
Rather enjoyed THE CURRENT WAR. I found a secondhand DVD of it in a charity shop, rather to my surprise. Fiona had been interested in seeing it when it came out here and was on the side of buses. Cumberbatch, of course. And an interesting subject. I discouraged her slightly because I don’t believe in seeing films because of what they’re about or who’s in them. There’s a problem there, in that it leaves very few possible reasons to see anything, unless it’s by a filmmaker you admire, which is what I base most of my choices on. And that disadvantages new or just unfamiliar filmmakers, which is bad. So I know I’m in the wrong here and it’s a little dangerous.
Anyway, I’m glad I’ve seen the film — it’s rather good. Perhaps not great. But maybe? I think the script by Michael Mitnick is terrific and the direction at least consistently interesting. It’s made up of a lot of short scenes, the music tends to run across them, joining them together, and director Alfonso Gomez-Rejon films them with a very wide lens and a lot of unconventional movement which is sort of appealing but sort of alienating at the same time. A bit like the more recent Cumberbatch THE ELECTRICAL LIFE OF LOUIS WAIN… you sometimes wish the filmmaker would get out of the way and just let you watch stuff. Which is a bit ungenerous because if not for him you wouldn’t see anything.




A busy script plus busy direction — the constant onwards surge feels a little like CASINO, which was sort of overwhelming on first viewing, and somehow seemed more documentary than drama, few really long developed scenes. None of which is bad, just somehow hard to adjust to.



The film is chocka with Brits playing dignified Americans — Michael Shannon’s Westinghouse is the most prominent actual yank. I’m assuming the Brits won their roles by being able to sound vaguely posh. That doesn’t explain Nicholas Hoult as Tesla but he’s very good, certainly more believably Serbian-American than David Bowie in THE PRESTIGE. Tom Holland for some reason plays Samuel Insull as British (he wasn’t, but I guess he’s not well-known enough for that to matter).
I recall the reviews being sort of “this is OK, could be better.” Which surprises me, I’d expect critics to be either infuriated by the style or impressed by it. I’m only 10% infuriated, mostly I like it. I’d like to see more from these guys.

The DVD doesn’t say whether this is the director’s cut, which I would think might mean it probably isn’t. I wonder if that’s better? Certainly, with the baleful influence of Harvey Weinstein removed, I could imagine the possibility of things being better in all sorts of ways.