Trance review
Danny Boyle's new film, Trance, has lots of ambition, but lots of problems, reports Paul...
There are things that feel seismically important at their moment in time, then fade in the memory as the years go by, their artifice and unremarkable nature suddenly apparent when plucked from their initial context.
The opening ceremony for the Olympics is not one of these things. It was spectacular then when I watched it in a garden in Hackney with all of my friends, initially sceptical, then awed by the spectacle, tickled by Bond and the Queen, weirdly moved by Mr Bean then completely won over by the NHS celebration, before heading onto the roof to watch the entire horizon explode into fireworks and generally radiate with the feeling that we (with we pertaining to us as individuals, our friendship groups and respective relationships, and the whole bloody United Kingdom) were actually going to be alright.
I then watched the opening ceremony again a few months ago, devoid of hubbub, and was pleased to see it had barely lost any of its power. The colossal technical achievement of it all was more striking. It also became clear how well paced it was. The inherent brilliance of the whole thing survives the nationalistic fervour that it initiated and is something to be admired and celebrate on its own terms for as long as it survives on whatever format we’ll be watching stuff on years from now.
Ideally, that’s where this review of Trance would end – celebrating Danny Boyle’s role as architect of one of the cultural events of the decade, and completely disregarding the part he played in directing one of the dodgiest films of the year.
Here’s an obligatory synopsis: James McEvoy plays Simon, the inside man in an elaborate art heist, who, in a moment of madness/spontenaeity/conscience decides to sabotage the plans at the last minute and squirrel the painting away for himself. The unimpressed lead heavy (Vincent Cassel) understandably objects to his unexpected heroism, and cold cocks him in the face with the butt of a shotgun before escaping the scene.
The only problem is that this brutal rejoinder leaves Simon with the kind of conveniently temporary amnesia beloved by screenwriters everywhere, meaning the location of the million-dollar painting remains stuck inside his head. After torturing him mercilessly fails to turn up any answers, Franck and his gang recruit a beautiful hypnotherapist (Rosario Dawson) to find out where it’s hidden. But it turns out that getting to the painting will required delving deeper into Simon’s psyche than any of the participants may be comfortable with, and potentially unearthing hidden memories that will change the lives of everyone around him.
Trance, much like the musical genre it shares a title with, not only did little for me but actively, persistently irritated me for the majority of its running time. It’s a textbook exercise in film-making that works on the ‘here’s some stuff, now here’s some more stuff’ basis, with little regard for a coherent tone or engaging characters. Boyle has always been a maximalist film-maker, his excitable, eager-to-please personality translating into films with the same qualities. But what Trance demonstrates is that his films need to be grounded in something meaningful at script level, like Alex Garland’s dystopic social commentary or Simon Beaufoy witty humanity, for the stylistic excesses not to feel headache-inducing.
It’s odd that the co-screenwriter (along with Doctor Who’s Joe Ahearne) is John Hodge, who wrote two of Boyle’s best, most consistent films in Shallow Grave and Trainspotting. Here the pair produce an overly-caffeinated script that feels structurally similar to the twisty, psychedelic mystery schlock employed by 60s Giallo movies like The Strange Vice Of Mrs Wardh and Lizard In A Woman's Skin. But whereas those films offset their preposterousness with a lurid charm, camp humour and Technicolor sumptuousness, Trance lacks all of these. It's a stylish film, but not a good-looking one, framing Docklands London with a harsh, blue and black colour pallette that enhances a grimy atmosphere but is at odds with the plot itself, which is camp ultra-nonsense. The dialogue is stilted, and the characters are uniformly unlikeable, not helped by performances from Cassel, Dawson and McEvoy, all of whom feel miscast and look appropriately uncomfortable.
After a promising, attention-grabbing initial heist sequence, Trance begins to rapidly, fatally stretch its own thin plausibility, with a queasy combination of outrageous twists, tonal missteps and head-thumping dialogue: it snaps entirely somewhere around the 45 minute mark, but the film just keeps accelerating, its own severed credibility flapping around behind it like a rubber scarf as Boyle sprints excitably for the hills without looking back, eager to show you the next bizarre thing he’s come up with before you can get your bearings and, crucially, figure out why you should actually care.
It's obvious when you're supposed to care, as big moments are thuddingly signposted by an intrusive, ear-splittingly loud score from Underworld's Rick Smith - another Olympics collaborator who was clearly pouring his creative energies in one direction last year - but it just serves as another barrier to any kind of emotional investment from the viewer, and a third act attempt to take the story into darker emotional territory feels completely unearned.
If you just want to see a load of crazy stuff happening, however, then you’ll definitely be placated by what Trance has to offer. Impressively nasty CGI gore! A depiction of sexual assault soundtracked by M People! Egregious use of iPads! A key plot point based around the pubic topiary of a lead character! There is quite literally something for everyone here, if everyone you know is a glue-sniffing 15-year-old. It just serves to demonstrate that there are two distinct variations of 'WTF' moments, one that is roughly analogous to the difference between the word 'incredible' and the words 'not credible'.
The things is, as annoying as I found Trance, I can't quite bring myself to tell you that you shouldn't see it. It is, for all its faults, unlike anything else you will see at the cinema for a while, and ultimately has to be admired for taking as many risks as it does. It’s certainly never boring, and while it's a shame that Boyle swings and misses nearly 100 per cent of the time here, hey: at least he's swinging, which is more than can be said for most mainstream filmmakers.
Trance definitely feels like a misfire for all concerned, though, and its script and relentless mistaking of formal tricksiness for depth isn't easy to overlook, even as the piece of flashy nonsense it so clearly is. Like the tortured memories of its amnesiac hero, Trance is, sadly, probably just best forgotten.
It's still better than the closing ceremony though.
Trance opens on the 27th March in the UK.
Follow Paul Martinovic on Twitter, or for more babble check out his blog.
Follow our Twitter feed for faster news and bad jokes right here. And be our Facebook chum here




Disqus - noscript
Wow massive disappointment but I'll hold out hope for a screening of my own... if we're bored of massively self-imporant award baiting Danny Boyle movies and he apparently has failed at returning to slick, thrillers.... where is he gonna go from here???
Wow, now I'm confused. I just read a 4 star review from Empire and now a 2 star review here. Still not sure whether to see it.
See it. Don't you make up your own mind about things? To not see a film because one other person didn't like it is ridiculous.
Can't take this review seriously when the guy can't even write the name of the main actor, James McAvoy, correctly. Guess the reviewer is the one "missing nearly 100 per cent of the time" here.
"McEvoy"? Who's that? He's not in THIS film. Makes me wonder if you even watched it.
Uhm...I know others have pointed it out, but McEvoy? Seriously? Who does that? So tell me, what did you think of George Claaney's latest movie? Brad Pott's? Matt Dimon's? Wow. Isn't it fun to misspell actors' names? *sigh* So all three of the main characters were miscast? Thank you for your deep and thoughtful explanation of that ridiculous determination. Oh, and thanks for making me want to see this movie even more than I already wanted to see it. I wonder if you planned it that way, or was this movie just too "smart" for you? James McAVOY is a brilliant actor, getting rave reviews for his run as Macbeth on stage. He has won awards and accolades for years. He deserves, at least, to have his name spelled correctly by the likes of you. Next time, try a little research. Try typing "James McEvoy" into Google and guess what? It gives you the results for "James McAvoy." Hey. That took me all of three seconds. u-g-h
Exactly. If a reviewer can't even bother to do the very simple task of checking an actor's name, how are we supposed to care about his review?
And the "miscast" thing I've been reading in so many reviews lately is getting ridiculous. To me, it just sounds lazy and that the author has a predisposition not to like a certain actor's work; since the writer can't offer a good explanation as why he/she can't analyze the actor's work fairly, he/she just throws a "miscast" and all is good. Only not.
Sorry about the typo. Honest mistake.
James McAvoy and Rosario Dawson are miscast for very specific reasons that I deliberately danced around because to reveal them would be huge plot spoilers. Cassel is in Black Swan mode and as a result his performance operates in a camp-to-menacing ratio of around 10:1, which doesn't really work in the context of the character or the film. Michael Fassbender was originally cast in the role before dropping out and would have been far more effective IMO.
I actually really like all of the actors involved, and I have loads of love for Danny Boyle's films. If anything I was pre-disposed to like it, but it really didn't work for me.
Sorry but "miscast" is just lazy. I don't buy it. McAvoy is miscast as what, an art-dealer? A guy with amnesia? A character with some dark secrets? Come one now. It seems that some critics just want James to be stuck in the same "nice, innocent guy" roles forever. And then they criticize him for it. The guy can't win.
And maybe I'm the only one tired of Fassbender and the notion that he'll "save" the films he's supposed to be involved? I think he's very much a one-note actor, much less versatile that McAvoy, and he would be doing his old routine of being a dark, menacing, violent, brooding character. No thank you.
He didn't convince me in this role, so either he wasn't the right actor for the part (which I suspect, and is backed up by the fact he wasn't first choice) or just gave a bad performance. If you want specifics - way too much mugging and eye-rolling.
I can't remember a bad word being said about him in a review before this, so saying he 'can't win' with critics is just stupid. Everyone has an off day.
I think both McAvoy and Fassbender are excellent, versatile actors, but neither should be immune from criticism *in a critical review of their work*.
How do you know he wasn't first choice? I wouldn't call this a "fact". Boyle has already said that he invited Fassbender for the Cassel role. So who was the actor supposed to be in McAvoy's place?
I went to watch this at the cinema a couple of days ago, and it starts off quite promising. Unfortunately it doesn't really gel together in the end. Nothing particularly wrong with the acting except possibly the actors weren't playing the right roles - Vincent Cossel in particular played a very strange character, and by strange I mean lacking continuity.
It's quite difficult to comment on without adding spoilers, but the cinematography was good and the soundtrack was fine, and the performances themselves were fine. But as a film and concept, it didn't quite come together. Much like the review above, I wouldn't tell anyone not to go and see it - but it's no where near Mr Boyles best work.
Although if you're more interested in spelling than opinions I suggest you pick me up on the purposefully badly spelled French man's name above.
It doesn't bother me at all when a person commenting spells something wrong. But for a reviewer, it's ridiculous and non-professional, especially when it's an actor name. That was the point. A pet peeve of mine, if you don't mind.