'Tyrannosaur' and the actor-turned-director debate

The high quality of Paddy Considine’s acting, particularly in Shane Meadow’s early films and films such as Pawel Pawlikowski’s Last Resort, made the prospect of his directorial feature film debut, an exciting and intriguing one. It was a shame then that Considine’s skills as a filmmaker in Tyrannosaur failed to match his skills as an actor.

It is difficult to be openly critical of Tyrannosaur as its subject matter focuses on domestic abuse and alcoholism. These topics are rightly seen as socially important within society and therefore should not simply be regarded and subsequently critiqued for the merits of their entertainment value or lack thereof. However, while it is true that cinema should educate, stimulate thought and debate and pose challenging questions to audiences, films should, at the very least, be plausible or should provide new arguments and responses to sensitive debates and Tyrannosaur fails to do this.

On paper, the film should be a success. The acting, from a small cast, is uniformly excellent. Olivia Colman who plays Christian charity shop worker, Hannah, produces a performance regarded by many critics as revelatory. This is actually a fair assessment of her acting here as her turn as a beaten and humiliated but ultimately positive and kind woman marks a drastic contrast to her previous performances in UK sitcoms, in particular as Sophie in Peep Show.

Eddie Marsan, a veteran of Mike Leigh’s films, plays Hannah’s violent and abusive husband, a cowardly and ruthless man who, seemingly, has no redeeming qualities. Marsan’s performance is convincing and he is a genuinely unsettling screen presence.

Peter Mullan is brilliant in every film he appears in and Tyrannosaur is no exception. Mullan, however, has clearly become typecast and while his performance as Joseph is passionate and convincing, we have seen him play the destitute and destructive Glaswegian alcoholic-type many times before and to equal effect in films such as Ken Loach’s, My Name Is Joe, his self-directed film, Neds (which suffers from the same drawbacks as Tyrannosaur) and now here in Tyrannosaur.

Peter Mullan as 'Joseph'

Mullan’s typecasting is a good place to start when finding exactly why it is that Tyrannosaur fails to work on a general level. Mullan’s Joseph character is, in many ways, a summation of all that is wrong with this film. It all just feels rather tired and at times quite clichéd. Yes, domestic abuse is horrific and depressing and yes, so are alcoholics and deprived midland council estates shot in drab shades of grey but what is Considine actually saying here that hasn’t been said before and in a far more superior way in the films of Mike Leigh and Ken Loach? The answer is not a great deal. While, Tyrannosaur is not a thriller and nor is its purpose to be one, the sense of predictability from one moment to the next leaves one feeling that they are seeing something that presents a noble cause but whose level of depth or originality is sorely lacking.

The lack of subtlety or any real subtext is key in Tyrannosaur’s failings and brings forth a theory that came to mind as the end credits began. Can great actors make great films? The evidence, using Robert De Niro as a prime example and to a lesser extent Peter Mullan as mentioned before, would suggest not. De Niro’s directorial efforts are by no means bad but they lack any depth or substance to make them memorable and were they not directed by such an acting heavyweight, it is questionable whether films such as A Bronx Tale or The Good Shepherd would be reviewed particularly kindly as when looked at as films within their own right, forgetting briefly their director, they appear one dimensional and dull.

From L-R: Paddy Considine,Peter Mullan, Olivia Colman

While Paddy Considine does not possess De Niro’s fine body of acting work (he may well in years to come) it would be fair to say that his acting, like De Niro’s, shines above many of his peers- it is honest, brutal and totally convincing. Like Robert De Niro, Paddy Considine’s debut feature as a director contains many of the flaws that mar De Niro’s directorial work. Along with A Bronx Tale and The Good Shepherd, Tyrannosaur deals with issues most would regard as important and worthy of serious discussion but does so, like the other films mentioned, in an uninspiring way. This all leads to this assessment that was first attributed to De Niro but can similarly be used in Considine’s case: Considine’s acting performances are so well regarded because he is able to utterly immerse himself into the roles he plays to the point where it appears that what we are seeing is not a fabricated performance but an extension of the actor’s psyche on the screen within the character he is playing. The downside of this skill appears to be, on the part of both men, that their personalities outside of the characters they portray, are disappointingly empty. It is as though De Niro needs Jake La Motta or Travis Bickle to show any hint of originality or creativity just like Considine needs Morrell from A Room For Romeo Brass or Richard from Dead Man’s Shoes to showcase his best work or any spark of personality. Both of these men are empty vessels waiting to be filled by the characters they become. When Robert De Niro and Paddy Considine showcase their true personalities via their directorial work, their inner emptiness is highlighted by the mundane and flat realisation of their artistic visions.