‘See how they run’, a bland mix of ‘Daggers in the back’ and ‘Scream’

Who did it? This simple question has already given birth to so many stories and films that, with each new example, the team and the viewer should ask themselves the same question as Bugs Bunny: what’s new? ‘Look how they run’ wants to contribute from Friday 21 October, a reflection on whodunit in theater and literature from the murder of people working on an Agatha Christie adaptation. The expected cast of these stories is led by Sam Rockwell and Saoirse Ronan. These two comical police officers will be tasked with solving a mystery in 1950s London that boasts as much visual appeal as it lacks narrative.

Explain the rules too much

When playing by the rules of chiduno, screenwriter Mark Chappell decided to follow them instead of breaking them in the manner of Rian Johnson in ‘Daggers in the back’. Instead, the most direct reference to “Look how they run” is the “Scream” saga, which changes the rules of slasher with those of murderous thrillers. It is clear that Chappell knows them, since he does not stop putting them in the mouth of his characters, without even looking for the most natural moment. All of those references are there, but instead of guiding the plot, they seem to be more outside of it as an audio commentary from the writer. Too bad that, in the midst of so many comments on the rules of the chidunoyou forgot to satisfy a base: the story is so complicated that it is impossible to guess the killer to the end. And really, it doesn’t even matter. The spectator is offside.

This lack of interest in the film’s main conflict deepens with what should be its narrative vehicle: humor. Being so markedly British and satisfied, it is unlikely that it will work in the Spanish audience. “See How They Run” cannot be recommended as a comedy, and almost not as a tribute to the ubiquitous Agatha Christie in dialogue. Paradoxically, at the same time, anyone who does not have this literary context about the author and her work ‘The Mousetrap’ will also be out of the game of rules with which she has played.

Excellent wrapping of something routine

The screenwriter does not energize the vision, but the director does. Newcomer Tom George makes the leap from BBC to cinema like a British Wes Anderson, filling every shot with good compositions with crafty yet understated detail and dynamics. This style extends to the good companion that is Daniel Pemberton’s score (“Operation UNCLE”) and creative editing that isn’t afraid to take chances with a split screen or changes in space and time that are as attractive as they are well guided. . Only when he tries to be too funny does he fall into repetition, as with some flashbacks that don’t provide any new point of view, rather than telling the same thing with more dry jokes.

The challenge for the new director was enormous as he shot almost the entire film during the second quarantine in the UK. Of course this has opened the doors of some historic London buildings such as the Old Vic Theater. George knows this and strives to show every corner of his buildings even in conversations, play with the expressionist lights inside them and in general , show off a very suggestive staging. Everything appears on screen, from the sets to the costumes, but essentially it doesn’t add much to the story or to a rather absent historical context. He reaches that complicity between history and style only in the best scene of the entire movie: the first murder with gags in the backstage locker room. After that, “See how they run” becomes a traditional investigation of Agatha Christie’s interrogation, talking about it and the historical context. Both aspects are constantly mentioned but never well captured in substance on the screen.

The actors as the (sole) center of the film

The British director also gracefully handles having many actors on stage and giving each their own space and rhythm. But he either doesn’t deal with them well on an individual level or he deals with the stereotypes of the script too well. These become more of a parody than a reflection, like a “Your face rings a bell” with the characters of Agatha Christie. Consequentially, The entire cast borders on exaggeration for interpretation more for the theater than for the cinema in terms of gestures and voice. Where you can see his successful hard work is in the dialects, rhythm and very British pronunciation of American actors.

Oscar winner Sam Rockwell (“Three Billboards Outside”) plays the old man’s pasty with a good intimate interpretation, even if it embodies too much dryness. The subplot of him is another of the interesting stitches underlined and wasted in the film. Next to him, the Oscar nominee Saoirse Ronan (“Brooklyn”) continues to prove that she can be a great protagonist under the age of 30 and that she dominates any genre or dialogue that is thrown at her. The film is worth seeing for her alone. Chemistry with her partner is quite effective, which raises the question of why she isn’t the center of drama and functions as a simple recurring joke for kindergarten kids.

“See how they run” indicates many things, most of them very good, but all of them are represented on a superficial level. It’s not about having to break those rules they like so much. But if so many references are used, clues should be offered and that same intelligence should be required for the alleged entertainment. His tribute is also very superficial, being so explanatory. And so in all areas of this fiction, so promising in direction and context, and so tediously carried forward in history.

Note: 6

The best: Saoirse Ronan and the stylistic staging and editing.

Worse: The bland mystery of the murder doesn’t make the film funny or interesting.