Daniel Day-Lewis has made an unexpected return from retirement with the release of “Anemone,” a film that has left audiences bewildered by its lack of substance. Known for his extraordinary performances, the three-time Oscar winner took a unique approach for this project by co-writing the screenplay with his son, Ronan Day-Lewis, who also directed the film. This collaboration appears to have produced a piece that diverges sharply from Day-Lewis’s previous acclaimed roles.
“Anemone” features Day-Lewis and Sean Bean in a film that ambiguously invites viewers to confront its myriad flaws. The narrative is centered around Day-Lewis’s character, Ray, a recluse embroiled in silence and reflection alongside Bean’s character Jem, who travels to deliver a letter from his wife. While the film might have aimed for profundity, the execution results in an experience that feels painfully empty, often relying on long pauses between the sparse dialogue.
The film’s two lengthy monologues, intended to be the highlights, showcase Day-Lewis’s undeniable talent but ultimately raise questions about the film’s direction. Despite the actor’s magnetic presence, the isolation of his character raises the question of whether “Anemone” is meant to glorify his acting skills at the expense of narrative depth.
Ronan Day-Lewis’s directorial style exhibits a tendency to withhold crucial visual context and information, leaving viewers in the dark about character motivations and plot progression. Moments of potential engagement are interrupted by unnecessary ambiguity, leading to a disjointed viewing experience. The dialogue is marked by a lack of responsiveness, where characters rarely engage in meaningful exchanges, adding to the film’s overarching sense of frustration.
As the title suggests, the film’s thematic coherence appears elusive. While the film aspires to evoke a sense of mystery and introspection, it risks alienating its audience by failing to provide clarity or connection between characters.
Despite the challenges presented in “Anemone,” it showcases the willingness of established talents to experiment and take risks in their craft. Audiences may see this as a bold, albeit misguided venture, and perhaps appreciate the artistic exploration, if not the film itself.