WONDERSTRUCK – Review

Millicent Simmonds as Rose in WONDERSTRUCK. Photo credit: Myles Aronowitz. Courtesy of Amazon Studios and Roadside Attractions ©

WONDERSTRUCK is a beautiful clockwork creation filled with intricate, delicate details, but a film where the parts are greater than the sum of the whole. Like an elaborate cuckoo clock or a old-fashioned doll’s house, it is packed to the roof with little flourishes and charmingly magical images that matter more than the story they are decorating.

Director Todd Haynes’ mystery/drama is divided into two stories of runaway children on a quest, one set in the 1920s and the other in the 1970s, but both taking place in New York and often in the same locations. In this adaptation of Brian Selznick’s young adult novel, the two children have their own mysteries to solve but the additional mystery is what links their two stories besides location. Brian Selznick, who also wrote this screenplay, wrote the novel that was the basis of Martin Scorsese’s film HUGO, and this story also has a little of the same child’s magical-world feel and sense of wonder.

The 1920s story, presented as a black-and-white silent movie, tells the story of Rose (Millicent Simmons), a 12-year-old deaf girl who seems obsessed with a famous silent movie star Lillian Mayhew (Julianne Moore), pasting clippings about her from fan magazines into a scrapbook. After a confrontation with her stern father (James Urbaniak), Rose runs away from her comfortable but confining suburban New Jersey home to look for the actress in New York, where she is starring in a play at a Manhattan theater. In the 1970s story, ten-year-old Ben (Oakes Fegley) runs away from his rural Minnesota home after the death of his mother (Michelle Williams) and following a freak accident that left him deaf, in search of the father he never knew, a quest that also takes him to New York.

The film alternates between the two children’s journeys, which have several parallels. Both Rose and Ben are lonely and are dreamers seeking something more in their lives. Each child’s search takes them to some of the same Manhattan locations, particularly the American Museum of Natural History. Both characters are deaf but neither knows sign language, so navigating the city alone is particularly fraught, yet both find allies along the way. The parallel stories also both touch on bits of New York history in their time periods.

The silent 1920s story is the stronger of the two by far, thanks in large part to the performance of Millicent Simmons, who is herself deaf, as the spunky Rose. Simmons has remarkable screen presence and has no trouble transmitting critical information visually, through small gestures, posture, expression or even a glance. She conveys a mix of touching lonesomeness, sweetness and determination that is irresistible. Haynes shows impressive skill in silent movie visual storytelling, conveying ideas, feelings and plot points clearly without excessive title cards.

The 1970s story is less effective and less polished as storytelling, although it does a good job of capturing both the gritty feel of New York in the ’70s and the charm of an old corner bookstore. Oakes Fegley does a good job with his role as Ben but the plot is far more clunky in the 1970s story. The plot is packed with details and seemingly-meaningful iconography (paper boats, Ziggy Stardust, shooting stars) that ultimately lead nowhere. Several scenes, particularly between him and Jaden Michael as a boy who befriends him, seem contrived and force the young actors into unconvincing dialog and moments that do not feel true. The fault is not in the young actors but an awkward script and direction that seems more intent on hurrying along to the next visual wonder.

A story featuring deaf children is a welcome thing. The film does offer a bit of history and some advocacy for the deaf. The stronger 1920s silent movie story highlights how deaf people were treated in an earlier era, shut off from society and isolated, even in an affluent family like Rose’s. The film also touches on the fight for advances like the transition from lip-reading to the use of sign-language, and continues that thread into the story that takes place 50 years later, showing changes in the lives of deaf people.

As worthy as that is, the plot of the stories themselves are not the strongest (although the 1920s story is much better than the overstuffed, less-believable 1970s story) and the mysteries they pose are not very hard to figure out. But it does not matter much, as the plots mostly exist as a vehicle for a little focus on the deaf, and as an excuse to explore little historical tidbits and to immerse the audience in the time periods.

The major appeal of WONDERSTUCK is likely its intricate, delicate beauty, the studiously accurate period recreations and all the lavish little historic details embedded in the beautifully photographed images. Story definitely takes a backseat in this very pretty film, filled with a history buff’s banquet of near-forgotten bits of New York history. Among the historic delights are a museum exhibition on the pre-cursor to museums, the cabinet of curiosities, displayed at the American Museum of Natural History, a room-filling model of Manhattan created for a World’s Fair and preserved in the 1970s, and even the 1970s blackout.

There is a precious, doll-house feel to much of the movie, as lovely as it is and as worthy as the social commentary is. Haynes seems to be reaching for Wes Anderson charm and whimsy but doesn’t quite achieve it. Still, it is lovely to look at, and the little bits of history are delightful.

WONDERSTRUCK offers a myriad of visual delights and a complete immersion in two time periods, but it is more a tour of wondrous sights than great storytelling.

RATING: 3 out of 5 stars