spressarts
I found this movie to be remarkable. I was captivated by the depth of each character from the beginning. The casting was superb. The dualistic forces evident in us all; the undertow of past conditioning and trauma and the propelling urge to transform, are pivotal in Frankie's story. Through the gifted performance of Kevin McKidd, I felt as if I was experiencing this developmental tension from the inside of him. Contrary to the title, alcoholism was rather a subtle subplot. There were no visits to a detox and in the one scene where we are led to a brief glimpse of an AA meeting, Frankie does not identify himself as an alcoholic. None the less, alcoholism provided a powerful back drop to the more obvious themes of rage, repression and the redeeming power of love and intention. Alcohol is portrayed as the catalyst to fuel the violence, betrayal and poor choices, the gage to measure the protagonist's progress and most important a means to pathologically cope with emotional pain and unresolved memories which thematically appear throughout the film. The richness and natural beauty of the women in the movie and the lighthearted romantic moments provided a welcomed balance to the intensity. The artful direction of incorporating stills with action as well as the thoughtful use of sound light and closeups further made this film worthy of high merit.
ian-stewart1
There is a key aspect of film that Jobson seems to have forgotten - it has the ability to tell a story by showing it to you. You don't need to tell the audience what to think, because they'll see it. The action here is interspersed with some of the most ponderous narration unleashed on the unsuspecting public - the purple prose of the sensitive fifth former. And it should be unnecessary because their is a fine cast here and some beautifully composed and shot visuals. Maybe Jobbo felt that the basic story needed a lit bit of support. And he may have been right, it lacks a basic credibility: 70s Edinburgh wasn't exactly full of beautiful brainy girls with a penchant for the Velvet Underground and a soft spot for a passing sociopath. From the too neat and new looking clothes that character wears to the cod intellectualism that tries to link it all together, it's all too contrived for my taste.
Chris Knipp
"Sixteen Years of Alcohol" is the Edinburgh story of a guy with a philandering dad who starts to drink at twelve or so, turns into a violent, alcoholic punker, and finally seeks self-reform. Early scenes depict Frankie, the young boy and his father. We then jump forward to the big, muscular Frankie Mack (Kevin McKidd) terrorizing pubs and shops with his three mates like Alex and his dogies in "A Clockwork Orange" but without Alex's archness and glee. Frankie also gets into fights with his own mates and woos Helen (Laura Fraser), who clerks in a record shop.Eventually the hero, whose brooding voice-overs constantly intrude, loses Helen, though for a while she seems to have tamed him and turned him from Mars into Artemis, bearer of good news -- as she puts it in a game they play on a colonnade perched high up above the town. Frankie gets stabbed and kicked senseless (S.O.P. for the hoodlums of this piece) and winds up in a twelve-step group for alcoholics -- but when he shares at a meeting, he tellingly substitutes for the classic AA declaration, "My name is Frankie, and I AM A VIOLENT MAN." He also joins an acting workshop with Mary (Susan Lynch), his new girl -- or recovery pal: there's no lovemaking or physical affection shown. One shot hints that Frankie's employed in a workshop or factory, but specific detail is lacking: the film is deliberately short on connected narrative, going for passion and poetry over mundane realism.There's truth in the 'Village Voice's' thumbnail description of "Sixteen Years of Alcohol" as a series of "static tableaux," and it's also true that McKidd's better than "the dubious romanticism and hard-man clichés of his role." Parts of the movie fall flat, but what makes it worth watching is an intense clarity about the people and the sharply lit scenes they're in. Also welcome to an American is that unlike some Scottish films this one's English is crystal clear too. There is the power and sincerity of the simple small film in "Sixteen Years of Alcohol," but also a lack of narrative focus and sense of a whole world one finds in England's Sixties "angry young man" films beginning with "Saturday Night and Sunday Morning." Jobson isn't trying for "kitchen sink" realism at all, but for something poetic and expressionistic; and the stark, strikingly lit photography helps him approach that goal and make this a watchable film.What's less appealing is the simplistic fatalism of the plot structure. One may wind up wishing Frankie had received more practical tips about how to stay off alcohol and violence, rather than focusing on his relationships with women, which aren't developed very far anyway. The "dubious romanticism" shows up in the way a life is ultimately seen as circular (as is the film's "ring" framing device) and doomed, rather than -- what would be equally justified by the story -- moderately hopeful. The chap is still young and healthy, after all, and he wants to get better. Why not suggest he's going in that direction? This is the first film for Jobson, previously known as the front man for the Seventies Scottish art punk band, the Skids, and, later as a poet, model, TV presenter, film producer and critic. He has not disgraced himself in this semi-autobiographical effort (the time-line follows that of his own Sixties childhood and Seventies youth). What one remembers are the stark sometimes beautiful images. The high-flown, overwrought writing can be cloying, but may also point in a fresh new direction. No Danny Boyle here, but rather, perhaps, a new style and voice.(Seen March 26, 2005 at Cinema Village in New York.)
reflectionsvideo
If I gave out Oscars, this film would collect them all !If I was nitpicking, I would say the dialogue was the best part ( but only by a little)I wonder if it will be as good on the second viewing ? Maybe I won't watch it again, cos it was so perfect !!Ian.p.s. whats this crap about minimum 10 lines ????Should I pad it out with nonsense ?? Should I go on about the beautiful soundtrack ? Shouls I go on about the wonderful camera work ? what a hassle to post a comment !!!!
