User reviews

Several months after returning from a trip to Europe with his wife, a poet has a near-fatal stroke. While he lies in a coma, a colleague presents the poet's wife with a novella the poet had been secretly writing at the time of his accident. The manuscript narrates their European sojourn, and suggests that the poet has been carrying on an affair, by mail, with a woman they both met in Paris. But all is not what it seems. Psychologically, this is fascinating territory, although the often unsignaled time and character shifts will be confusing for those unfamiliar with the brilliant novel on which this film is based. Those who are familiar with the novel will find it interesting to observe the way Scott and Hughes reconfigure the material for a different medium - but it loses a lot of its force because you know the delightful twist from the beginning. Read the novel first. It's magnificent. You'll then find both it and this film more enjoyable.

An experimental feature that crosses over a few genres and through three different narrators during the surreal journey. Interesting enough to make you want to read the book instead! The greatest asset is the technical side that gives it that polish look thanks to the photography, music and editing

It may be unfair to describe 1996's "What I Have Written" as a forgotten movie. I was around in '96 and I don't recall ever hearing about it. To be forgotten, people have to have been aware of its existence at some stage, right? The movie is basically a noble failure. It's experimental, but the experiment doesn't quite come off. It's the kind of movie you want to like more than you do, and it should definitely be better known just so its attempt can be witnessed by budding filmmakers.

The movie is strange and impressionistic. There is very little dialogue, but lots of monologue. Much of the movie is told through freeze-frames. This has the predictable effect of slowing the movie down so much that after a while you can almost hear the screech. You also, in all probability, start doing other things while you wait for something more interesting to happen on screen.

Nevertheless, it manages to tell a cohesive story. It's the sort of mature indie drama that was around quite a bit in the nineties. It reminds me of that other Australian flick from that era, "Proof", with Russell Crowe and Hugo Weaving. Unfortunately, none of the actors have their interest.

Watching an hour-and-a-half movie in freeze frame, with a new image every few seconds instead of the standard 24 images in one second, is like watching a snail cross the road. There's no point watching it for the whole journey. You can go away and do other things, come back, and check on its progress.

That's what "What I Have Written" is like.

Here's one of those movies, Art-house, so delicately handled in it's relationship of story and characters, it becomes quite eerie, and you become more concerned than you should. The delicately handling of story is what really impressed me about this movie, which some people will find boring and turn off. But if you sit it out and give it a chance, it pays off. The acting is A level from everyone, although it was Koman as the envious friend of Milliken (also just superb) who I really took notice of. What else has this actor done? The story is one of betrayal, the partner, Milliken, unforgiving of her sick husband's (Jacobs) infidelity, via a manuscript, his best friend, Koman, a book publisher, possesses. We go back and forth to the catalyst, being the mistress, Jacob's character (a budding writer) becomes infatuated with at a book reading. Later in time, he breaks it off, then falls ill, where guilt has him, and a betrayal is realized, through pages of his writing, where for Milliken, it becomes a detective's puzzle. Although the film scored an R rating, it's only due to a couple of pornographic still images, so you birdwatchers, will be left high and dry. I'm glad I saw this one out, as these are the kind of films that should be appreciated, and warrant viewing from Oz audiences, not just the Art-house movie connoisseurs. Ending is a stinger, one of heartlessness, for one greedy party.