The Dresser (2015)

Good concept, poorly executed.

Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

If you like to be scared, if you like to laugh, and if you like to learn a thing or two at the movies, this absolutely cannot be missed.

Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

I have never seen the play, but based on the movie I'm sure it is a deeply moving piece beautifully crafted for minimalist theater. A somewhat meta-King Lear, Anthony Hopkins and Ian McKellen are masterful and charming in this adaptation. However, all the trappings of a film feel unnecessary. There's something just a bit off about watching a movie both celebrating and mourning the desperation, obsession, and beauty of the theater. This movie was not at all bad, but it's something that needs you to emotionally connect and watching it on screen creates a degree of separation that hinders that connection. If The Dresser were to show up on stage I would see it in a heartbeat, but I can't say that it's something I would ever watch on film a second time.

The lead actors, great theatrical geniuses both, convey an absolute disinterest in their roles and only put forward what their particular personas can convey in this. Though the adaptation makes more sense than the original film, the actors are just walking through their parts to make a few bucks as compared to the care Finney and Courtenay put in their roles in the original. Of course, considering their talents I was impressed by their expected competence -- but watch the original to see better performances.

My goodness, you don't get better than this. Tony Hopkins and Ian McKellen are perfectly cast in this authentic feeling take on travelling theatre during the second world war. Ill and aged, 'Sir' has premonitions, Norman (the Dresser) is desperate to hang on to what little life he has as Sir's most trusted aide. Without his role he has nothing. Norman is so caught up in his own anxieties he misses the clues to Sir's nagging self-doubts, his statements that 'he can't go on' and that 'really he should be resting at home'. Hopkins's portrayal is so subtle it is heart rending. This subtlety cannot be gained on stage as stray tears cannot be seen from the stalls let alone the gallery. McKellen, meanwhile, fusses and flaps with perfectly understood gay mannerisms for the period setting. As Norman, he gets perfectly right the intonation in his voice as he ducks and bows to Sir. These two actors provide stand out performances but this is not to commend all the other actors who also pull off incredibly touching and believable performances. Oh yes, this is worth watching, just be prepared to be left bereft.

Inevitably Richard Eyre's remake of Ronald Harwood's 1980 play is going to be compared with Peter Yates's 1983 film starring Albert Finney and Tom Courtenay. In thematic terms, this production more than holds its own. Eyre stresses the symbiotic bond between Sir (Anthony Hopkins) and Norman (Ian McKellen) through a clever use of grouping; the two of them are invariably seen together in the same shot, even when Norman is standing some way away from his employer. The two men are like Yin and Yang; neither can exist without the other. Norman has no life other than within the touring company; while Sir has the undoubted talent to run the outfit on his own, he needs a sounding-board, and Norman more than adequately fulfills the role. We also get some sense of why Shakespeare is so important to Sir, his company, and his audiences. For Sir it is a means of defining his identity; perhaps more than living with his wife Pussy (aka Her Ladyship) (Emily Watson). Through Shakespeare he can maintain a fantasy-world of power in which he exists at the top of the tree, and can maintain a benevolent despotism over the remainder of his company. Even when at the limits of sanity, it is Shakespeare who keeps him going. For the company, the chance to work in Shakespeare is equally identity-defining. Thornton (Edward Fox) is a bit-part player given an unexpected chance to play the Fool in KING LEAR. After a lifetime in the shadows, he has the chance to become someone, even if he might lack the talent to do so. Although the company might be tatty, the sets and costumes primitive, it can still provide opportunities that might never exist elsewhere. For audiences, the chance to see Sir performing during the midst of an air-raid represents an opportunity not only to see Shakespeare live, but to share in a collective experience that provides security for everyone. Yet the coherence of this production has been disrupted somewhat by the casting of Hopkins in the role of Sir. An undoubted talent in his own right, he lacks the power and the star quality demanded by the role; we have to know that Sir is a romantic talent, someone who can attract attention through sheer emotional power. Hopkins's rendition of Sir as King Lear is far too low-key in tone; it does not demonstrate the character's suffering, and thereby prove just how much the actor welcomes the role. Ian McKellen makes a convincing Norman, all bird-like gestures and conscious camp. One memorable moment occurs right at the end of the production, when Sir has passed away. Norman reads the beginnings of the autobiography Sir has written; finds his name absent; slumps in a chair and sticks his tongue out like a child towards Sir's corpse. He wants to break free of the dead actor's influence, but knows that he cannot. The production ends with a shot of the theater in which Sir dies, looking out from the stage into the auditorium. A stagehand crosses the playing area; the lights go out and the action fades to black. This moment emphasizes just how much a story of the theater THE DRESSER is; roles matter more than truth for everyone.