He was Sherlock’s nightmare and he broke Fleabag’s heart. But it is his role in “Good Strangers” that is his best [RECENZJA]

Andrew Scott is a great actor who performs phenomenally both on stage, on the big screen and on television. When he played the famous priest who broke the heart of the title character of the series “Fleabag” with Phoebe Waller-Bridge, he showed that a gag that may seem insignificant on paper can be turned into a masterpiece. It is thanks to him that the love story of a young woman battered by life and a priest is not shallow and trite. The charismatic figure of the priest, shrouded in mystery, combined with the dose of delicacy and sensuality perfectly measured by the actor, creates a multidimensional, non-obvious and incredibly moving performance.

Andrew Scott in his best role. “Good Strangers” is now in cinemas

Joining the cast of “Fleabag” meant that Andrew Scott escaped the eternal pigeonhole as Moriaty in the series “Sherlock”, in which he achieved the impossible. Creating a character that is the perfect reverse of Sherlock Holmes created by the phenomenal Benedict Cumberbatch is probably Scott’s biggest acting challenge in his career. The artist coped with it 120%. Moriaty is still one of the best written and played antagonists in history. In an instant, Scott could turn his boyish charm into the terrifying raging of a psychopath. He was both manic and endearing. He aroused fear and curiosity, and most importantly, he slowly revealed the pages of his complex personality to the audience, not only thanks to the well-thought-out script of the series, but also to his balanced, non-obvious acting.

Scott had to use completely different means than in the case of Moriaty when creating the character in “Good Strangers”. And although “Sherlock” is definitely my favorite television production in history, I will be tempted to say that it was in Haigh’s drama that Andrew Scott played his best cinematic role.

“Good Strangers” is a film based on the novel “Alien” by Taichi Yamada, which has no genre framework whatsoever. Although the dramatic narrative plays the main role here, the film deals with queer themes and veers into the realms of fantasy and even thriller. It tells the story of Adam (Andrew Scott), who spends his days alone, trying to find inspiration to write a film script. However, instead of pages filled with brilliant dialogues, a new takeaway packaging appears on the table. One evening, Adam is visited by his neighbor Harry (Paul Mescal), and the visit changes the life of the burnt-out creator. Unfortunately, only apparently.

“Good Strangers” is a perfect study of loneliness, a film about pain and appearances

Because “Good Strangers” is largely a film about appearances. About the fact that the world is supposedly moving forward, but not as fast as we think. About the fact that minority representation will never replace social acceptance, and that life in illusion, although tempting with magic and carefreeness, always remains just an illusion. And even there, there is often no escape from pain.

Adam has a freelance profession, he works whenever and as much as he wants, every day he looks out the window of a London skyscraper and sees unlimited space, which he admires almost from a bird’s eye view. Paradoxically, despite so many symbols of freedom surrounding him, the hero is enslaved by trauma, complexes and fear. He is a lonely gay man who has never heard from his loved ones that his identity does not change anything in their relationship, that he is enough. The lack of this assurance bothers Adam so much that the bond with his parents becomes the axis of the film’s plot and has great symbolic value. Establishing contact with his loved ones is Adam’s attempt to come to terms with his past, but he is not entirely successful. His seemingly cathartic conversations with his deceased mother and father are refreshing and take a surprisingly realistic, non-idealized turn, but as a result, instead of liberating the hero, they tighten the noose of isolation even more around his throat.

Because “Good Strangers” is, above all, a terrifyingly realistic study of loneliness. Many people in their thirties can identify with Adam and Harry, who only after half-emptying the bottle of alcohol, managed to find the courage to contact his neighbor. This is an alienated generation that is less and less able to find happiness, stuck between the comforts of modern times and the longing for the pre-internet era. This is a state in which it is easy to fall into stagnation and senselessness.

The rescue often turns out to be another person. Soulmate. For Adam, it is Harry, whom he initially rejects firmly. The men’s relationship quickly moves through subsequent stages. Sex, living together, getting to know loved ones – the quick strengthening of bonds gives the characters the sense of security they were both looking for and strengthens trust. The creators managed to create very real characters and their problems, and above all, convey the pain of the characters. Surprisingly, Paul Mescal remains in Andrew Scott’s shadow throughout the film (which is somewhat forced by the script). He uses all his workshop resources (including theater) to play with subtleties, silence and fleeting emotions. And although playing exaggerated characters, such as the memorable Moriaty, at first glance requires greater commitment, creating these less characteristic characters, but burdened with a lot of emotional baggage, is a much greater challenge.

In the film, the dreamlike fog, intertwined with depressive semi-consciousness and drug and love raptures, has a great effect on the imagination. The fairy-tale atmosphere introduces chaos into the rather uncomfortable double narrative.

My biggest objection to “Good Strangers” is the rather kitschy ending, which destroys the atmosphere encouraging reflection on meaning and the form adopted by the creators. Dosing the tension and shifting the narrative into the realm of a really dark thriller was a measure that was intended to diversify the somewhat prosaic plot. However, the quite obvious twist that I was subconsciously waiting for, combined with the disturbing atmosphere, distracted me from what the film actually had to say. This dispelled the mist of delicacy and tenderness that the production spread over itself at the very beginning and which is clearly its greatest strength.