Jeremy Irons is a name that effectively translates into magic as he has the power to charm the audience with his incredible acting talent. The British-American mystery drama Waterland (1992), directed by Stephen Gyllenhaal, lists one of his many credits where Irons captures the eye and the heart of the viewer.
Irons plays Tom Crick, a high school teacher of history who literally turns his lessons into his-story and shares quite frankly how in his adolescent years he fell in love with Mary (played by Lena Headey and Sinéad Cusack) while his brother Dick (David Morrissey), who lives with a developmental disadvantage, has a crush on the same girl. In his past are a few secrets that are tied to the current crises he and Mary live with as their sanity and clarity dwindle away.
With some beautiful outdoor filming locations, Tom’s narration goes to and from flashbacks with some scenes visually landing the present moment into the past so that Tom and his students appear to have traveled back in time. While that feel cool, the idea of a teacher sharing details of his intimate moments with his students in a classroom setting can raise questions, even though it is shown that Tom can’t help share it all. There is no warning shown from the school administration until he is shown the door literally for telling his-story instead of teaching history (his character des makes a case for it).
The question for Waterland is how far the mystery goes in this story, both in plot and character. In comparative terms, the plot points offer some mystery, with the truth about Dick and what happens to Mary’s baby; but the characters fail the mystery lover with Irons’ character being rather flat and Dick’s somewhat mysterious but too underdeveloped to thrill the curiosity nerve in the viewer.
The fate of the lead characters makes it a tragedy that can be appreciated to some degree for its humanistic tone and the performances of the cast are nothing less than great, not to mention that the casting choice deserves a thumbs-up. But Waterland on the whole feels like it lacks a core that can touch the viewer at the depth of the screening experience. There is that missing quality of anchoring the individual elements together; so you are likely left unconvinced when the closing credits roll.
