The Whale – not convinced: a critical response.

This critical response discusses the cinematic and technical shortcomings, which cause the film adaptation of a theatre play to have detrimental affects on the character and story arc that is The Whale.

The Whale is originally a theatre play written by Samuel D. Hunter that premiered in 2012, it was then adapted for the screen as a feature film produced by A24 and officially released in 2022.

Sinking into my chair, about to watch this much-anticipated film, I have high hopes off the back of the news that Brendan Fraser won Best Actor at the 2023 Oscars for his performance in the lead role as Charlie, a father estranged from his daughter. This is bound to be incredible, on every level. Surely.

A few minutes in and this film does not sit right with me. Niggling away at me, I am dissatisfied. Dissatisfied with the dialogue, with the shots, the aspect ratio, the concept.

SCRIPT

I cringe and cannot buy into the lines the actors say to one other. Sure, theatre relies on dialogue between characters to supply the audience with the story. However, it is as if director Darren Aronofsky forgets to consider how powerful the tools of the camera lens are; close ups, silence, cuts– have the ability to offer entire impressions without the need for all these words to be uttered. The lens, if you permit it, will come towards the story. Instead, the dialogue weighs down on the scenes, preventing the audience from finding real connection with the ensemble cast. Aronofsky seems to have literally scooped the thick text from the theatre script and shovelled it onto the screenplay without the knowledge that in film, less is more. I cannot shake the sense that we are watching a filmed version of a stage play, not a filmed reimagining of The Whale in its own right.

ADDICTION
The film presents us with Charlie’s menu of vices: he orders two, maybe three, takeaway pizzas in the comforting cloak of secrecy and anonymity; Charlie’s carer Liz enables him by bringing with her an XL-size fried chicken bucket or double meatball sub on her visits, a grotesque binge eating sequence is shown wherein Charlie squirts mayonnaise on his pizza, shoves crisps onto toast, crams chocolate bars into his mouth, he gorges himself senselessly.

All of these interactions with food are shown from as far away as possible; as if the viewer couldn’t bear to watch it all too close. The camera tells us we are merely voyeurs in the stalls of a circus show, ogling the freak act that is Charlie. The film misses the mark with the addiction to food, similar with alcohol, cigarettes or narcotics, is an emotional one. The emotional aftermath of a binge; the regret, the guilt and shame – is not investigated cinematically. The battle of temptation between listening to your inner hunger versus giving in to the monster inside of you, does not receive any airtime. It is as if Charlie’s long-term addiction to food is not worthy of genuine exploration, or that his heaving size makes his addiction devoid of humane explanation. It just, is what it is.

Having read The Whale is not a masterpiece – it’s a joyless, harmful fantasy of fat squalor | Film criticism | The Guardian by Lindy West, I must agree with her in that we do not receive a nuanced or layered depiction of the experience as an individual in an obese body.

ASPECT RATIO

Aronofsky could have chosen to honour the character and life of Charlie, by giving him more screen space and rendering in 2:4:1. West paints the point brilliantly “Fat people are already trapped, suffocating, inside the stories the rest of you tell yourselves about us.” Through the 4:3 aspect ratio, Aronofsky hopes to have dedicated the film to “the emotions — it’s really about the actors. If you think about the shape, the shape of a square, it’s more like the shape of your head than a rectangle. So, it was about performance, and it was about the words.” I must rebuttal this 4:3 choice; rather than having distance and breathing room to digest the emotions, the words, we are painfully squeezed into the tortured life of Charlie, further alienating and ridiculing him.

LOCATION

Looking into the square that is Charlie’s flat, I feel cramped and caged. Aronofskycomments: “the whole thing takes place in one room, and I’m hoping you weren’t limited by that experience.” My question is, why did he seek to limit our experience by situating the film solely in Charlie’s apartment? This creative choice does not enrich our viewing experience, in fact, it weakens it. The very beauty of film is that one is not restricted to just one location, as one would be in the context of staging a theatre production. Film, by its very nature, has places to go; facilitated by a cut to the next shot.

Aronofsky comments “All apologies to the production designers, but it’s just an apartment.” – is it?The decision to reduce the character and his entire life to a single location only serves to give a 2D-representation of Charlie’s lifestyle. The character development of Charlie suffers. West describes, “We have plenty of your stories. What we don’t have is the space to forge untainted relationships with food and our bodies, to speak honestly about our lives without being abused, to explore our full potential without having it stolen by a world that thinks of us as Charlie – if it thinks of us at all.” And indeed,human beings are a complicated product of their past experiences and the surroundings they have found themselves in, over time. The characters mention countless memories and sensual impressions including Charlie and Alan’s romance, the New Life Church culture, Ellie’s school life, the underpinnings of social media, the interactions as a family between Mary, Charlie and Ellie. While the stage production may not be able to devise these scenes, the film could have had ample creative scope and indeed benefitted from reinventing the stage play, rather than trying to copy-paste it straight to the screen.

Coming away from the film, feeling guilty for not liking it, I needed to interrogate the whys and how I would have sought to improve it. Criticism is all well and good, but I would be remiss to state all of my dissatisfactions with the film when in truth, without coming up with actionable feedback. I saw so much potential in The Whale. The ground work had no doubt been laid, but in order to fully tackle concepts such as how Charlie become who he is, beyond the binge-eating attacks and lonely life he leads currently in his apartment, were not given an honourable space and thus, does not warrant this movie excellent.