the most amazing thing about paul cox’s innocence is how unlike a movie it is .
i mean that as the highest compliment .
if most studios were to profile an elderly couple who rekindle a 40-year-old romance , i’d want to run and hide .
the sex scenes would be handled as a farce , producers would shed 20 years off the characters’ ages ( so susan sarandon and harrison ford could star ) and true love would shine through any obstacle without explanation and consequence .
along with a charming romantic story , the australian/belgian innocence shows how an increasing sense of mortality combined with revisiting the past while being entrenched in the present can make something that seems so right seem downright questionable .
the romance gets started when former musician andreas ( charles ” bud ” tingwell ) , learns that his true love , claire ( julia blake ) , lives nearby .
they decide to catch up on old times , but soon find themselves in a reinvigorating affair .
complicating matters is andreas’ frail health , and claire’s longtime husband ( terry norris ) , who can’t understand why he’s suddenly become obsolete .
in my mind , the movie is less about the relationship between andreas and claire , than the feelings of everyone involved .
john , claire’s husband , endlessly questions what he did wrong .
claire initially insists she’s a grown-up , but admittedly behaves like a child , a prospect that thrills and disappoints her .
andreas , an agnostic , begins to question his fate , a message cox delivers in a memorable dream sequence .
cox litters the movie with flashbacks , including the repeated vision of a roaring train .
it’s a reminder of andreas and claire’s past love ( as young lovers , they met by train ) , but as it recurs , we get the feeling that the past and the present have clashed .
a pall is cast on the whole affair .
a master of the understated , cox strings together a series of memorable moments .
in andreas’ dream sequence , amidst the roar of the train and conversations , we get the whole picture of andreas and claire’s love .
we also get glimpses into john and claire’s relationship .
during a silent candlelit dinner shortly afterward , claire admits to john about her indiscretion , telling more than any monologue could .
all that’s heard is the scraping of forks against plates .
the characters are unlike anything i’ve seen — they’re people .
so many times , movies and especially television portray senior citizens as gratingly spunky .
or they’re reduced to comedic buffoons .
ordinary people with a pile of emotions , claire and andreas aren’t sure what the next step is .
they do want to be happy , which consists of an entirely different set of conditions than what they’ve known throughout their adult lives .
bravo to cox , who wrote the script , for not making john a monster , so that claire’s affair is automatically justified .
norris is so effective as john that he makes andreas and claire’s love difficult to accept .
we feel for him .
he’s a decent man .
sure , he may have become complacent , but he never expected this , especially now .
with so much presented to the audience , it’s only expected that the material gets a little drawn out and repetitive , which it does .
however , in bringing up tough questions and not offering easy answers , cox displays a skill and ? lan isn’t likely to be surpassed by anyone anytime soon .