Here’s a classic case of misrepresentation in marketing and a set of films that probably would’ve worked better as a long running television series (as it was originally aired as) rather than a movie. In fairness, running it together in three separate movies rather than trying to cram the whole thing into 120 minutes is a tremendous step in the right direction and certainly something I’d like to see more of from movie studios when putting together something as epic as this story spans. However, walking into the theater for this mini-marathon, planning to see essentially what I thought would be a far more massive and in-depth version of David Fincher’s Zodiac, I was let down by how much the story was bogged down with contrived romantic trists, lack of focus and so many characters that they all began to bleed together and hence become uninteresting.

Theater goers beware, this may be exactly the kind of thing you are looking for in your cinematic experience, but one needs to be aware of exactly what that is. This is not an investigation into a series of child murders. This is an in-depth character study of three (or four) main protagonists as they slowly unfold a ring of corruption surrounding an era of a very specific locale of the UK. As things get “hairy” (for lack of a more subtle term) within each of our main characters’ worlds, rather than dig deeper into the case, they instead spend three quarters of the running time of each film digging deeper into their own psyche and begin to like what they see in themselves less and less.

Like many films from this region, the accents for western audiences might be a lot to tackle at times (think Trainspotting or Snatch for example). Usually a viewer is able to assimilate rather quickly into the regional dialect and have no problem deciphering what is being said. However with Red Riding, even by the third film, I was having some trouble gathering every bit of information from some of the more “severe” accents. This was due partly because a lot of the dialogue is spoken rather quietly, but also because there are so many variations in accent severity among the characters. It’s easy to understand David Morrissey for example; but once we get into a comfort zone with him, it’s not as simple to step in stride with some of the more richer speaking actors/characters. This isn’t a slight on the film exactly, but of course knowing what you’re in for and understanding that you might have to really pay attention closely as to not lose any bits of meaning from what information a character might be trying to relay.

Beside the somewhat disagreeable and admittedly facile communication breakdown, it should also be known that aside from possibly the first film (1974), these movies do not stand alone. They must be watched in their entirety and in chronological order to make any sort of sense out of them. Character arcs overlap and insome cases span all three pictures. There are flashbacks and recreations of previous scenes in the other films. Indeed, the best way to watch these films is to see all three back to back to back.

The Red Riding Trilogy seems to be really having a heyday with the critics, but unless I’m totally off base I think it’s going to have a tough time finding its way into the hearts of the masses. The epic feel of the whole thing might be enough to pull the wool over some people’s eyes however. I’m anxious to find out.

For more in depth analysis, an individual review for each film follows.

1974

Director: Julian Jarrold (Kinky Boots, Becoming Jane, Brideshead Revisited)
Novel: David Pearce
Screenplay: Tony Grisoni
Producers: Anita Overland, Wendy Brazington, Andrew Eaton
Starring: Andrew Garfield, Rebecca Hall, Anthony Flanagan, Eddie Marsan, Sean Bean, David Morrissey, Peter Mullan
MPAA Rating: R
Running time: 102 min.

Of the three films, 1974 is probably the only one that can stand on its own. If you only have time for one movie in the series, this most certainly has to be it. Here we’re introduced to most of the main players involved with the trilogy and here we get the most basic essentials of where the story is to take us. Eddie (Garfield), a young, rookie journalist is attacking his first big story after a young girl goes missing. Suspecting a connection with disappearances of two other girls, he begins a sort of vigilante investigation of his own since the police in the area don’t seem to be too interested in finding the real abductor/murderer. The police are more interested in keeping up appearances in the media by arresting and charging possibly the wrong culprit and calling the case closed. As Eddie uncovers more questions and evidence of a cover up, the police let him know they mean business and won’t tolerate any more snooping around.

For those looking for Zodiac, this is probably the closest of the bunch that goes in that direction, mostly due to the similarities in plot description. But the movie sacrifices a lot of substance for style and the case goes all but abandoned for nearly half of the movie’s running time.

The aforemention style however, is quite apropos and easy to envelop one’s senses within. The details in the set pieces are exquisite, but not lingered upon too much as to call attention themselves. Rather, the director makes sure to use the set simply to magically ease us into the mood of the time period. Various lighting techniques will also give a weathered texture to several sequences in the film; adding to the 70′s feel.

The biggest treat with 1974 is likely the stunning display of British character actors, from David Morrissey to Sean Bean to the always a treat to see, Eddie Marsan. Include some faces that we very unfortunately don’t get to see often enough; the likes of which include Rebecca Hall (Vicky Christina Barcelona), Warren Clarke (Clockwork Orange) and Cara Seymour (An Education) and this film is really a who’s who of popular names and faces. Andrew Garfield getting a proper lead is nice to see as well. After his wonderful, but tragically underseen performance in Boy A, his stint in Red Riding should, and will hopefully, get him noticed and bring about more higher profile roles and films. The performance is wracked with nuanced intensity and it’s clear he threw himself into this role with both feet.

Again, this is the only film of the three that can stand on its own with a relatively nicely tied story arc. The more I think about it, 1974 is really the only one of the bunch that I actually can say I enjoyed; barely. The style and performances and attention to subtle detail all made the story and tone work but it is still bogged down or distracted in the same way that 1980 does, albeit to a lesser extent.

 

 

1980

Director: James Marsh (Man on Wire)
Novel: David Pearce
Screenplay: Tony Grisoni
Producers: Anita Overland, Wendy Brazington, Andrew Eaton
Starring: Paddy Considine, Maxine Peake, Tony Pitts, Peter Mullan
MPAA Rating: R
Running time: 93 min.

Strangely being touted by many as the best of the three, I found it to be by far, the most eye rolling, uninteresting and unnecessary portion of the story line. Again though, I had hoped for a detailed investigation in a series of child murders. A mystery of sorts if you will. Going in understanding that this is instead a look at one character’s story that just so happens to be taking place as he leads an investigation might help ease expectations.

Flashing forward six years from the previous film, it seems that the string of child disappearances has continued for this small community. Unhappy with the way the local police seem to have bungled the investigation, a chief super intendant inspector (Paddy Considine) is sent in with his own team to hopefully bring closure to the case. By the end of the first act (1974), and throughout this second act, we really come to understand that the police have little interest in upholding the law and more interest in shady dealings and maintaining their own sense of power. By now, it’s clear that anyone prying too deep into the case of the missing children are not wanted and they’re sternly warned to back off.

Unfortunately as this ring of corruption unfolds, the investigation essentially peters into but an afterthought as we spend most of the time with our very uninteresting protagonist (Considine) as he wraps himself into an unwise, extramarital affair with his female partner in crime.
MILD SPOILER – - show

The only thing that really makes our protagonist interesting in this section of the film is that he had some direct dealings with circumstances that ended the first film. But very conveniently and contrivedly that aspect of his background and experience with the case is dismissed.

Imagine taking the bit with the wife from Zodiac (Chloe Sevigny) and blowing that up to cover almost 2/3 of the film. That is what we have with Red Riding: In the Year of Our Lord 1980. The melodrama that ensues is some of the most uninteresting and obvious storytelling I’ve seen for a long time. It has little (if anything) to do with the story arc of the film and is a long, yawn inducing experience. The idea is a fine one and introduces depth and intrigue to the dynamic of this otherwise important investigatory group, but to dwell on the subject and make that the essence of most of the film dwindles any and all interest levels in the characters.

Needless to say that after hearing from various sources that this was the best of the three acts, as I entered the theater once again thirty minutes later for part three, I vowed I would stick with it to the end. But now, pretty low expectations were hardened in my subconscious. If part two was supposedly “the best” and I essentially hated most of it, part three is going to be a nightmare. Thankfully this wasn’t so as my low expectations were met… barely.

 

 

 

1983

Director: Anand Tucker (Shop Girl)
Novel: David Pearce
Screenplay: Tony Grisoni
Producers: Anita Overland, Wendy Brazington, Andrew Eaton
Starring: David Morrissey, Mark Addy, Daniel Mays, Robert Sheehan, Peter Mullan, Warren Clarke,
MPAA Rating: R
Running time: 100 min.

As the third act in the trilogy, we would expect that things should be relatively tied up nicely in the end; or at least give the audience something to ponder as they exit the theater from this grueling, three part marathon. I won’t say whether the former is true, but it can be said that the latter certainly is not the case. Things feel rushed and rather convenient for this final act and all I could think to say was, “of course it ends that way.” Again, way too obvious.

The strength though in this corner stems from finally getting back to a character(s) we can root for and diving head strong back into the investigation. In stark contrast with part one, 1983 sacrifices style for more story substance. While I liked being back on task, the methodology here seemed to be overly simplistic, convenient and even annoying at times. It’s a straight forward, follow the clues from point A to point B to point C to lead you to a potential conclusion format.

The familiar faces of Mark Addy, David Morrissey and Peter Mullan were fun to follow as they take on the “forces of darkness” sheepishly at first, then with headstrong determination later. More interesting is watching a sort of personal redemption among some of theses characters. More flashbacks to things that took place in the previous films and in between are given to us and we begin to understand the motivations of not only our main characters here, but also several of the major players throughout the entire series.

 

Essentially the entire series in hindsight is less about child abductions and a murder case, but rather the ugliness of too much power and the overbearing corruption that can ensue. This corruption leads to a ravaged community in disarray with fear and depravity ruling the day.

With so many characters and only sideways references to people past and present that are tertiary, though important (or maybe not as the case may be), keeping one’s head above water throughout this series can be a daunting task. The slight language and dialect barrier for western audiences might prove difficult and compound the complications that some might even call it confusing or even nonsensical.

In hindsight the series isn’t worth the time, energy and ultimately the money that must be invested to take in the tale in its entirety. Can there be some pleasure derived from the series? Absolutely there can be and obviously there has been. On this writer’s shoulders though, lies a heavy weight that feels almost like regret. I couldn’t fathom another sit through of the series, but I welcome a long discussion with others and what they might’ve taken away from some of the many underlying themes present throughout the films. Definitely some things are there to ponder and it would make for excellent movie club fodder.

While elements have me thinking and reevaluating on the positive side, the more negative thoughts (particularly from part two and the end of part three) have a way of creeping their way into my opinion and causing frustration and very nearly exasperation. It’s certainly not something I would bother sitting through again but I’m dying to know what others took away from the experience and welcome criticism and praise from this daunting undertaking.