Review: Hereafter

Death and the possibility of an afterlife are rich and contentious subjects, subjects that should easily provide a movie with much to ponder and discuss. Seeing this subject tackled by Clint Eastwood, whose films before this have often dealt with issues of mortality more indirectly, would seem to be the beginnings of a poignant and thoughtful film, particularly if Eastwood brought his traditional, no frills directing style to the project. Alas Hereafter, while containing a few moments that threaten to save the entire project, feels like a wash; a ponderous and dull film that mistakes overwhelming solemnity for importance and narrative sprawl for thematic complexity.

Hereafter stars Matt Damon as George Lonnegan, a sad-sack man living in San Francisco. Toiling in a factory by day, he is a man possessed of a gift that haunts him: the ability to, upon merely touching hands with another person, experience a direct connection to that person’s dead loved ones. This gift (or curse as he calls it) has prevented him from having anything resembling a normal life with normal human relations. As his scheming brother (played by Jay Mohr) puts it in one of the many lines from Peter Morgan’s script that is way too on the nose, “A life that’s all about death is no life at all.” But Damon’s is not the principal storyline; indeed Eastwood and Morgan have decided to make this one of those oh-so Oscar-ready multiple narratives, with Damon’s story thread being interwoven with two others. The film opens with the story of Marie Lelay (played by Cecile de France), a French journalist on vacation in Thailand with her married lover, who has her own experience with mortality when she is caught up in the horrific 2004 tsunami. This leads her to bring her journalistic skills to bear on the question of what exactly happens after we die, a line of inquiry that threatens, for rather contrived reasons, to torpedo her career and reputation. Finally, there is the story of Marcus, a young boy living in London with his twin brother Jason (both are played, inexpressively, by twins Frankie and George McClaren) and his junkie mother. When a tragic accident befalls Jason, Marcus loses the only stabile relationship he had and is compelled to seek out wherever his brother may have gone.

All of these stories are intermittently compelling and Eastwood brings a steady, restrained hand to the proceedings. The problems lie, principally, with Morgan’s script, which is unfocused and features dialogue that is far too pat and simplistic much of the time (Jason to Marcus on the possibility of their mother quitting her habit: “It would be just like having a real family”). Additionally, none of these intertwining stories has much narrative thrust; the characters are given their one connecting characteristic (their interest in the possibility of an afterlife) and then spend the rest of the film just hanging around; Damon’s character takes a cooking class, Marie becomes more and more distanced from her friends and coworkers due to her newfound beliefs, Marcus seeks answers from psychic charlatans and religious proselytizers etc. Some of these threads hold interest on a scene-to-scene basis (Damon’s interlude with the cooking class, wherein he meets cute with a friendly and damaged young woman played by Bryce Dallas Howard, is warm and moving, with an emotional payoff that manages to be quietly devastating). On a broader thematic level, however, there is nothing to connect these three stories satisfactorily. The end of the film brings the characters together in a rather unconvincing manner, resolving the narrative without really paying off the deeper questions raised by the film.

In fact, this remains my main problem with Hereafter. In past Eastwood films (from classics like Unforgiven to lesser works like Blood Work) the director has dealt frankly with issues of death. Hereafter would seem to present an opportunity to deal head-on with the issue of what happens afterward. However the film doesn’t even seem to be interested in that, portraying the hereafter as an out of focus cosmic realm with everyone’s loved ones just…standing around. Except for some rather vague comments about “being everything all at once” and a feeling of weightlessness, what precisely the afterlife is isn’t dealt with. I’m fine with the film not taking an explicitly religious stance on the question of life after death, but a little more specificity would have been nice. Furthermore, the existence of an afterlife doesn’t seem to impart any special insight on any of the characters that are aware of its existence. They all arrive at bland platitudes about moving on with your life and living it to the fullest etc. Theses generic revelations are especially insulting considering that the film utilizes real world tragedies, such as the 2004 tsunami in Thailand or terrorist bombings in the London Underground, in order to arrive at these bland conclusions. One would think that catastrophes of such scale and magnitude would prompt larger questions about the role of suffering and death in human existence. Unfortunately, the film uses these events as cheap and easy routes to unearned pathos. So cheer up everyone! Horrible things may happen, but eventually you’ll go to a fuzzy waiting room where you hold hands with your loved ones. And maybe they’ll lead you to that most cherished of Hollywood ideals: romantic fulfillment!

Eastwood has, of late, been a hit and miss filmmaker. His commitment to churning out a film or two a year has, much like the similarly prolific Woody Allen, taken a toll on the overall quality of films. While this film is a misfire it at least contains moments of promise, unlike the (intentionally?) hilarious Gran Torino. Hopefully for his next filmmaking endeavor Eastwood will find a script worthy of his considerable talents. For now however, Hereafter is an occasionally interesting, but largely unsatisfying misfire.