Demolition

**Spoiler Alert**

Director: Jean-Marc Vallee/Starring: Jake Gyllenhaal, Naomi Watts, Chris Cooper, Judah Lewis and Heather Lind

Jake Gyllenhaal has become adept at playing dark, oddball characters who contend with bizarre situations or are thrust into them involuntarily. His character in director Jean-Marc Vallee's new film; Demolition is no less fascinating or strange as he plays a man who slowly becomes unhinged after he loses his wife in a violent car collision. Vallee's film keeps us emotionally involved in the protagonist's quest to establish an emotional connection to a deceased wife to whom he denied love and attention and if his arc seems a little too pat, it is nevertheless unpredictable and often full of jarring surprises.

Gyllenhaal plays Davis, who we see riding with his wife Julia (Heather Lind) down a New York street. She chides him for not listening to her and his general inattentiveness; drawing on his inability to deal with their leaky refrigerator as an example. As if to confirm his wife's assessment, he barely listens to his wife's querulous patter. A second later, another car strikes their car violently on his wife's side. Moments later, we see a series of images in Davis' head of his wife flash before our eyes, which serve as a visual segue to a shot of Julia's father Phil (the superb Chris Cooper) walking toward him in a hospital; nearly collapsing from the knowledge that his daughter has just passed. What is particularly unusual is Davis' reaction, which is decidedly impassive. Even more bewildering is what he does shortly thereafter. After trying to buy peanut M&Ms' from a vending machine, the candy becomes stuck; prompting Davis to complain to a hospital staff member. The worker deflects Davis' complaint by informing him that a vending machine company is responsible for malfunctions. Davis approaches the machine to snap a iPhone shot of the vending machine's address. The scene is astonishing for several reasons. Almost incomprehensible is his glaring indifference to the news of his wife's death but even more so is his craving for candy and his displeasure at being cheated. Is Davis numb; too shocked to grasp his loss? Or was his wife right about his aloofness?

The story takes a stranger turn when Davis writes a letter of complaint to the vending machine company at the funeral reception; detailing not only the candy incident at the hospital but the loss of his wife. The letter we hear Davis read in voice-over gives us background information on his life and his wife, including his employment at his father-in-law's investment firm. While at the reception, we also see Davis practicing a grieved expression in the mirror.

Davis surprises his father-in-law and his colleagues when he shows up for work shortly after the funeral. Not giving an explanation for his presence, Davis proceeds with business.

Something Phil says to Davis inspires more peculiar behavior when he tells his son-in-law that sometimes it is necessary to dismantle and take something apart to understand its insides. In scenes that follow, we see Davis dismantle his refrigerator as he tries to ascertain the cause of the leak and a creaky bathroom stall door at his office; separating the discrete parts neatly on the floor. And most confounding of all; he strips his office computer; leaving the wreck in myriad parts on the office floor. Phil's dismay prompts Davis' compulsory leave of absence.

Davis' letters to the vending machine company become frequent, which elicit a response from a customer service representative named Karen, who begins following him surreptitiously. When Karen agrees to meet Davis at a diner, she watches him from the parking lot and calls him on his cellphone to tell him she can't join him. But in the days following, she continues to follow him and read his letters. Davis tries to find her at work then at her house. To his surprise, he encounters her boss at the door, who is more than just a little angry and puzzled to see a customer on his doorstep at 11pm. Karen (Naomi Watts) is naturally flabbergasted at the sight of Davis but accepts his latest letter before discouraging him to return.

But Karen's boyfriend leaves on a trip, allowing Davis to visit her at home. One might expect the friendship to quickly morph into something sexual but instead we the makings of a quirky friendship. Soon Davis becomes acquainted with Karen's son Chris (Judah Lewis, in a performance that is sure to make Hollywood notice), who offers him a gruff greeting sprinkled with four-letter words. Davis learns Karen's relationship with her teenage son is troubled by a lack of connection in a way that echoes Davis' problems with his wife.

As Davis' friendship with Karen burgeons, he becomes friendly with Chris; discovering a troubled teen in need of an ear and and fatherly companionship. Davis learns Chris has been suspended from school for giving a too-honest and too-graphic account of an incident in the Afghan War. With time on his hands, Chris joins Davis in his efforts to demolish his home.

It is fairly clear at this point in the film that Davis' obsession with dismantling objects and demolishing his own home is a metaphor for his attempt to break down his life and as his father-in-law said; "to understand what is in the inside." It also serves as a symbolic means to understanding his failed relationship with his wife, who haunts his waking life as a specter.

The more time Davis spends with Karen and Chris, the more he becomes estranged from his job and his in-laws, particularly Phil, who is angered by his son-in-law apparent apathy to a scholarship fund he has formed in honor of his daughter's memory.

Strangeness abounds in Davis' behavior as he and Chris test a bullet-proof vest in the woods with Karen's boyfriend's gun. Chris shoots Davis in the side and just as he recovers from the bullet's ferocious impact, Chris shoots him again. The scene, though harrowing in its own way, shows the growing trust between Davis and Chris. When Chris becomes more comfortable with Davis, he confides in him one day about his sexual confusion. The issue is made more poignant when Davis catches Chris dressing up in the bathroom.

In spite of Davis' behavior, which continues on its destructive course (he buys a bulldozer on e-bay to facilitate his home's collapse, only to be thwarted by the defective vehicle), he comes closer to dealing with his wife's death on emotional terms. But shocking developments are never in short supply in Vallee's film. While demolishing dresser drawers in his home, he discovers his wife's ultra-sound photo. Davis' judgement being unsound, he chooses to confront his in-laws about it during the scholarship-fund awards ceremony. As he heads to the door, his mother-in-law reveals another shocker about the baby.

As the story winds down, a few threads are tied-up though not neatly. Davis' issues with his wife are resolved in a semi-satisfying manner and the film's final scene reveals a rapprochement that is significant for its happy resolution.

So much is happening in Vallee's film, it is amazing how the various characters and scenes manage to cohere. The tone shifts at times, from dark drama to dark comedy to blithely surreal to upbeat conclusion. I'm still not sure if the film works as a whole but so much of it is too wonderfully eccentric to dismiss. One of my favorite shots in the film is of Davis walking toward the camera on a crowded city sidewalk. As he moves forward, one notices that the crowd is effectively moving backward--a nice, subtle, visual touch.

As much as I enjoyed the film, there is something about the end that seems incongruent to everything that came before. Or maybe I've become suspicious of films that insist on buoyant endings. One could pose a counterargument that the ending is well-earned. And does the demolition metaphor work? Is it too heavy-handed?

Vallee's soundtrack is quite delightful. I like music that is directly incorporated into the story. Heart's Crazy on You is not only part of the soundtrack but the song itself becomes part of a question Davis poses to a gathering of his office colleagues during a meeting.

I like Vallee's film. I found its flaws to be minor or negligible. I don't think it's the great film it had the potential to be but it worked well enough. Its limited release will work against it but it will find its way to those who will appreciate its oddities.