I was trying to work out what it is that this film does, and basically it's quite simple: it establishes a couple of (sets of) characters, creates a conflict (each has a strong moral claim on the one house, and stands to lose a lot if unable to hold on to that property), and then traces what follows. The film has a kind of rhythm that makes its progression and ending seem inevitable in light of the circumstances and the characters involved, and yet no twist or shift was predictable except retrospectively. It's also quite strongly literary in the way it sets up parallels between the characters, develops themes (most notably to do with ownership and the nature of home, but also taking in the cultural conflict elements inherent in the clash between Ben Kingsley's dignified and stern Iranian ex-military immigrant and his family and Jennifer Connelly's American born, straggly recovering alcoholic, and nicely developing the idea of familial absence and loss in the closing phrases of the film), and figures motifs (the moment when Kathy steps on the nail works perfectly, because not only does it literalise the way in which ownership of the house has shifted and the house itself turned against her, and the way that the house brings them together and functions as a node or meeting point, but it also serves a dramatic purpose in advancing the plot - and it's this latter which hits the viewer first (after the immediate visceral shock of the puncture)). The way it tackles these themes and ideas, in fact, is marked by a subtlety of touch whereby they seem to emerge naturally from the events of the film, rather than merely being 'hung' on the plot (or, conversely, the plot seeming merely a contrivance in order to get at the themes/ideas).
Despite the occasional violence - both physical and emotional - the film never sinks into mere melodrama. It's dramatic, and a lot of its power and tension resides in the question of whether Kathy or Behrani will succeed in their triumph (and whether any such victory will prove pyrrhic), but it's not really a genre piece - it's too thoughtful and multi-faceted to easily fit into a convenient category. The performances are very good - it's as much the acting as the writing which keeps our sympathies in a state of flux as the film goes on (I can imagine people taking one or the other side very strongly, but I felt that it was evenly balanced and the fact that it could be either side is itself suggestive). I don't know if I've seen Kingsley in anything (oh wait - Species, which hardly seems to count) but I think that his performance is what people mean when they say 'powerhouse'. Given the gap between dominant western values and those which he embodies in the film, it would've been easy for Behrani to become an inadvertently demonised figure, but that's never even close to happening - instead, we're forced to respect him and the choices he makes and is compelled to make. As to Connelly, well, like everyone else I adored her in Labyrinth; after a long gap, became aware of her again with Dark City, in which she was also good, and after the life-changingly good the first time, somewhat dull the second time Requiem For A Dream, I was ready to hold her up as one of the most beautiful and one of the best actors going around. Here, she's exactly right, smouldering with a grungy, bruised defiance which allows us to make sense of her character and her interactions with and effects upon all the others.
Not exactly a fun film, then, but darn good.
