Did we miss the acting of Edward Norton? He’s played a “normal” guy for so long, I’d honestly forgotten how awesome he was at the craft. His limited 20th century film career, specifically his roles in Primal Fear, American History X, and Fight Club, is by itself an acting clinic; those three films alone guaranteed him work in Hollywood as long as he desired.
That said, it’s been a while since I noticed Edward Norton as anything other than, “Hey, it’s Edward Norton.” I dunno how the meaty roles have eluded him exactly, but this is his juiciest one in decades, and all it took was self writing and self direction. Is there something you’re trying to tell us, Edward?
Lionel (Norton) has issues. His Tourette syndrome is so severe, it will dominate your thoughts on his mental acuity. It’s hard to take a guy seriously when he shouts random things at random times. Don’t be fooled, however, Lionel’s train of thought is on track and he has a photographic memory; this is why his PI boss Frank (Bruce Willis) respects him above his colleagues.
Before we’ve escaped the opening sequence of events, Frank is shot and killed by frustrated clients. Hence, the film’s premise is immediately brought to us: can this guy with Tourette’s and a photographic memory solve his boss’ murder? And how? This is NYC in the 1950s; it’s not exactly the most open of eras in terms of race relations, income disparity, or understanding mental disability.
Now, most films in which a character has a debilitating impairment will drop it whenever convenient. Comedies do this a lot because a joke is generally only funny once. Dramas will do it because nothing undermines a heavy moment on screen like remembering that the lead character suffers from Tourette syndrome. Think about it – name any scene you love and think about how Tourette syndrome would ruin it. Hmmm, what scenes do I love? The reunion at the DC mall protest in Forrest Gump, the idol scene from Raiders of the Lost Ark, the ending of Casablanca. Yup, I can pretty much guarantee Tourette’s would have ruined all of those. So, kudos to Edward Norton for keeping Tourette’s throughout the film, and even making it work on at least two occasions to enhance drama rather than detract from it.
That all said, Motherless Brooklyn (a terrible title, btw; it refers to Lionel’s childhood nickname) is a film which requires your attention. There are several moving pieces and at least three mysteries to solve. The Tourette’s is huge distraction from trying to figure out the pieces of the puzzle. Question is: without the Tourette’s, is the puzzle too easy to solve? Is the film too basic without the distraction? Is it more like playing tic-tac-toe while swimming or like solving the NYT Sunday crossword in a rainstorm? I think it’s somewhere in between; your results may differ.
Mostly this film feels like somebody wanted to make film noir without actually having seen one. The basic elements of noir exist – era-centric, urban, mysterious, criminal, seedy, yet the film erred noir-wise generally on cinematography and soundtrack. None of that is a bad thing, necessarily. Just know that Motherless Brooklyn has many trappings of the noir genre with all that smoke and shadow; aw, who needs that stuff anyway?
Lionel has a gift that resets
A wide-open train of Tourette’s
This elephant-in-room
Can sometimes spell doom
For it’s a subplot that never FUCKINGCUNTDOGSLUT!
Rated R, 144 Minutes
Director: Edward Norton
Writer: Edward Norton
Genre: Noir-ish
Type of being most likely to enjoy this film: Puzzle solvers
Type of being least likely to enjoy this film: Apologists for the ruling class
