Amelia and Michael (2007)

AMELIA & MICHAEL (2007) ***1/2 Anthony Heald and Natasha Powell portray a British married couple who for all intents and purpose seem like a well-to-do, very-much-in-love husband and wife but the reality is that each harbors a secret that the other quite clearly fears will ruin the marriage once and for all. Newcomer filmmakers David Cormack and Stephen Betts - who collaborated nicely as director and screenwriter - have concocted a taut, well-shot/produced little narrative that has the audience in anticipation for the brim of suspense percolating just under the surface of the placid -and perhaps too-perfect - facade which mirrors society's ills: does class distinction truly reflect how one is perceived and just what does fedilty encompass. Well-crafted and worth viewing twice to catch the subtle nuances by his talented cast. Kudos!

Amelia And Michael tells a story of a married couple who might have been hurting each other in the past with infidelities, but have decided to stay married and lead separate lives. It's all a part of a great accommodation they've reached.They look to have all the material needs you could possibly ask for in 21st Century London. Yet Natasha Powell seems to be wrapped up in the care of a comatose man and Anthony Head best known to American viewers from Buffy The Vampire Slayer series likes to have his nooners with working girls. As it is very British it's all quite civilized.It was nicely portrayed, but this is certainly not the kind of film to create any excitement with the viewer. The director's a talented fellow, he should have spiced this one up a bit.

This short film shows how a good director and a fairly simple idea can tell a dramatic story (with all it's complexities) in ten minutes, that somewhere else could take two hours to unfold. Beautifully shot and great performances by the actors. A marriage is going through a rough patch, whatever the causes, we see the effects. It's a tale about the lack of communication between a man and a woman. Much is told by their silences. The end will make you want to know what happens next as Micheal says "it was just the once," confessing to what he's done, and Amelia crumbles having reached breaking point for more than just her husband's betrayal.

Amelia and Michael are a successful couple who outwardly have everything they could want. A good home. A classy car with a driver. High-flying careers. However their marriage is one of discrete politeness where once there would have been intimacy and both harbours secrets about the other.I was away for work recently and had access to broadband (which believe it or, this particular internet geek does not have in his home) and decided to take up an invitation to watch another film from Daniel Cormack. The first film I had seen from Daniel had not really impressed me much but I was curious to see more from him. This short film was a much better calling card for him as it showed much more style and skill with the camera than "Make Me A Tory" had done. It also shows a much more subtle touch as a story teller (although that would not be hard).The film has a recognisable couple in the middle. Their wealth and comfort is probably exaggerated a little beyond what I can relate to, but the emotional heart is there – or rather the lack of it. We see both partners together looking slick, being "content" and exchanging kisses on the cheek etc as the routine has had them doing for many years. Individually though they are both seeking something elsewhere. It is here where the film frustrated me a little but not allowing me to understand the "something" that well. I didn't get who the hospitalised man was to Amelia (if anyone) and I didn't get if the conclusion of the film was "more of the same" or "all fixed now"; I choose to take it as the former, as this would be more in keeping with the film I did find the lack of detail to be a bit of an appeal as well because it left the focus on this rather unfulfilling relationship and the way that played out for the two characters. However this effect could still have been achieved with a bit of detail being delivered as well. The cast seem to be suggesting this as well. I thought Head was good but his character seemed easier to understand – not only in terms of what was going on but also in terms of the "why". Powell didn't seem so assured about her character and she was less convincing as the wife in this dead relationship (and unfortunately I do know how one acts). The two did do an OK job of convincing as a couple, but lacked that chemistry that comes when chemistry exists but has just died from lack of trying (didn't describe that very well but you know what I mean). I'm not sure if Cormack failed to deliver this aspect of Betts' script or not but I'm guessing that a lot did fall to the former to draw out given how little dialogue there was. In this area he does OK but generally as director he is impressive, with good shots, good editing and clever use of film stock coming together to make a visually polished and impressive product.Touching in its own way then and I did like the way that it allows the emotions to be mostly played out in silence in the small things – just as they are in the marriage itself. However the lack of narrative was a bit frustrating and I did think that either the screenplay needed to have more in it for the actors to work off and deliver on screen. Pretty good short film, just left me feeling like it could have gone that extra bit further and been better for it.