What to Expect in the* Hereafter

We've all got our own beliefs -- religious or otherwise -- and theories about what to expect in the Hereafter, the place/ state of being/ time after death. And that's the question at the heart of three separate stories presented in Hereafter, writer Peter Morgan's examination of variations of the theme. But leaving said central mystery behind just for a moment, I've got a mystery much more confounding than issues that merely deal with life after death, and that mystery is: What the hell is wrong with critics and the movie-going public?

Seriously, this movie, whether intended as such or not, seems to be the answer to every one of critics' complaints about modern cinema, and they responded to it with a baffling mixture of (depending on who was reviewing it) hostility or plain indifference. So let's consider this for a moment. What do critics complain about? An excess of action movies, dumb comedies, and slasher films, the three most dominant genres in the box office, all of which require you to turn your brain off if you're to enjoy the film. They complain about special effects that exist for no reason other than spectacle, about lazy and predictable storylines populated by one-dimensional characters, and about Hollywood's tendency to present death, sex, and violence as pure titillation, without pause to consider the consequences.

"And where's the originality?" people cry out (and here I'm talking more about your average IMDb user than about most professional critics, although lord knows the line has blurred lately). "Why does it seem like every movie is either a remake, a sequel, or based on a book, TV show, or graphic novel?" Such complaints inevitably lead to the same conclusion, always phrased as a rhetorical question, "is Hollywood out of ideas?"

Well, Hereafter proves that Hollywood isn't out of ideas, as Morgan presents us with an original screenplay that is both emotionally and intellectually stimulating. This sensitive, patiently paced (which, in this case, does not mean the same as "boring") drama tells three separate stories, carefully balancing all three so that no one ever over-powers the other two, so that we feel like we're watching one continuous narrative.

Ostensibly, the main character is the one played by Matt Damon; that is to say, trailers and TV ads lead us to believe that he's the main character, even though his story is more or less equal to the other two stories, in terms of import and screen time. Damon stars as George Lonegan, a genuine psychic who has turned his back on his astounding gift. At first, his reasons seem like the standard cliches you find in supernatural stories involving psychics -- he feels like a freak, he wants to lead a normal life like everybody else, "it's not a gift, it's a curse," etc. -- but as we follow his attempts to leave the life of a professional psychic behind him, we slowly learn exactly why George has made the decisions he's made. Bryce Dallas Howard's supporting role, as a night school classmate who has the potential to serve as George's love interest, plays a key role in answering some of these questions.

Then there's Marcus, a very young boy whose life is turned upside down when his twin brother Jason, in a very early scene, is killed in a car accident. In addition to this devastating loss, Marcus is forced into foster care, when social workers force his loving but alcoholic and heroin-addicted mother into a rehabilitation program. Screenwriter Morgan gives us an early sign that Marcus's storyline will eventually tie in to George's narrative, when Marcus exhibits his grief through a sudden obsession with psychic phenomenon. An extended sequence in which Marcus, desperate to contact his deceased brother, approaches several psychics, and discovers them all to be frauds, is heartbreaking, but realistic. Marcus is no fool, and he approaches his mission with a touching mixture of determination, hope, and healthy yet sorrowful skepticism. An insensitive viewer might accuse Marcus of being a glutton for punishment, but the truth is that he is merely exhibiting that admirable quality of Hope Against Hope.

Finally, there's Marie Lelay, a minor celebrity and television journalist based in Paris. Marie's story is set in motion by the infamous Indian Ocean tsunami of 2004, which nearly kills her during her vacation in Thailand. Actually, the point of Marie's story is that the tsunami does kill her, at least for a few seconds, and she awakes having experienced a near-death vision that hints at the existence of Heaven. Marie returns to Paris and initially attempts to return to life as normal, but after a briefly successful return to career-oriented goals, she becomes obsessed with researching life-after-death phenomena. This fascination of Marie's eventually jeopardizes both her career and her love life, although, interestingly, refreshingly, it is never depicted as unhealthy; rather, it is the closed-minded skepticism of those around her that is presented as unfair and unwise.

I started this review by contrasting Hereafter with critics' complaints about Hollywood cinema, and I'd like to briefly return to that topic, so that I can wrap up my point. In contrast to the dumbed down material permeating the cinematic mainstream, Hereafter takes a look at some very big questions and examines them with intelligence and sensitivity. There are special effects -- mostly confined to the glimpses of Heaven and the tsunami that sets the story in motion -- but these effects service the plot, rather than the reverse. All three stories are populated by three-dimensional characters in distinct tales, whose connections are (for the most part) more thematic than narrative, thus lacking in contrivance, but serving as a textbook example of how to carefully construct a drama. And, most refreshingly, we are presented with scenes of death and violence which serve not as raw, insensitive entertainment, but rather as important moments of real consequence.

This is all presented with patience, respect, sensitivity, and genuine craft by director Clint Eastwood, who brings out the best in his cast; this film is filled with top-notch performances. Even Jay Mohr, of whom I am no fan, presents a previously unseen level of maturity in his role as George's well-meaning brother. But I was especially impressed by Bryce Dallas Howard, an actress who could have easily coasted through an acting career on the shoulders of her powerful father (director Ron Howard) but instead is turning into one of the finest actresses of her generation. Her performance as the charming but vulnerable Melanie will have you falling in love with her, and if an actress playing a romantic interest has the job of making you want her to get together with the hero in the end, Howard makes the very best possible choices as a performer in every instance; every movement in her face and nuance in her inflection communicates volumes about the character.

Hereafter, in a nut shell, is that most rare of rarities to come out of Hollywood -- an original story that elicits discussion, emotion, and thought in equal measures, presented with love and top craftsmanship, eschewing easy answers and predictability, in favor of hard questions and creativity. And for that, most critics, both amateur and professional, spat on it. I, for one, will not jump on that band wagon. I recognize top quality when I see it.

*movie called