Skip to main content

Innocence (2000)



Published 2018 on Down Under Flix

Director: Paul Cox
Stars: Charles ‘Bud’ Tingwell, Julia Blake, Terry Norris, Chris Haywood, Norman Kaye
Director Paul Cox’s final work, 2015’s Force of Destiny, opens with a title card dedicating the film to two departed collaborators: actress Wendy Hughes – star of the superb Lonely Hearts as well as Kostas, My First Wife, Lust and Revenge, and Salvation – and Oliver Streeton, art director on Human Touch and title designer on that film, A Woman’s Tale, Innocence, and The Diaries of Vaslav Nijinsky. This dedication, combined with the film’s subject matter – dramatising Cox’s own brush with liver cancer – and the fact its director died just a year after its release, casts a shadow of mortality over the filmmaker’s swansong effort. Having said that, Cox grappled with matters of mortality throughout his whole career. 
This theme surfaces in Innocence, which centres on former lovers reuniting in their seventies. Andreas (Charles ‘Bud’ Tingwell), a widow, writes a letter to his former love Claire (Julia Blake) proposing that they catch up. They meet, rekindle their love for one another, and embark on an affair, leading to the erosion of Claire’s fourty-year marriage to John (Terry Norris). This was the first Paul Cox film to appear on my radar, but it was not a film I sought out: as an 18-year old filmgoer of dubious taste at the time of its release, I avoided Innocence like the plague, dismissing it as geriatric romance. In retrospect that was my loss, but also a gain, as the passage of time has equipped me to appreciate the film better than I would have at age 18.
A few months ago I reviewed the film Words and Pictures, and while it wasn’t much to my liking I appreciated the pairing of mature leads in Clive Owen and Juliette Binoche. Onscreen romance is generally the domain of the young. Much of it is also predicated on amorality that’s mutually agreed upon in a silent pact between filmmaker and filmgoer: an unblinking, unspoken acceptance of dodgy behaviour – lying, cheating, betrayal, spying, stalking – sugar-coated and brushed off as Hollywood confection and convention, just part and parcel of the genre. Remember Sleepless in Seattle when Meg Ryan breaks up with her fiancé Bill Pullman to meet up with Tom Hanks atop the Empire State Building? Or While You Were Sleeping, where Sandra Bullock lies her way into the lives of a comatose man’s (Peter Gallagher) family by pretending to be his fiancé, only to end up in love with his brother (Pullman again)? Or My Best Friend’s Wedding, where Julia Roberts does everything she can to destroy her “best” friend’s (Dermot Mulroney) wedding to Cameron Diaz? Innocence is a rarefied specimen; not only is there a greater vulnerability to the romance that comes with the age of its protagonists, there’s also a greater sense of the collateral damage in the form of the dissolution of Claire’s marriage. Things get ugly. Things get messy.
The film showcases strong work from three industry veterans, who sell the shared history and sometimes tender, sometimes thorny interactions between their characters, as well as some of Cox’s more didactic ruminations on love and life. The late Tingwell delivers an understated performance, quietly harnessing 50 years of accumulated audience affection to Andreas’ romantic cause. Blake, an actress who has lent class, warmth, and occasionally haute chilliness to films like The Getting of Wisdom, Patrick, My Brilliant Career, and Travelling North, plays Claire with dignity and fragility. And Norris – who’d only returned to film and television a few years earlier after a long absence, but has been prolific since – is alternately clueless, callous, and sympathetic as John. Also deserving some praise are Kenny Aernouts and Kristine Van Pellicom as younger versions of Andreas and Claire. We see them only in fleeting dialogue-less flashbacks, but both make strong impressions, adding colour and personality to what could have been merely ‘filler’ scenes.
Ben Kooyman

Popular posts from this blog

Beyond Innocence (1989)

Published 2017 on Down Under Flix Director:  Scott Murray Stars:  Katia Caballero, Keith Smith Scott Murray is one of the premier commentators on Australian cinema. He’s best known as editor and contributor to  Cinema Papers  and  Senses of Cinema , as well as for editing, authoring, and contributing to various volumes on Australian film, including one particularly indispensable resource for my work on Down Under Flix,  Australian Film 1978–1994 . In the 1980s, Murray directed the film  Beyond Innocence , also known as  Devil in the Flesh . It was both his theatrical feature debut and swansong, though he’d later helm a music documentary,  Massenet: His Life and Music . 
Read more

Six pack: Furiosa (2024), Force of Nature (2024), No Escape (1994), The New Boy (2023), Mary and Max (2009), and Sweet As (2022)

  There used to be a nerdy adage—at least until contrary instalments countered the point—that even-numbered Star Trek films were better than their odd-numbered counterparts. I wouldn’t be surprised if a similar adage emerges about the Mad Max films: while the obviously odd-numbered original was a trailblazer, it’s The Road Warrior and Fury Road that have commanded universal acclaim, while Beyond Thunderdome and Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga (2024) have proven divisive. There are striking moments—as expected in both a George Miller film and a Mad Max film—in Furiosa , and Miller remains the most idiosyncratic generator of sequels: Furiosa (technically a prequel) is his sixth, after a Babe sequel, a Happy Feet sequel, and three other Mad Max sequels, with none of these offshoots feeling the same. However, if you’d told me Furiosa was based on a five-part prequel comic book series, I’d believe you, based on its chapter structure and the narrative dead end it arrives at. As it stand...
Read more

Malcolm (1986)

  When penning my review of Black and White , starring Robert Carlyle, I was reminded of my two theatrical viewings of The Full Monty : one in a packed theatre with patrons lapping up the film, the other a few weeks later in a large theatre with less than a dozen, far more polite punters. As a dumb teen, I took away the wrong lesson: that the film didn’t work/wasn’t successful outside a packed auditorium. As an adult, I have a more rounded appreciation of the film and its grace notes that aren't dependent on an enthused opening weekend crowd — the thoughtful, non-condescending working-class milieu it sketches (much more effective and less caricatured than the likes of Billy Elliot ), the lovely work from Lesley Sharp, and so on—but the two distinct viewings remain an instructive lesson in the role of an audience in galvanizing each other and collectively elevating a film experience [1]. Malcolm (1986) is a film I’ve also watched twice—albeit at home and with a much longer interva...
Read more