Touched With Fire

Posted by Michael Parsons on February 18, 2016 in / No Comments


Few people can claim to understand bipolar disorder, and director Paul Dalio happens to be one of them. His new film stars Katie Holmes and Luke Kirby as Carla and Marco, two manic-depressive writers who meet at a psychiatric hospital and find common ground in their poetry. A reflection of Dalio’s own struggle with the illness, the film delves into the subject headlong, deconstructing a disease that is no doubt obscure to most people.

Originally entitled Mania Days, “Touched With Fire” is not quite the moving drama I’d hoped for, but it’s certainly a respectable one. Dalio handily sets up for a powerful emotional blow, but he pulls his punches well before maximum impact. It’s a decent flick with characters who are thinly etched out to exemplify an infinitely complex and horrible condition. The film perpetually feels like it’s on the brink of something profound, but eventually becomes more frustrating than enlightening (unlike last year’s “Infinitely Polar Bear”, a must-see performance by Mark Ruffalo). Dalio’s ostensible purge often feels Touched_with_Fire_postersurprisingly manufactured for something coming from such an honest and personal place, and the idea that the actors are “acting” is hard to shake.

Revolving around Carla and Marco’s relationship in and out of the treatment ward, “Touched With Fire” (also written by Dalio) is more like watching a  rollercoaster ride than being on one. We’re introduced to Marco rambling on to his father about “going off the grid” and ridding himself of all financial responsibilities. He thinks he can live off of free condiments at fast food restaurants (at least until the apocalypse). Carla inadvertently gets herself committed when impulsively showing up to get copies of her medical records in the middle of the night.

In the treatment center, Carla and Marco’s attraction is not instantaneous. She favors Dickinson, he’s partial to the stylings of Eminem. But it evolves into something romantic after a synchronous manic episode puts them on the same astral plane, where they connect on a level well beyond the comprehension of their loved ones. Is it true love, or just the mania bringing them together? Maybe both. Marco dissects their imbalance obsessively, arguing that it has resulted in some of the world’s most precious works of art (Picasso and Van Gogh are thought to have been bipolar). His idea that bipolar disorder can be a gift lends an interesting perspective to the film. Carla’s parents (Christine Lahti, Bruce Altman) and Marco’s father (Griffin Dunne) object to the relationship, concerned that the two will draw the worst out of one another (or rather, their disease). The couple argue that only a manic-depressive can understand another manic-depressive. They’ll take their medication and everything will work out.

Dalio’s movie is a well-informed observation of mental illness without question, but his experience doesn’t rub off on the characters so much as ambush us with the emotional turmoil they are stricken with. I suppose the director couldn’t possibly convey what it’s like to have zero emotional efficacy in 110 minutes without sometimes resorting to extreme manic stereotypes. But his intimate knowledge is more evident in the film’s nuanced moments; scenes that find Carla and Marco at a crossroads, the parents visibly struggling to relate to their kids. The chemistry, so to speak, is there somewhere–Holmes and Kirby do have a few stirring scenes–but some of the theatrics keep “Touched With Fire” from reaching its full potential.

— M. Parsons

Posted in

Michael Parsons

Father. Realtor®. Movie nut. After pestering my parents for their commentary on “Star Wars” when I was four years old, my mind went into a creative frenzy. I’d imagined something entirely different than the actual film, which I didn’t end up seeing until its 1979 re-release at the Uptown Theater in Washington, DC. This was my formal introduction to the cinema.

During that long wait, which felt like an eternity to a child, my mind was being molded by more corrosive stuff like “Trilogy of Terror” and “Rosemary’s Baby”, most of which I’d conned various babysitters into letting me watch on television ( I convinced one poor lady that “Jaws” was actually “Moby Dick”).

The folks were pretty strict in that regard, so the less appropriate it was for a kid to watch, the more I was fascinated by it. Horror staples like “Halloween” and “Friday the 13th”, as well as lesser-known low-budget fare like “Madman”, “Sleepaway Camp” and “Pieces” all ended up sneaking their way into the VHS on a regular basis.

Since then, I’ve developed an obsession with the entire film industry. Even though I watch and review a wide breadth of films these days, my appreciation for the campy, poorly lit micro-budgeters still lends itself to my evolving perspective on movies just as much as the summer blockbusters and Oscar contenders. As I recall my trips to the movie theater, I realize that this stuff is about much more than just a fleeting piece of entertainment.

A couple years ago, I was finally given the opportunity to lend my opinion on films to a publication, The Rogers Revue, with a subsequent run at Reel Film News. It's been both a privilege and a gateway to what we’re doing now. Most of my experience has come from interviewing independent filmmakers, who consistently promote innovation. The filmmaking process is grueling and relatively unforgiving.

Fellow film enthusiast Eddie Pasa and I have created DC Filmdom as a medium for film reviews, discussion, and (inevitably) some debate. And so, the creative frenzy continues.

(Michael is a member of the Washington, DC Area Film Critics Association).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *