February 2010

In the quiet, wintry stillness of Connecticut, we are introduced to Professor Walter Vale, a man whose life bears the unmistakable imprint of long solitude. Portrayed by Richard Jenkins, Walter is a widower who has for nearly two decades confined himself to the sleepy routine of teaching a single class at a modest local college. His grief, if it still lingers, no longer cries out but lies buried beneath a mask of courteous reserve and emotional detachment. He is not visibly miserable—misery, after all, presumes feeling—but rather drifts through the days with the air of one who has forgotten the language of joy.

A man of refined, if somewhat archaic, tastes, he listens to classical music and subjects himself—without aptitude or progress—to piano lessons, not out of ambition but as a dim echo of his late wife, a gifted concert pianist. It is a lifeless ritual, yet it is his only tether to a world that once meant something.

At the urging of a well-meaning colleague, Walter consents—albeit with great reluctance—to leave his cloistered world and travel to New York to present a paper at an academic conference. Thus begins a journey not merely of miles but of the soul.

Upon arriving at his long-neglected apartment in Manhattan, he is surprised to find signs of habitation: lights glowing with a domestic warmth he did not kindle, flowers arranged in a vase with care. Confounded, he searches the rooms and stumbles, to his astonishment, upon a young woman bathing—Zainab, a Senegalese artisan who sells her handmade jewellery in the city’s flea markets.

Her cry of alarm summons her companion, Tarek Khalil, a drummer from Syria, who, misunderstanding the scene, forcefully confronts Walter. The truth, as it turns out, is simple but troubling: the apartment had been illicitly sublet to them by an acquaintance named Ivan.

Upon learning the facts, Tarek and Zainab quickly gather their belongings and withdraw, standing awkwardly on the street as Tarek tries to find a place for them to stay. It is here, at this crossroads of misunderstanding and displacement, that something stirs within Walter—not pity, nor mere charity, but that rarest of impulses: compassion. A still, small voice, long unheard, bids him act.

And so he does. With a quiet grace that surprises even himself, he invites them back in—just until they can find a proper place to stay. It is a simple gesture, almost inconsequential in the moment, yet like the turning of a key in a long-locked door, it opens a path toward something richer, stranger, and altogether more human.

From this unlooked-for encounter begins a delicate interweaving of lives—a slow unfolding of trust, friendship, and meaning—that lingers in the heart long after the screen has faded to black.

One idle afternoon, the Professor happens upon a pair of men in the park, their hands dancing across taut drumheads, coaxing rhythms that seem to speak a language older than words. There is in their playing no self-conscious artistry—only joy, and something else: an invitation. That night, returning to his apartment, Walter hears Tarek playing the djembe—an African drum whose voice is both earthy and exalted—and finds himself strangely stirred. The sound does not merely fill the air; it enters him.

Tarek, with the effortless generosity of the truly passionate, offers to teach him. And here begins the quiet miracle: the slow thawing of a man long frozen within himself. Where lectures and polite conversation had failed, rhythm succeeds. The Professor, once a figure of stiffness and silence, begins to uncoil—not in speeches or epiphanies, but through the simple, primal act of striking the drum in time. In the djembe, he finds at last not just sound, but speech—not language, but a voice.

There is something quietly beautiful, even redemptive, in watching these two men—one young, one old; one the child of Syria, the other of New England—bridging the gulfs of age, culture, and sorrow through their shared delight in music. It is a kind of grace that transcends words and philosophies, for it belongs not to theory but to being.

Yet just as this harmony begins to deepen, the fragile peace is abruptly shattered. In a cruel stroke of fate, Tarek is arrested in the subway—no violence, no warning—and swept into the machinery of detention like a leaf caught in a sudden wind. It is here that the film begins to reveal its truest voice, not in sentiment, but in the aching dignity of love in action.

For now we see in Walter not the aloof academic, but the awakened man. What had once been a life of polite disengagement becomes one of quiet, committed care. He navigates the faceless bureaucracy of the immigration system, not from obligation, but from affection—and we recognise in him, and perhaps in ourselves, that the human heart, when kindled by genuine connection, will go to astonishing lengths. It will break custom, traverse fear, and defy the comfortable habits of self-preservation—for once love takes root, no barrier seems too great to cross.

When Professor Walter returns to the apartment and solemnly recounts the grim events at the subway, Zainab is struck as though by a blow not to the body, but to the very soul. She does not wail, nor collapse in theatrical sorrow—hers is a quiet, dignified anguish, the kind that speaks not through words but through restraint. With her beloved Tarek taken, the sanctuary they had briefly shared with Walter no longer feels safe. And so, with measured composure, she informs him of her decision to stay with her cousin for the time being, until the storm, if it ever does, begins to subside.

Walter, moved by genuine concern and perhaps the first stirrings of a deeper companionship, implores her to stay. But Zainab, with gratitude clear in her eyes, declines. She thanks him—sincerely, without sentimentality—for all his kindness, and departs.

There is in this moment a grace so subtle one might miss it entirely were it not for the director’s remarkable restraint. It is a gesture that speaks volumes of Zainab’s character, and more deeply still, of her faith and cultural rootedness. What might to the casual viewer seem a passing scene is, to the discerning eye, a masterstroke of thoughtful storytelling—an illustration of the profound moral decorum that flows from her identity as a devout Muslim woman.

Unlike so many cinematic portrayals that reduce religious conviction to caricature or use it as a tool for spectacle or scorn, here we are offered something far rarer: a portrayal imbued with reverence and authenticity. There is no loud proclamation, no forced explanation—only quiet truth, lived and enacted. How lamentable it is that many otherwise gifted filmmakers, especially in parts of the East, fail so grievously in this regard, misrepresenting entire communities under the guise of realism, and in doing so, not merely failing to enlighten, but obscuring the truth altogether.

In contrast, this film neither preaches nor panders. It simply shows—and in the showing, honours.

It is with the quiet urgency of a mother’s love that Mouna Khalil—poised, dignified, and possessed of a beauty not merely external but deeply humane—arrives unannounced at Professor Walter’s door. She has travelled from Michigan, compelled not by panic but by the silent weight of maternal instinct. For three days she has not heard from her son, and that silence, unnatural and unbroken, speaks more loudly than any word. Between them, mother and son, there had long been a daily ritual of voice and presence across distance, a bond woven not of sentimentality but of common life. And now, bereft of that thread, she follows its absence to New York, seeking without fanfare, without complaint.

But I must restrain myself. It is all too tempting to go further, to peel back the layers and disclose more than I ought. Yet I shall refrain—for to speak too freely would rob you, the viewer, of the quiet revelations the film holds in trust. It is, you see, not a tale bound by the crude machinery of stereotypes or the weary conventions of cinematic shorthand. This is not a film that lectures us about Muslims or Christians, immigrants or natives; rather, it speaks in the most sacred language of all—the language of persons, as we know them and as we, if honest, most long to be known.

Much like the steady, haunting rhythm of the djembe that pulses through the film like a hidden heartbeat, the story captivates not by force but by fidelity—to truth, to character, to the sacred complexity of ordinary life. Its strength is not in grandeur but in restraint, not in spectacle but in sincerity. It moves through comedy and sorrow, silence and music, not as a teacher with a chalkboard, but as a companion walking quietly beside you.

It offers no pat moral, no manufactured catharsis, no manipulation of the heart. Instead, it gives you questions—real ones. And in so doing, it invites you not to receive a lesson, but to undertake a journey. One walks away from this film not instructed, but enlarged—reminded that we are not spectators to human dignity, but participants in it.

There are, in the course of this quiet and luminous film, certain moments so tender and so deeply human that one feels almost an intruder for witnessing them. Among these, one lingers in the mind with particular poignancy: the Professor’s visit to the detention centre to see Tarek. Their conversation is brief—truncated by the sterile bureaucracy of that cold, impersonal system which insists, without irony, that they must interrupt their exchange for a “bed count.” In such a place, even time seems to lose its soul.

As Tarek is ushered away, he turns back with a soft, sorrowful gaze and speaks a line that in any other setting might have passed without note—“Goodbye, my friend.” But under the bleak fluorescent light of that place, amid the heavy silence of confinement and uncertainty, the words ring with uncommon weight. They are not merely a parting pleasantry. They are, in that instant, a benediction, an elegy to freedom, to fellowship, and to the fragile dignity of being known. One realises, with sudden clarity, how sacred the word “friend” becomes when it is spoken from the heart while the world around it dehumanises.

The second moment, equally subtle yet profound, takes place over a modest dinner between Professor Walter and Mouna in the quiet anonymity of a hotel restaurant. The Professor, no longer the emotionally stifled man we first met, tells her he is taking a leave of absence for the remainder of the semester—choosing, instead, to remain in New York. Mouna, practical and perceptive, protests gently. She reminds him that this is not his burden to bear. He has his duties, his classes, and the book he is said to be writing. But it is here that the veil is lifted.

Walter looks at her—not with defiance, but with the weary honesty of a man who has stopped pretending. “I’m not busy,” he says quietly, almost as if the admission were shameful. “I only pretend to be. I haven’t done anything real in a long time.”

And there it is: the turning of the soul, the quiet confession that reveals not failure, but longing. Not all prisons have walls; some are built of calendars, routines, and the illusion of purpose. In that moment, we see not a man sacrificing his work, but awakening from its charade. We see, in him, what all of us fear to admit—that a life can be full of motion and still utterly unmoved.

Such moments are not crafted with loud acts or melodrama, but with a reverence for the truth of the human spirit. And in them, the film does not preach, but invites—invites us to remember what friendship means, what presence costs, and what it truly is to live and not merely pass time.

The film, in its quiet brilliance, is adorned with performances of such delicacy and integrity that one is compelled not merely to admire them, but to feel them—deeply and lastingly. While every member of the cast contributes nobly to the development, it is the triad of Professor Walter, Tarek, and Mouna that stands forth like figures in a stained-glass window, each catching the light of the narrative in their own way and refracting it with subtle splendour.

Haaz Sleiman, whose portrayal of Tarek is nothing short of radiant, deserves special commendation. There is in his performance that rare gift—more eloquent than speech itself—the ability to speak through silence. His eyes, bright with unspoken joys and sorrows, carry the weight of experience with a disarming lightness. One scarcely notices the craft, so seamlessly does he inhabit the role. He makes the heart leap when he laughs, and without asking for pity, he draws forth tears when he grieves. Such grace in a performance is not common; it is earned, and it is real.

Richard Jenkins, as the Professor, offers a portrayal that is as restrained as it is profound. He resists the temptation to dramatize and instead reveals a man whose soul wakes gently, as from a long and weary sleep. There is a tremor of humour beneath the gravity, a kind of quiet ache that never quite overwhelms but is always present—like the lingering scent of autumn in the air. His performance is one not of theatrics, but of inward transformation.

Zainab, soft-spoken and withdrawn, inhabits her role with authenticity and grace. She does not seek to impress, and by that very measure, she impresses more deeply. And as for Hiam Abbass, her portrayal of Mouna is a triumph of understatement. With every glance, every pause, she conjures a world of care, dignity, and loss. She wears the character like a well-fitted garment, one stitched with grief, gentleness, and an iron resilience. There is no dissonance in her presence—only harmony.

But perhaps the truest accolade must be given to Thomas McCarthy, the writer and director, who does not shout at his audience but speaks softly, as one might speak to a dear friend late in the evening. His is not the voice of show, but of sincerity. One cannot help but marvel at the richness of detail he has sewn into the narrative. Like a craftsman of old, he has carved a story not of grand gestures, but of the small and sacred movements of the heart.

I dare say that The Visitor is a film every soul ought to behold at least once. Not merely as a work of art, but as a quiet reminder of what it means to be human. For in the end—as we grow weary of possessions, titles, and busyness—we come again to the ancient truth: that it is not wealth or comfort that sustains us, but connection. That we live not by bread alone, but by the tender miracle of being known.

It was a little past half-eleven when I returned home, the hour not particularly ungodly but sufficient to weigh upon a man who has endured the double toll of a long day’s labour and the performative dance of dinner with a client. My spirit, like an old dog weary of fetch and chase, longed for the quiet companionship of solitude. I switched off my telephone with the air of one casting aside the burden of the world, and I latched my laptop shut as though it were a portal to a realm of ceaseless demand, best sealed until morning.

In the stillness that followed, I lingered before my writing desk—on it perched two tempting volumes: the collected essays of John Berger and the elusive, uncollected works of Henry James, both staring back at me with a scholarly sort of provocation. Yet it was not to these that I turned. Like a half-forgotten letter from an old friend, I remembered a film—Adam—resting quietly in my DVD stack, long postponed and now suddenly insistent in memory.

Having tasked the house help with the solemn charge of popcorn from the microwave (for rituals must be observed, even in solitude), I sank before the flickering screen and pressed ‘play’, letting the world of Adam unfurl itself. What first caught my attention was the character himself—peculiar, yes, but not performatively so; a man whose strangeness is rendered not with exaggeration but with an affectionate realism. He lives in a Manhattan apartment that breathes order—macaroni dinners arranged like soldiers, clothes aligned with the reverence of a monk’s habit—suggesting a mind that seeks sanctuary in sameness.

We are told he is an engineer, though it is not his profession that marks him, but his disposition. He is grieving, it seems: the double loss of father and employment having left him adrift. Into this fragile stability enters Beth, a wistful young woman with a vocation for children and a heart unversed in the strange dialect of Adam’s affection. He, an amateur astronomer; she, a teacher of little minds. And slowly, what appears at first a passing connection unfurls into something more significant—something like wonder.

Now, the portrayal of Adam by Hugh Dancy must be spoken of with a degree of reverence. It is no easy task to depict a man living with Asperger’s syndrome—a condition not marked by outward spectacle, but by inward misalignment. Where others have erred on the side of theatricality, Dancy achieves something altogether finer: he does not play Adam; he is Adam. And there is a scene—both comic and piercing—in which he tells Beth, “I’m not Forrest Gump, you know.” The line, tossed lightly, bears beneath it a whole philosophy of difference: that every soul who lives outside the ordinary is not thereby a caricature or a lesson, but a human being longing—however awkwardly—for connection.

Though Adam falters in the social dance—he cannot read the unsaid, he flinches at emotional ambiguity—there is about him a recognisability so acute, it surprises. For who among us, however neurotypical we presume ourselves, has not found words elusive, meanings murky, or the ache for closeness hard to express? In this way, Adam ceases to be merely a character, and becomes—almost—a mirror.

The film does not merely present romance; it charts its evolution. It is not a fairy tale of perfect matches but a meditation on the tender, sometimes painful process by which two imperfect souls come to accept, and even cherish, one another’s flaws. There are lessons here, though they whisper rather than shout, and the subplot involving Beth’s parents adds another register—a quiet, moral counterpoint, like the minor key in a symphony.

There are, to be fair, moments that do not quite harmonise. One in particular—a scene in which Beth is startled by Adam’s candid admission of arousal—teeters on the edge of awkwardness. Yet even here, honesty rescues what convention might have ruined. Less defensible, perhaps, is a jarringly abrupt scene involving police intervention at a school—a moment that felt more like an editorial misstep than an artistic necessity.

Still, Adam is not a film that panders to predictability. It draws you in, not by spectacle, but by sincerity. And while I do not count the Oscar a sure indicator of excellence (indeed, I often think it praises least where praise is most due), I cannot help but wish that the committees who claim to discern greatness would attend more closely to performances like Dancy’s—renderings not wrapped in theatrical garb, but robed in truth.

The film reminds us, gently but unmistakably, that love is not a matter of physical nearness alone. It is transformative. It makes us more ourselves, not less; more human, not merely happy. And how rare it is in cinema—or indeed, in life—to find a portrayal of love so unselfconscious, so unencumbered by the tyranny of perfection. It permits growth not only together, but apart, which is perhaps the truest kind of love there is.

Max Mayer, the director, must be commended for walking that narrow line between realism and resonance, never tipping too far into melodrama. And though I confess myself unfamiliar with Seamus Tierney’s previous work, his cinematography here captured Manhattan not merely as a city but as a kind of poetic terrain. It reminded me of my cinematographer friend Ravi K. Chandran, who understands—as all great artists do—that genius resides not in grandiosity, but in the quiet precision of simplicity.

And so Adam lingers in the mind long after its final scene. Not because it shouts its message, but because it whispers something we recognise, perhaps from childhood, or perhaps from some hidden chamber of the soul: that we are all strange, all longing, and—if we are fortunate—redeemed not by perfection, but by love that sees us truly and stays.

Facebook Badge

Navigation Menu

THE VISITOR – 2007

0 comments:

ADAM - 2009

1 comments: