Adam Resurrected (Paul Schrader, 2008)

[Antoine Doinel]

Well this is kinda out of nowhere, but Schrader's latest will get an Oscar qualifying run in December in NY and LA.

[Perkins Cobb]

I like Paul Schrader, but man, he sure can't spell.

[Antoine Doinel]

A roundtable discussion with Paul Schrader, the novelist Yoram Kaniuk, and producer Ehud Bleiberg. The film does not yet have a US distributor.

[Antoine Doinel]

So this film is going to be self-distributed, which means you probably won't see it until it arrives on DVD. The producer seems to think he has a decent shot a landing an Oscar nod.

[Antoine Doinel]

The DVD and BluRay arriveon September 22nd.

[John Cope]

Well, given the lack of responses to this one I kind of assumed it was a misfire and hadn't sought it out till now. My mistake. This is an absolutely extraordinary, transfixing experience with a top tier performance by Goldblum which is so great that it's very hard to imagine him ever having the opportunity to match it. Though I am a devoted Schrader fan so is Cronenfly and evidently he did not share my response, as indicated here in his comments on the Toronto '08 thread:

Schrader apologist that I am (though I concede that he hasn't done anything truly worthwhile since Auto Focus), I really tried to like the movie, but ultimately I concur that it was a wasted effort on the whole. It was good to see a novel approach to the Holocaust attempted (and perhaps the book actually carried it off), but the whole enterprise was sloppy and tonally schizophrenic to an unforgiveable degree (especially considering it deals with such delicate material). I thought Goldblum had some worthwhile moments, but his extremely variable accent and overall smarminess (which isn't as acute here as in some of his other performances, but is still pretty bad) do even those in. I sincerely hope Schrader finds his footing again with his next project

Wow. It seems we saw two very different pictures. I will admit that at first I was unpersuaded by the set up, though it is very carefully handled and this becomes more evident the further in you get. Still, initially it seemed that Schrader was going for a confluence or conflict of tones here that just wasn't coming off, or that perhaps he simply couldn't make come off. During the first twenty minutes or so I kept thinking of who, at one time or another, might have been better suited to this difficult material (Kusturica or Konchalovsky? Pintilie or Pialat?). But at some point I either adapted to Schrader's approach or else it worked its kinks out and settled into a rhythm. Either way, what struck me as the film progressed was actually how very well judged this particular tonal balance was, what real risks Schrader and Goldblum were taking. Because this is, ultimately, a model post modern melodrama. And what makes it so is its willingness to embrace the effects of melodrama without apology while integrating these qualities into a larger superstructure in which those effects, while never denied value, are not prioritized. Schrader is an expert at managing tonal shifts and blends (as in Auto Focus or Forever Mine) and this piece demands all his skill.

Part of my problem at first was that I felt Schrader's approach (and maybe the material itself) obscured rather than enlightened. The real subjects here seemed too hard to read or get through to past their surface representations. But this was an error in judgment. Because on one level the story here is actually remarkably simple and yet the details that inflect it with its own specific identity are what constitute Adam's identity as a character. They represent the kind of unique complications which make the navigation of an otherwise mundane and familiar scenario almost impossible. They render it unfamiliar, alien even, resolutely impenetrable.

Critics seemed to think that Schrader kept everything too much at arm's length; but this is a strength of the film, evidence of a knowledge that to do anything else would be to drown in hysteria, never to have any hope of emerging reconstituted at all. Once more, this mirrors Adam's own psychic efforts and the strained, pained expression of grace he strives for throughout.

From that same thread referenced above:

The film failed in every way for me. Every attempt at humor fell flat, often cringe-inducingly so. The presentation of the "dogs" was embarrassing. I thought Goldblum in general was awful, with a fake German accent that was absent more than it was present, and smirking most of the time to show that his character was an important but light-hearted and fun guy! I didn't care about anyone or what any of them were doing, and I'm sure that my audience felt the same way.

For me the humor was often a subtle, subdued thing as with the emotional effects, not overly pronounced. What was overly pronounced does not necessarily work in the way one might ordinarily expect it to I'll grant you but that hardly means it's unsuccessfully applied. Schrader's intent makes the moments of excess and absurdity a symptom or revelation of a larger canvas cultural malady. They point to an inability to successfully "make sense" of one's circumstances. Their effects are not meant to always be obviously comic.

The fact that the presentation of "the dogs" may have struck some as embarrassing is appropriate too I would say. Much of it is embarrassing and that's the point. Beyond that, how should presentation of this sort of detail strike us? As sensible? As strictly comic or tragic? Once again, Schrader blends those boundaries.

And as I implied earlier I really can't say enough good about Goldblum, an actor I'm normally not that enthusiastic about. And if I'm not it's because he does often come across in just the way Fierias and Cronenfly suggest. That element of his actorly persona is present in Adam Resurrected as well but it, like everything else, is made to work by being put in the service of something else: the depiction of a history complicated by absurdity, futility and attempts at nobility. Goldblum is in perfect sync with Schrader's intents to such a well tuned degree that the final effect is startling, even chilling. The scene in which Goldblum first speaks to the boy in the locked ward is an utterly masterful piece of acting which also articulates Schrader's entire approach. Careful, deceptively subdued and profoundly moving in total because of how little is directly allowed to be expressed (this is where Goldblum's self-conscious restraint helps). I found myself tearing up in this film at many moments often without any typical provocation or realization I was doing it. When the film finally provides us with a recognizable dramatic climax it has earned the right to do so by so carefully establishing how much is at stake. And what is even more remarkable is that Schrader leaves us at a moment of reflection beyond this scene; a moment that speaks to how truly mature his vision on this material is and the respect he maintains for his audience.

It's certainly true that this is a challenging piece, so much so that my first reaction after screening it was simple respect in the face of such an estimable effort; but as far as I'm concerned it more than meets the audience halfway. It does its job and then some. The film rewards attentive viewing but it also commands it.