It's amazing to see a feature film shot in Gloucester. Gloucestershire has unfortunately seen its fair share of knife crime and it's definitely something we should be shedding light on. I commend the cast and crew behind this film for attempting to tackle it. Sadly, it's all for nought as I was left confused, wondering what the point of this film actually is.
I've added a warning about spoilers but this is one final warning to say there's major spoilers in this review.
While most of the characters are fairly one note and lacklustre, the cast behind them do an incredible job with what they're given, especially Akil Largie, Shaun Pelayo and Ewan Perry. However the stand out - in terms of both character and cast member - is Victoria Shepherd as Maria. She puts her all into crafting a mother struggling to stay afloat while drowning in the circumstances she's found herself in (although the conversation between Maria and D'Verne at the end sounded more like a really bad role-play for school children to highlight the dangers of knife crime). Unfortunately, the worst character is in fact the lead, Myles (through no fault of the actor, Cyran Vergara, mind you). Seeing his life at the beginning of the film builds a degree of empathy and the moment he takes the money from Jaime is gut wrenching; you know immediately he's going back for more. Jaime is like an addiction for Myles - he offers him things he can't get anywhere else and all he has to do in return is very little it seems. But from the moment the subplot is introduced, all empathy I had for Myles was sapped from my body. I have no patience for someone who refuses to let their single parent enjoy some happiness for once. It's despicable. It's also boring. Hannah Montana did it back in 2006. It was stupid then and it's stupid now. After Myles yells at his mum, when John had him by the scruff of the neck up against the wall, I found myself cheering for John. It doesn't stop there, we then get this sequence: Myles sneaks out, ignoring his mum while she cries and calls out for him, to steal from a corner shop, endangering his friends in the process. At first I thought he was going into the corner shop to answer the phone Jaime gave him out of earshot but then he bursts out with snacks. Jaime gets him to pick up a bag from a guy, after that he tells him not to forget the rich teas. I can't even begin to comprehend why he does any of this. We don't even know what the fight in school actually was either. Do we take his word for it, that he was defending his friend from racism? Or is he lying to his mum and did he actually beat a kid up? I could have missed something but I've watched it several times and I can't catch anything anywhere to support what he claims.
Besides cutting someone's hair on a carpet, I think the biggest sin this film commits is its depiction of knife crime. As things escalate and knives get passed around you begin to anticipate a violent confrontation. It's like the obligatory scene Robert McKee wrote about. To quote Frank Reynolds, 'somebody's gotta get stabbed.' Now I don't WANT somebody to get stabbed and despite how insufferable Myles is, I didn't want him to get stabbed either. But when I watch a film, I'm looking for truth no matter how dark and grim the truth is. And it's a contrived lie that nobody at any point gets stabbed. The ending itself is especially frustrating, and this was where I started wondering what the entire point of this film is. D'Verne is adamant against getting the police involved, instead opting to speak to Jaime and his friends. When I heard this, alarm bells were clanging in my head for two reasons: 1) what a stupid thing to do. He could be right, maybe the police would make things worse. But is approaching them personally really that much better? And 2) oh my god he's gonna die. D'Verne then approaches Jaime and his two friends and this scene is told from the POV of Myles 20ft away in a car. We don't hear anything besides the odd swear word or name. Jaime holds a knife to D'Verne's face before backing off. D'Verne returns to the car and takes Myles home. The end. I don't get it. The writers didn't even bother trying. D'Verne knows these men beat a young teenager up. He knows they're carrying knives. And they just get to walk away? Also they are for sure going to kill Myles the first chance they get. They know where he lives. They know where he hangs out. So what was the point? It's okay to carry knives as long as you get a stern telling off, I guess? According to a message at the beginning, this film is inspired by real events. If so, I want to know the 'real events', because if in real life this actually happened, I'm scared of living in Gloucester knowing those who are there to protect us are letting gangs continue to carry knives on the streets. And if D'Verne truly said something that did scare Jaime off, it would have been amazing to hear that.
Imagine for a second: D'Verne believes he can provide the life Myles deserves; provide him someone who will listen to him, help him through issues, help him excel at school and make something out of himself. He believes he is the surrogate father figure Myles needs. Jaime believes he can provide the life Myles deserves; provide him someone who will listen to him, he'll do what he needs to do to protect him, provide him materialistic goods that he can't get himself, give him power and respect from women and other men. He believes he is the surrogate father figure Myles needs. There's a clear difference in philosophy between these two men and here they are, going head to head over Myles. That would have been incredibly powerful and emotional. Imagine the power struggle. Maybe Jaime's losing so he takes the knife out as a threat. Maybe we realise he's not actually capable of using it, true character shining through. Maybe, pressured by the situation and his friends, he does use it and Myles races to D'Verne's side to call for the police and an ambulance, having to confront the consequences of his actions. The police eliminate the threat Jaime poses to Myles. When Myles finally looks in the mirror at the end, a moment that bookends the film, we truly see a kid who's changed from that opening image, a kid who's faced the dark truth of the world but luckily come out unscathed, his mentor recovering in hospital. He hasn't won but he also hasn't lost; he's learned. A true ending, giving Myles a some sort of character arc and tying up loose ends. His reflection as it currently stands the end doesn't do anything but confuse.
And this is what truly upsets me because despite all of this, I actually didn't think this film was that bad. The cinematography was fairly good, great even, and I especially want to draw attention to the shot where a crown on some artwork is positioned above Jaime's head before Myles takes the seat below it as an example of what's so good about this film. It manages to do a lot with very little and as a result you end up with a simple shot that screams multitudes without uttering a single word. The triangular imagery that consistently appears is striking, emphasising the friendship between the three young teens, even if the film could have done a lot more with that dynamic (although I'm glad you don't see them make up at the end, at least there are some consequences for Myles' behaviour). The shaky handheld style footage adds a guerrilla aspect, giving the audience the sense we're a fly on the wall and along for the ride beside the characters. The monochrome footage also has a neat impact. While I'm convinced it was only used as it was shot on such a low budget they couldn't afford much production design and the hassle that comes with colours like colour theory, temperature, grading etc etc, this is nothing to be ashamed of and, alongside the shaky footage, it results in a gritty aesthetic that matches the subject matter. I could also be wrong and perhaps it was a conscious decision to give the film the gritty aesthetic. Maybe it was to emulate other famous low budget films that famous directors often begin with. Who's to say. The editing is hit and miss though: the jerky cutting while Myles is walking away from the fight with his friends is a nice touch but some shots linger way too long for no real reason.
Overall, Boy in the Corner is a film that could have been great but was ultimately let down by poor characterisation and a final act that flops and fizzles into nothing. I wish they'd get rid of the bird flock in the sky too, the stock CGI was atrocious and easily avoidable.
1 out of 3 found this helpful.
Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
