The Upside of Anger would have been a powerful, beautiful short. Ten minutes, maybe fifteen. That’s all it needed. It’s the story is one of Terry (Joan Allen), whose husband has just left her and falls into a state of perpetual anger as a result. It could have followed the model of Establish Conflict, Anger, Anger, Anger, Resolution of Conflict. Given the nature of this particular conflict and resolution, it would haven been perfect as a short.

Instead of the above model, we get a full length feature film that takes on the form of Establish Conflict, Anger, Anger, Anger, Anger, Anger, Anger, Anger, Anger, Anger, Anger, Anger, Anger, Anger, Anger, Anger, Anger, Anger, Anger, Anger, Anger, Anger, Anger, Anger, Anger, Anger, Anger, Anger, Anger, Anger, Anger, Anger, Anger, Resolution of Conflict. That’s not inspiring. It’s not even interesting. It’s boring. What’s more, it’s tedious.

Terry is an absolutely static character throughout the entire film. That’s boring. If it were a static state of goodness, it could have been enjoyable. But it’s the static state of a cruel, disturbed woman, who is in a state of serious self-deception. It would be worth watching if the film spent a significant amount of time on her change, but it doesn’t. It rests content to spend 99% of screen time on this monster of a character. It’s awful.

The sad part is that The Upside of Anger really could have been a great film. It opens up with some very real, very difficult conflicts. Terry, a near alcoholic wrestles with rearing her four daughters. She responds to each of them in what is clearly the worst way possible. It’s hard to watch at times, so engaging and so realistically portrayed are all the conflicts. But there’s never a breath of fresh air. This is like watching A Christmas Carol where we see Scrooge act like a jerk for two hours and then get a token change of heart in the last two minutes. That’s not a good story. That’s the very worst possible way to tell a moral story.

The argument the film tries to make for an upside of anger is terribly weak. Apparently it has something to do with the learning process one goes through after having been angry for a period of time. The claim is wrong, in the first place, because it assumes that one has to go through a period of anger in order to reach the enlightened state, which is wrong. But the title also suggests that there is some value to Terry continued state of anger, which clearly there was not. It was unnecessary in every way.

The film, in all actuality, does nothing but show the downside of anger in every moment.
That’s a good thing, but a terrible way to do it.

Year: