Movie review: 'Room'

Will devotees of the best-selling novel 'Room' feel short-changed by the film adaptation? Sue de Groot finds out

There is a lot to be said for reading a book before seeing the film adaptation of said book. Cloud Atlas made little sense to those who had not read David Mitchell's novel (mind you, the book didn't make much sense either) and anyone who endured the film of Fifty Shades of Grey without first wading through the damp pages of the novel could not possibly grasp the intricacies of the plot.

story_article_left1

In the case of Room, I recommend reading the book only after seeing the film. I'm not saying those who loved Emma Donoghue's disturbing novel should not watch the movie - I'm just saying they are likely to be a little disappointed, because it is impossible to show in pictures the first-time perceptions described in the words of a five-year-old boy.

With that proviso, Room has been dextrously translated into filmic language by director Lenny Abrahamson, assisted by the novelist herself as screenwriter. In the beginning, the claustrophobia felt by the captive Joy Newsome (Brie Larson) is balanced by the ease with which her son Jack (Jacob Tremblay) inhabits his known universe, the tiny space he calls Room. Later, their divergent attempts to come to terms with the wide world are equally moving.

In the book, Joy - known to Jack as Ma - was kidnapped by a stranger at age 19 (the film changes this to 17) and has been kept as a sex slave in a sound-proofed shed for seven years. Jack was born in the shed and has never left it; his mother makes him sleep in the wardrobe at night to keep him safe during brief visits by the man he refers to as "Old Nick".

One of the difficulties with the movie is that the climax - the terrifying sequence of events during which Jack and Joy escape from Room - happens near the beginning. The rest is about them re-entering (or in Jack's case, entering) the world outside Room.

It is astonishing that young Tremblay has not joined Larson in receiving an Oscar nomination for this film. There are moments when Jack speaks some of Donoghue's memorable lines in voiceover, but a constant narrative would have irritated the viewer (no child, no matter how talented, should speak non-stop for two hours). Instead, Tremblay's eyes do the work. Perhaps reading the book provided the subtext, but his thoughtful gaze as he looks beyond the boundaries of his former existence is enough to make Leonardo DiCaprio sign up for acting lessons.

There are spirited cameos by William H Macy and Joan Allen as Joy's parents, and some clever new elements (such as a dog) have been introduced to show parts of the story that cannot be told. Devotees of the novel might feel short-changed in some aspects - Jack is not nearly pale enough, for one thing, and his developing relationship with his grandmother loses its literary brio - but you can't have everything.

There have been many bad films made of good books. This is not one of those. This is a good film of a much better book.

Rating: 3/5