Tom Ford
Animali Notturni

I had enormous expectations for this second work by Tom Ford. Unfortunately, however, the viewing did not live up to them. Let it be clear: Nocturnal Animals is a solid film, but it is not a great film. The impression is that the mountain gave birth to a mouse: ambitious diegetic construction, great cinematography, actors in great shape, intense dialogue, meticulous care in staging. What is missing are interesting stories, in-depth ones, that don't feel overused and overexposed. In this sense, the two parts that make up the work, the real one about Susan and the fictional one about Tony and the detective's investigation, draw from themes that are particularly common in Hollywood cinema: the rich unhappy woman, crime, and violence in desolate settings.

The merit of the film is the ability to connect truth and literary fiction in a tangle of frustrated feelings and pain that echo on the pages of a book and then return vividly to Susan's emotions as she reads it. But this interesting alchemy was not set up in the best way possible: by minimizing the flashback parts, when explaining the origin of Edward's knot of pain, it seems there is not enough fuel to make the entire engine, which starts the writing of the book, work effectively in the eyes of the viewer. Too much space is given to the second-degree narrative, penalizing the root of the whole story. This results in a hypertrophic vindictive framework that rests on a clay foundation. Some of the noir fascination of the investigations should have been sacrificed to give more solidity to the premises. Especially to the harsher aspects and the selfish side of Susan.

Tom Ford manages the cinematic language in an overly aestheticizing way, sacrificing the narrative dimension of the sequences. There is no great patience in building the textures, because for the director every image must be iconic. And so, the characters narrate their problems, but we do not really see them materialized on the screen. The protagonists describe each other, and we can only believe them. But this makes their characterization less effective and partially dulls the potency and necessity of the novel's vindictive spirit.

The dynamics of the investigations are anything but unforgettable. In fact, they stand out for their slow pace and the essential nature of the elements at play. Tony's story is not exactly compelling; it is a slow simmering in frustration (which is fine), adding little to the overall outcome of the events. This part could have been pared down, giving more substance to the developments in Susan's real life, which are instead quite minimal.

Some dialogues are also valid, but most of the script is notable for the didactic imprint given by Ford. In short, everything is too clearly marked, thus diluting the corrosive harshness of the events. The viewer is never pressured by the scenes but instead waits for them in their somewhat elephantine unfolding.

Ford's talent seems more fertile in the visual setup of images and sequences. The clarity with which scenes are conceived is remarkable, as is the attention to the aesthetic details of the characters, to highlight their inner changes and the passing of time that wears them down. It should also be noted that the sequences were all decidedly easy to shoot. The more complex (and ambitious) parts are skipped over with smart ellipses. We almost always and only see people talking. Well-crafted scenes, in lighting, color tonality of cinematography, landscapes, hairstyles, and costumes, but fundamentally elementary scenes.

6/10