... Ones that don't feel the need for cheap drama just to entertain.

Ah come on, I know exactly what you mean, having stated that I really liked his previous two films, neither of which relied on cheap drama to entertain. But entertain they did. Few would describe "Garage" as action packed or full of set pieces, but it had enough pace to keep you interested up to the culmination, which happily coincided with the end of the film.

The difference with "What Richard Did" was that it tried to hang 87 minutes of fairly aimless and shallow snapshots of an uninteresting/unremarkable bunch of people around a pivotal event lasting about 40 seconds, which happens in the middle of the film.

I thought it was on a par with the other films until that point, just about, but then because the most exciting part happens in the middle, the rest of it seems superfluous.

Anyway, everybody has their opinion and it does seem that this film was particularly highly thought of by film buffs, critics, etc. The 3 people I went to see it with were underwhelmed and a little bored, being just normal cinema-goers.

One for the purists eh?

johnny_ultimate

jackal wrote: »

The difference with "What Richard Did" was that it tried to hang 87 minutes of fairly aimless and shallow snapshots of an uninteresting/unremarkable bunch of people around a pivotal event lasting about 40 seconds, which happens in the middle of the film.

I thought it was on a par with the other films until that point, just about, but then because the most exciting part happens in the middle, the rest of it seems superfluous.

Not all stories have their climax at the end - indeed, the traditional three act structure is built around the idea of an 'inciting incident' that kicks off the film and is resolved over the following hour or two. There are plenty of films where the most exciting event happens early on (Flight, for example). It's not necessarily the act itself that What Richard Did is concerned with - it's both the reasons for and repercussions of that act. How would you have preferred the film to end? Personally, what I liked about the story is that it didn't resort to, say, a big court case at the end to spice things up. The film provides closure, but it's one that feels natural and 'realistic' - sometimes life simply goes on, and there's no grand revelation or catharsis.

There are many ways of telling a cinematic story - and yes by far the most common style tends to build steadily to a big revelation or drama in the third act. But we should be glad there's films like What Richard Did that tell a different type of story, that mix up the formula a bit. If anything, it's actually quite action packed compared to a lot of arthouse/indie films! There's tonnes of films out there where 'nothing happens' to a much greater degree. That style sometimes works, sometimes doesn't (there are some films so low-key they border on the pointless), but I'm glad they're out there at the same time.

Again, the complaint about the cast being unlikeable is a common one with this film, and yeah that can be a major barrier to getting engrossed in a film. It's clear the film didn't work for you for many reasons, and I respect that. I just think it's unfair to call it boring or superfluous when the structure was exactly what Abrahamson intended. There's nothing 'purist' about it - it's just an alternate way of telling a story, and personally I felt it was handled better than in either Garage or Adam & Paul

Also, was down Bray seafront today and saw some of Abrahamson's new film being shot with Domhnall Gleeson.

There's a tracking shot and an ambulance involved

:pac:

Fysh

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I agree with Tara Brady's review being completely OTT. I remember seeing the trailer in the cinema for the first time, when the noisy soundtrack builds up and shuts down as "THE MOST IMPORTANT IRISH FILM OF THE CENTURY" pops up in bold lettering, lingering for a second too long. Even before I saw the film it came across as ludicrous, even if - given the very limited competition - it might not be completely unjustified

"The Best Graphic Novel From Ballina This Year" isn't the high praise it might first be assumed to be, either I'm unprepared to accept on face value that WRD is a valid contender for that plaudit - Adam & Paul or Kisses both have far more to say, and do so in a more interesting way, as far as I'm concerned.

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I do think its D4 setting and non-judgemental approach worked well for me. I can understand how it might have alienated many, but TBH after years of silly Ross O'Carroll Kelly pastiches it was a welcome change of pace to see a much-mocked subculture receive a balanced contextualisation. For them, privilege is a given, and their world view is inevitably restricted. From Richard's POV, we kind of need to see it all the way he sees it. Sure, the film could have easily been harsher - shooting fish in a barrel, really - but I don't think that's the film Abrahamson wanted to make.

I can understand the O'Carroll Kelly thing being frustrating, but in a sense it's a straw man - I'm not from Dublin, so I don't have the "Finally! A representation of Dublin youth that's not just a ridiculous OTT cartoon!" reaction, I instead had the "Why does this film expect me to engage or sympathise with these self-obsessed spoilt little goits?" The only character I found interesting was Richard's friend who realises after the incident that he needs to change his life; but the structure and nature of the film mean that this is the last we see of him, and we've barely had a chance to see much of him beforehand. (I should also note that however sympathetic you might have wanted the film to be to the characters in general, the desperation with which it attempts to present Richard as the suffering hero when he is, in a very real sense, the villain in his story was frankly kind of off-putting. It's possible Abrahamson was trying to do this on purpose to reflect the degree to which Irish society tolerates the abdication of responsibility inherent in the phrase "Ah, sure I was drunk", but that's not the impression I got from the screenwriter's comments).

I think the film damned itself by wanting it both ways - on the one hand, it's an adaptation of a book based on real, highly-controversial events; on the other hand, it's a film in which an arrogant and narcissistic teenager does something stupid, vile and malevolent, and then stresses out for 3/4 of an hour about whether he can live with himself having done it. The first half appeared to be heading in the typical direction with a closing act full of tedious redemptive confession/courtroom drama/etc; the second half just didn't fit as a continuation of the narrative, to my mind. And while that might have been intentional, it didn't make for a particularly good film, and certainly not one I'd be fussed to watch again - which is a let down given the calibre of Abrahamson's previous work.

rob316

jackal wrote: »

Didn't hate it, didn't love it either, but I agree with you about it being boring with large stretches of silence/ambient noise/detached landscape shots.

I thought the reviews were a bit too gushing, perhaps because of the really good performance by Reynor, and glossed over the basic fact than audiences want to be entertained. Perhaps this is just one of those films that critics love and audiences do not. I thought Larry & Paul, and Garage were better films from this director.

Ya know what? your right Hate is a strong word, I didnt hate it. Im all for low key drama, but the dialogue was so uninteresting and the constant looking at the floor and feeling sorry for myself was just too much. Boring scenery and uninteresting characters bar Reynor. I really felt the producer didnt know where he was going with this. As someone else said the entire movie surrounded a 30 second incident and it was actually fine up till then but your attention plummeted afterwards.

I watched the Artist the other day and I could hold my interest in this longer considering its a silent film.

Important film? I can only see it as an important film for Jack Reynor as evidenced by his jump up to Hollywood.

My final note I felt alot of people only liked it because they didnt want to go against the grain of the hype. Maybe it was cool and arty to like this film. Thats possibly my biggest gripe.

johnny_ultimate

rob316 wrote: »

My final note I felt alot of people only liked it because they didnt want to go against the grain of the hype. Maybe it was cool and arty to like this film. Thats possibly my biggest gripe.

I absolutely hate this attitude. You didn't like it, fair enough. But don't presume others just did under some sort of weird peer pressure. Plenty of people have justified their fondness for the film here, plenty have justified their dislike. The way it should be.

unreggd

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I absolutely hate this attitude. You didn't like it, fair enough. But don't presume others just did under some sort of weird peer pressure. Plenty of people have justified their fondness for the film here, plenty have justified their dislike. The way it should be.

There's some truth in what he's saying though. And he say a lot, not all

Hype IS a big reason for certain people seeing certain films.


I personally didn't love or hate it. The cinematography was brilliant, but the plot was very 'stop and stare' for the most part, and they seemed to be trying to invoke sympathy for a guy who is little more than a spoiled, self-centred a-hole. It's very 'first world problem Meme'