Archipelago* Review

Archipelago film still

Score

Hogg is inviting us to dismiss these people as fundamentally different to ourselves. But sat in a dark auditorium, we are merely laughing at each other.

When Unrelated took 2007’s London Film Festival by storm, critics compared debut director Joanna Hogg’s austere artistry to Eric Rohmer. But for all its confidence of form, what was most striking about Unrelated was that it seemed to be a figment from some hidden recess of experience.

Archipelago, Hogg’s second film, is equally personal. Set on the scattered Isles of Scilly, we meet three-quarters of an affluent British family: Edward (Tom Hiddleston), an untethered 28-year-old who is shortly to leave England for an 11-month voluntary placement in Africa; his mother Patricia (Kate Fahy), an implacably elegant yet drawn woman; and his sister Cynthia (Lydia Leonard), a quick-witted girl frustrated with her mother’s reticence and in possession of an acid tongue. Into this mix is thrown Rose (Amy Lloyd), a cook and maid with the hint of a regional accent.

No man is an island entire of itself; every man is a piece of a continent, and this film examines in quietly domesticated scenes the expanse that exists between each member of this family, but also the ties that bind them.

As the family picnic, paint and reminisce, the absence of Edward’s father becomes insistently conspicuous. They are all waiting for his arrival, yet noone has the courage to say it. Occasionally they enjoy themselves. Often, they merely feign it. Inexorably, a potent tension builds.

Hogg, the product of affluent Middle England, is highly-literate in the unsaid decrees and subtle gradations of manners. She communicates these inhibitions with the observational faculties you’d expect of the arthouse, like a Leigh for posh people fused with a gentle Michael Haneke.

Watching Archipelago unfurl, one gains the all too rare assurance that the director is in complete control. Hogg chose to shoot the film in script order, keeping the ensemble cast in the holiday house for the duration. Some scenes seem half-caught and inconsequential – a puff on a cigarette and a pensive glance, some aborted small talk – like a careless smudge on a large canvass. Others are long and open – in one scene, the family arrives at an empty restaurant and spends an eternity deciding which, of the sea of empty tables, should be theirs.

In the hands of a less sensitive director this film could feel small and thin, but Hogg, who holidayed here as a child, brings the Isles of Scilly into the centre of the tale. The inhibitions that hang so heavily on the family in the clean, pastel confines of the house fleetingly vanish when they journey into the inky mash of colours on this far-flung wing of Britain.

Unrelated was an accomplished work by any standards, but Archipelago is calmer, even more careful and attentive and conscious of overstaying its welcome. Yet a bite remains; an acute, intimate and searching frustration.

And so something quiet, reticent but defiantly challenging grows. Again and again, in scenes full of humour and strain, Hogg is tempting us to laugh accusingly at Edward’s callow engagement with the job of life, at his sister’s narrow expression through angular snipes, at his mother’s servitude to unspoken etiquette.

Hogg is inviting us to dismiss these people as fundamentally different to ourselves. But sat in a dark auditorium, we are merely laughing at each other.

View 4 comments

DSW

2 years ago
you forgot to metion it is unbelievably boring. Not one person in the cinema I have just seen it in enjoyed it.

JamieR

2 years ago
I think you have to be in the right mood. Clearly it's slow (indeed everything about it is barefacedly 'arthouse') and for the first 20 minutes or so I was worried, but I think if you give it a chance it gradually pulls you in and ends up being quite powerful. I'm referring especially the blazing row, which was... wow.

Interesting to wonder whether the director's intention is that you necessarily 'enjoy' it. I'm not sure it is. Should it be?

jjj

2 years ago
Unbelievably boring it ain't. Overwrought, it increasingly is as the film unfolds. It's starts off well - bittersweet, evocative, deftly scripted and leisurely of pace but engaging all the same.

Through the second half of the film, it becomes heavy handed, beating you over the head again and again with a small handful of ideas. In short, it becomes rather cartoonish in narrative and shrill of dialogue. Impeccable performances and beautifully framed throughout, but despite an exceptional start, only half of a very good film.

Michael K W

2 years ago
I can definitely understand the "boring" comment. I feel the film was self-indulgent and could have done with an editor. I understand that the seemingly 'inconsequential' moments/scenes were intended to tell us something about the characters but a more accomplished director would have achieved the same goal in less time. I also agree with the "beating over the head" comment - we got most of the points fairly early in the piece and didn't need to sit through long, unedited scenes of little real consequence.

I was very disappointed at the number of glowing reviews for this film - they made me very eager to see it but I was greatly let down by the ultimate end result. Once again, I understand that the 'slow' style is intentional but I've seen other films achieve a better result with a less ponderous telling.
Comments are closed.