Being considered a "tease" isn't a good thing, and most people learn to stay away from others who wet the appetite, so to speak, but then don't deliver anything worth the playful wait. When done in a movie, the raising of the audience's curiosity is a wonderful cinematic device, but likewise is only good if something worthwhile is delivered in return for the tease. If nothing comes of that anticipation, the audience's enthusiasm can quickly turn to alienation, anger or, worse yet, sheer boredom.
That's what happens with Hal Hartley's latest offering, "Henry Fool." A favorite auteur at film festivals but quite anonymous among the general public, writer/director Hartley ("Flirt," "Amateur") teases the audience with the belief that something surprising, exciting, or at least interesting will develop after a long introduction that includes a bevy of odd and/or disturbed individuals. Unfortunately, none of that initial material amounts to anything much. Instead it becomes quite boring and loses most of its charming idiosyncrasies that at least made the first half of the film somewhat interesting.
Hartley quickly sets out to heighten the audience's curiosity about all these characters and their circumstances and he succeeds. Most obviously, we want to know about Simon's controversial and epic poem, but the writer/director intentionally leaves us high and dry regarding its content.
After seeing its ability to stir up so many emotions and physically affect people -- a mute woman suddenly sings after reading the poem, it brings on Kay's menstrual cycle a week and a half early, and is the catalyst for a later suicide -- our curiosity is understandably heightened and we want at least a small taste of the work. Hartley's little plot device, however, is just as empty and meaningless as Henry's "confessions" novel which itself also turns out to be yet another manipulative, teasing gimmick that fails to pay off.
While Hartley has presumably done this on purpose to make the statement that art -- like beauty -- lies in the eye of the beholder, all it does is irritate the audience, particularly since that subject isn't new and he brings nothing insightful to the discussion. Along the same lines, the filmmaker has populated the story with superfluous characters with their own little storylines that do nothing but diffuse the main plot.
There's the abusive husband who briefly, but inexplicably begins campaigning for a political candidate in a subplot that's neither explored nor ultimately adds up to anything. Then there's the mute clerk, a wayward priest, and a parole officer who loiter about the film as if they walked onto the set during shooting and were unquestionably allowed to stay.
It's as if Hartley has dumped an odd combination of ingredients into this "soup" and -- by individually pointing them out -- hopes that some sort of congruous context will miraculously develop. Not surprisingly, it doesn't, and the audience is left with a hodgepodge of material that never amounts, or adds up to, anything.
The performances -- representing a wide array of quirky, depressed, and despicable characters -- are initially interesting, but begin to wane in the film's second half. Thomas Jay Ryan makes his feature film debut with this picture, and uses something of an odd and exaggerated approach to playing his character that constantly reminded me of someone spoofing Robert Wagner. While part of that was hopefully done on purpose, his often stilted dialogue and the odd rhythm of his vocal delivery will irritate those who don't find it unique.
James Urbaniak, who's appeared in some little seen "indie" films, plays the sudden literary genius, and delivers an interesting take on his odd character. Even so, I never experienced the sympathy for him that I thought I should and most of that is because we're never allowed to really know anything about what makes this guy tick. He claims that he's not a "retarded" (his words), but we don't ever find out what's behind his quirky demeanor.
Parker Posey ("The House of Yes," "Dazed and Confused"), who's become quite good at playing quirky characters herself, is entertaining in her role as the sex-crazed, and off-balance sister, while the rest of the characters aren't developed enough for the performers who inhabit them to do very much.
Part of the film's problem -- beyond the anticipatory letdown -- also lies with its unnatural and often forced dialogue. Although there's occasionally some funny or clever stuff, more often than not the material sounds like bits acclaimed playwright turned filmmaker David Mamet ("The Spanish Prisoner") would have tossed into the trash can, and the dialogue clearly isn't as clever or well-written as it pretends to be (despite winning the screenwriting prize at the Cannes film festival).
Initially interesting despite an extremely disjointed and right to the point opening, the film turns into a let down which is all the more irritating after you realize that you've wasted more than two hours expecting something interesting to happen. This film might satisfy those at film festivals, but will never make it out in the "real world" because being offbeat just as a plot device alone doesn't make for a great movie. We give "Henry Fool" a 3.5 out of 10.
![[Screen It]](https://www.screenit.com/images/screenit_subscriber_logo.jpg){kind=logo}
![[Around the World in 80 Days]](https://www.screenit.com/images/posters/movies/around_the_world_in_80_days_2022_small.jpg)
![[Family Camp]](https://www.screenit.com/images/posters/movies/family_camp_small.jpg)
![[Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness]](https://www.screenit.com/images/posters/movies/doctor_strange_in_the_multiverse_of_madness_small.jpg)