London Film Festival review - Chronic

Michael Cristofer and Tim Roth share a rare laugh

Oh I do love Tim Roth. And not just because he is Mr Orange (though I went through a rather obsessive Tarantino phase as a teenager, so that is a significant achievement in my eyes). It’s always worth seeing his films because he chooses such interesting projects, and usually gives pretty interesting performances. And Chronic is no exception.

Roth plays David, a nurse caring for the terminally ill in their homes, who seems to be getting a little too involved with his patients. Now, palliative care is not a subject often depicted in film, what with how uncomfortable it makes the viewer feel. Writer/director Michel Franco has really made up for this historic shortage with Chronic. The film is mostly made up of a series of long, static shots of David washing, moving and feeding patients. The voyeuristic feeling is a little disconcerting, but the film really shows how gentle, slow, boring and beautiful caring can be.  

Unlike, say, the recent film Nightcrawler, this is not the study of a creepy loner that perhaps it seems to be at the start. I think the more you find out about David, the less creepy he is. Roth’s understated performance is of course excellent, managing to build a picture of a troubled soul with very little dialogue, and instead mostly through quiet and calm movements. 

One interesting aspect of the film is its setting, or perhaps its lack thereof. While obviously set in Southern California, this very familiar place is made to feel very anonymous. Franco is Mexican, and this could just as easily have been set in Mexico, Britain (Roth keeps his English accent, which oddly no characters comment on) or anywhere else in the world. This film definitely has a very international feel.

Although very slow, Chronic is a mood piece that is, perhaps surprisingly, never boring. The ending did annoy me, though, and just seems so unnecessary. A less eventful ending would have been much more effective than the one we are given, and would have suited the loose, ambiguous nature of the film. This is a pity, as it almost spoils a quietly moving character piece about a topic that is often overlooked.