Click to Skip Ad
Closing in...

Tribeca Review: 'What Richard Did' Is A Stark, Sobering Drama Of Guilt And Regret

by Gabe Toro
April 26, 2013 6:02 PM
  • |
What Richard Did

Last week, Matt Singer wrote a solid Criticwire piece on spoilers and film reviews, discussing the right, or lack thereof, of readers complaining about spoilers in reviews. I don't subscribe to the theory of spoilers because films aren't simply a cherry-picked collection of moments: it makes no difference whether you say if Tom Cruise survives at the end of "Oblivion" compared to sharing with someone the content of his dubious opening narration (side note: you can't spoil a Tom Cruise movie anyway). So, look, if you're marching headfirst into a review for a movie called "What Richard Did" and you don't want to know what Richard did, then wait for us to build a Complaint Dept. and we will forward your emails there.

What Richard Did

What startles about "What Richard Did" isn't the tragedy, but the mundanity of what happens. Richard (Jack Reynor) is a handsome young teenager, an alpha male on his rugby team and big brother to the local youth. In their modest Irish neighborhood, Richard carries the social capital not only of being handsome and witty, but also having free reign over his parents' beach house. While mom is hesitant about Richard's drunken misbehavior with his lads, his dad is entirely understanding that a boy needs a little bit of troublemaking in his life.

In some ways, that troublemaking extends to Richard's very-public courtship of Lara (Roisin Murphy), a local high schooler who can't help but make eyes at the confident party-starter even while attached to another boy, lanky introvert Conor (Sam Keeley). With surgical precision, Richard slings some game at her and soon they're having picnics and snuggling. It's impossible to ignore the boy's charm and Reynor's distinct, wholesome handsomeness; surely Michael Bay saw such appeal when he cast Reynor in the upcoming "Transformers" sequel. You could see this guy growing up to romance leading ladies and dodge fireballs while being pinned to girls' locker rooms. Hey, someone check to see if this guy can sing.

What Richard Did

Unfortunately, it's never clear that Lara has made a clean break with Conor, and those suspicions come to a head at a tumultuous house party. Seeing what appears to be Conor making a move, a massive drunken fight erupts. Richard, not a brawler by nature, goes chest-to-chest with Conor and the two of them argue until Conor slugs him. A group of kids swarm and begin wrestling each other as Richard attempts to find his bearings, with Conor taking a rogue shot to the face. Anyone who has been in a real fight knows the chaos that fisticuffs bring, and the potential for things to escalate beyond reason: as Conor fumbles in the dark, Richard approaches and delivers a swift, drunken kick to the face. It's the sort of blow that action heroes unrealistically shrug off in every movie you've ever seen. And in this case, it proves fatal.

As the news reports discuss an 18-year-old boy found dead in the aftermath of a drinking party, Richard and his closest friends convene, troubled by the truth that it was an accident. Richard himself is deeply shaken -- not only that his fate may be sealed, but because it was only meant to be an accident. What's interesting is the dynamic portrayed by Richard and Conor before the incident: neither is antagonistic towards the other, and when Lara tries to break up with Conor, it's Richard who comes by willing to lend a hand. They all remain mates afterwards, and while Richard is constantly casting a sideways glance at his romantic competitor, they still trade beers and barbs. Even though Richard has been unnaturally cruel to Conor, there seems to be a basic understanding here. Lads before ladies, as gentlemen say.

What Richard Did

"What Richard Did" paints an evocative portrait of guilt and mourning while also parsing the stickiest notions of guilt and innocence. Richard keeps flip-flopping on the idea of turning himself in as he learns he's not a suspect, a wishy-washy belief that suggests nothing. It frees him, the idea of coming clean, but at the same time he understands the pain and suffering he would be causing his family and community by going away. Richard seems like he would do a lot more good out of prison than inside, particularly with the upcoming young kids he's shepherding through school. What's important, "What Richard Did" asks, is that we understand the difference between binary understandings of good and bad, and why it's never as simple as making amends or admitting to an accident. Tough and unsentimental, "What Richard Did" is a superb examination of the thin line behind harmless recklessness and stark tragedy. [A-]

Free Indie Movies and Documentaries    


  • Alan B | April 28, 2013 10:30 AMReply

    A little heads up in regards to the Matt Singer article. It was inspired by a similarly themed piece of commentary by Slant Magazine's Calum Marsh. When Marsh isn't too busy being the most pig-ignorant, obnoxious and hypocritically anti-intellectual critic this side of Devin Faraci and Matt Goldberg, he's also happy to explain why everyone is stupid ... except himself, of course. It's a creepily self-absorbed piece of writing, and - in the comments section of the Marsh article - Peter Schorn wrote a brilliant response to the 'commentary'. I don't want to diminish the comment (which is worth 100 reviews by Marsh), so I will just post it without truncation: 'The whole premise of this article is one of utter selfishness: "Who cares if I spoil YOUR experience? Who reads a review to not have their experience spoiled?" I'll tell you who: People who have to pay to see the movie that the "critic" probably saw in advance for free. To believe that, "film criticism is intended to be read by people who have seen the film under discussion," is to have no effing idea of the purpose of movie reviews to the general public. This is chin-stroking (and other parts) of the worse sort. You know why so many people say, "I don't listen to film reviews"? It's because smug twits like the author are useless ponces.

    It's bad enough that most trailers, particularly for rom-coms as if there's any doubt the couple will get together by the end - spell out the entire plot, but when someone is trying to determine whether a movie is worth dropping over $20 in tickets alone not to mention gas, parking, snacks, babysitter, what purpose is served by some self-righteous juvenile movie "critic" who can't capable discuss whether a movie is worth the time and money without bragging like a brat about what he knows that the reader doesn't. A review is not the place for a deep spoilerific analysis. Sorry, it's not. If you can't deal with that, then get out of the reviewing business and stick to analysis.

    A question for those who think spoiling the surprise for others is your right: Who anointed you the Keeper of Secrets? Are you such a-holes that if a friend spent weeks planning a surprise party for someone, you'd tip them off that it was going to happen? If yes, you're a jerk; if no, then why do you get to ruin others' movie fun?

    2nd Question: Did someone spoil it for you before you experienced the movie or did you see it as the filmmakers intended? If you went in cold and were surprised, why are you so hellbent on denying others the same experience you had other than a childish need to ruin others fun?

    In the commentary for The Usual Suspects, someone remarks about how the scene where Verbal is sitting in Kujan's office before his questioning reads totally differently the 2nd time you view it. The first time, you think Verbal is bored and just looking around the room; the second time you realize he's piecing together the elements of his story. For self-anointed spoiler spreaders like the author, it's more important to say, "While Verbal tells his story, the revelation that he is himself Keyser Soze may surprise some, but viewers should pay attention to the early scene where he gathers the pieces of his puzzle." WHAT?

    Even the knowledge that there's a twist is a spoiler. I hate ads which quote spoiler reviews like, "...and So-And-So of the Irrelevant Media Outlet says, 'You won't see the twist coming at all!'" Um, no. Thanks to the review and ad, I'm going to spend the entire movie looking for hints of the twist instead of simply watching the movie. I had to run away from discussions of the outrage over the ending of Mass Effect 3 for three weeks while I played the game because I wanted to see for myself how I felt. The moment I was done, I went looking for those discussions, but it was MY CHOICE to find them. (I'm currently dodging Bioshock Infinite spoilers. Not everyone can rush out and play games the moment they come out.)

    As a reviewer, I've had to dance around spoilers even for older movies like Audition because there are plenty of people who haven't seen it, but are aware of it though not the specifics. Somehow I was able to not discuss the specifics, but then again I'm not a hack with a need to spoil others fun to make myself feel important and in the know.

    Have I ever spoiled something? Yes, in reviews on my personal blog (not major media outlets) for movies that are so bad that they need to be spoiled in order to properly explain what's so awful, usually in regards to how the trailer promises one thing and the movie is something else entirely. Country Strong was a particularly egregious case in when I posted the trailer and then asked if the end of the movie is even alluded to and how it was a nasty bait-and-switch on audiences paying for one thing and getting something totally different. But note that I didn't post the spoiler here because it's not my job to wreck things outside of my house and I'm not a spoiler jerk like the author. Occasionally I'll put a spoiler discussion section at the very bottom of my blog's reviews, but it's flagged and isolated from the main review text, marked as for those who have either seen the movie or don't care about spoilers.

    There is a place of candid and in-depth discussion of a movie's plot and twist, but it is NOT IN THE FRIDAY MORNING REVIEW OF A NEW RELEASE! Sorry, but that's the case, Spoiler Mongers. Write a secondary analysis chin/wang-stroking on Monday for those who've seen it to join in with and those who haven't yet to avoid. But no not ruin the experience for those who don't want it ruined just because you're such a child that you can't restrain your urges to run by the bookstores at midnight to scream, "DUMBLEDORE DIES!" at the kids awaiting their new Harry Potter novel. Jerk.'

  • Alan B | April 28, 2013 7:33 PM

    You know what's so interesting about what you're saying, Oliver: nothing, at all (which is par for the course, I guess). I'm not trying to celebrate myself or my own writing: I want to call attention to PETER SCHORN and HIS writing, which is why less than 15% of the comment was MY WRITING. And Gabe, you don't have to worry about me: that comment took three minutes, tops. Then again, it's curious that for someone who purports to be THE LAST BASTION OF TRUE CRITICAL THOUGHT can't seem to discuss the CONTENT of the comment, instead relying on an old (and quite tired) insult as a substitute for ACTUAL CRITICAL THOUGHT. Because you people seem to be so bored by a few words (which it was 1041, Oliver), here's a sample of Schorn's argument: 'There is a place of candid and in-depth discussion of a movie's plot and twist, but it is NOT IN THE FRIDAY MORNING REVIEW OF A NEW RELEASE! Sorry, but that's the case, Spoiler Mongers. Write a secondary analysis chin/wang-stroking on Monday for those who've seen it to join in with and those who haven't yet to avoid. But no not ruin the experience for those who don't want it ruined just because you're such a child that you can't restrain your urges to run by the bookstores at midnight to scream, "DUMBLEDORE DIES!" at the kids awaiting their new Harry Potter novel. Jerk.' Here's the thing: Schorn was frustrated at the potential for spoilers for a new release. He didn't even contemplate the idea that a critic could unleash spoilers for a FESTIVAL FILM that most people in the world simply don't have access to.

  • db | April 28, 2013 7:05 PM

    Alan, relaaaax!

  • Oliver Lyttelton | April 28, 2013 5:20 PM

    "A creepily self-absorbed piece of writing," he says, at the top of a 1000 word contribution in a comments section.

  • Gabe Toro | April 28, 2013 4:55 PM

    Alan. Seriously. Go outside. Get some air.

  • Kevin | April 27, 2013 10:50 PMReply

    It's pretty clearly stated in the opening paragraph there will be spoilers. If you read past that and still complain, that's on you.

  • Alan B | April 28, 2013 2:33 AM

    Thanks for the input, Kevin. Except no one is complaining that they were unwittingly spoiled about the contents of the film. They (which includes me, as well) are arguing against Gabe Toro's contention that informing the reader whether or not a character dies at the end of a film is cool. In my post, I make it CLEAR that I think there is a time and a place for such spoilers in reviews (collected works of criticism, articles written after the film is widely available etc.) and - whilst I admire that Toro makes it clear that there will be spoilers in his review - this assertion still doesn't explain Perez's common practice of throwing spoilers into his reviews. It's one thing to be spoiled by a talented writer, but to be spoiled by the likes of Perez is an insult, frankly.

  • Idiots | April 27, 2013 11:58 PM

    Seriously. Tards

  • Superzoom | April 27, 2013 4:30 PMReply

    How sad that a "reviewer" doesn't know the different between a "discussion" and an actual review.

  • Gabe Toro | April 27, 2013 8:56 PM

    1) There is no difference. 2) Your name is "Superzoom."

  • The Truth | April 27, 2013 8:07 AMReply

    Gabe Toro - what a cunt. Another reason I am visiting The Playlist.

  • Alan B | April 27, 2013 9:22 AM

    GABE TO THE TRUTH You need to get laid. That's the only possible reason why anyone could criticize me.

  • Superzoom | April 27, 2013 7:05 AMReply

    I guess it's official... I now no longer have an interest in reading any Playlist reviews. Spoilers indicate both a lack of respect for readers and a big lack of writing ability for the writer. All my favourite critics can describe a movie's premise in well written paragraph or two, and can discuss a movie's story, theme, strengths and weaknesses without giving away second and third act plot points. It's called skillful writing.

  • Alan B | April 28, 2013 2:47 AM

    "Hey, anyone wanna talk about the movie? Maybe instead of their precious need for "respect"?" Yeah, JERKS, we all need to buy a ticket to New York and head to the Tribeca Film Festival because not having the position or wealth to afford such a luxury makes us all WHINY PHILISTINES who can never appreciate the film medium like Toro does. Sure, Toro could have simply warned that he was going to employ spoilers in his review instead of telling readers to "wait for us to build a Complaint Dept.", but we all NEEDED a posturing lecture about how the idea of spoilers is stupid.

  • Superzoom | April 27, 2013 4:58 PM

    Hey Shut Up, thank you for expressing your indifference by taking the time to post a response to my comment. Dude.

  • Superzoom | April 27, 2013 4:57 PM

    Hey Shut Up, thank you for expressing your indifference by taking the time to post a response to my comment. Dude.

  • Shut up already | April 27, 2013 4:49 PM

    "I guess it's official... I now no longer " No one cares, dude.

  • Shut up already | April 27, 2013 4:36 PM

    "I guess it's official... I now no longer " No one cares, dude.

  • Superzoom | April 27, 2013 4:27 PM

    "Discussion" is a good word for what you've written. However, some of us expect a reviewer to write a review, not a discussion.

  • Superzoom | April 27, 2013 4:25 PM

    You can stand by your inability to not spoil the story in reviewing a movie. I stand by my belief that good reviewers don't need to spoil the story. You call what you've written a "discussion," which is a good description of it. But some of us are looking for actual reviews,.

  • Gabe Toro | April 27, 2013 3:15 PM

    Hey, anyone wanna talk about the movie? Maybe instead of their precious need for "respect"?

    The link I posted is an excellent article that makes this point better than I can: truly good movies cannot be spoiled. You'll always have the opportunity to see the film before reading the review, hopefully when it enters commercial release. If not, look at that - my first paragraph ensures we will be discussing what Richard did in "What Richard Did," which occurs around the half-hour-to-forty-minute mark of the film (there are no third act plot points discussed in this article).

    I'm not sure what more we can do other than NOT discuss where the movie's title comes from. This is not Consumer Reports, it is a film discussion. All due respect, you won't be missed, Superzoom.

  • Alan B | April 26, 2013 11:53 PMReply

    Sorry to be reductive, but - for the purposes of simplicity - I would say there are two kinds of late 2nd/3rd act spoilers: spoilers discussed AFTER the film is widely available, and those revealed BEFORE. For instance, no one will issue death threats to Jonathan Rosenbaum if he releases an in-depth analysis on the career of Richard Linklater, in which the critic draws upon the endings of the the Texan director's films. That's because a book like that is based on the understanding that the viewer has seen the films, and wants to gather a more in-depth understanding of Linklater and the purposes of those endings. This kind of spoiler also applies to more exhaustive articles on films written AFTER the film has been released: for instance, a piece exploring the ending of 'Iron Man 3' would be fine after the reader has had a chance to see it. Then there is the 'Rodrigo Perez'-style, where he will drop spoilers WITHOUT WARNING not because he wants to draw the reader into a more academic debate on the film's merits, but really because he does not know how to write criticism above the intellectual level of "and then this person did this, and IT'S SO STUPID, he, he, he ..." People - unsurprisingly - would like the FILMMAKERS to reveal key plot points in the story, not critics, and - even if they were partial to a critic revealing said story developments - I doubt they would appreciate the childish antics of Go-Rez. If you want to discuss the film in detail, I would be happy to read the review, but only AFTER I have experienced the film for myself.

  • JADE | April 27, 2013 12:57 PM

    Oh, but clearly you are.

  • Alan B | April 27, 2013 12:01 AM

    Sorry for the repeats. I am not THAT obnoxious.

  • Alan B | April 27, 2013 12:00 AM

    Sorry for the repeats. I am not THAT obnoxious.

  • Alan B | April 26, 2013 11:59 PM

    Sorry for the repeats. I am not THAT obnoxious.

  • Flood | April 26, 2013 9:46 PMReply

    I enjoy reading The Playlist but the reviews are consistently terrible. You always review the story rather than the movie. Six paragraphs and not a mention of any of this film's many cinematic achievements. Abrahamson uses empathy and tension to wring high drama out of everyday tragedy (in that respect it reminded me of A Seperation). He's a formally gifted director who improves with every film, and he deserves a bit of credit.

Email Updates