In Her Skin
- Jayde Walker
- Apr 5, 2012
- 2 min read
The high-profile murder of beautiful Melbourne teen Rachel Barber by her jealous former babysitter is erratically dramatised in a lost film that may never see Australian distribution.
What’s the deal?
In Her Skin, based on the book Perfect Victim by mother Elizabeth Southall/journalist Megan Norris, details the horrific murder of 15-year-old Rachel Barber (Kate Bell) by her former babysitter/family friend Caroline Reid/Reed Robertson (Ruth Bradley). It's the reasoning for Reid's murderous act that is the most baffling - the dumpy Reid planned to kill the beautiful and talented Barber in order to assume her identity and appearance.
It’s good!
Apparently the Southalls (the parents of Rachel Barber) didn't want the movie focused on Caroline Reid, so it's unfortunate that the Caroline's role is played by the strongest actor in the cast. Bradley, an Irish actress I’d never heard of before, is simply magnificent. Not only does she have an exceptional command of the Australian accent, but she goes to some severely dark places as Caroline. It’s a very tough, very naked depiction and her performance alone is the reason why I would recommend In Her Skin. Overall, it has a pretty brilliant Australian cast including A-Listers Miranda Otto and Guy Pearce as Mr and Mrs Barber, and Sam Neill and Rebecca Gibney as Caroline's unfortunate parents. Other reliable Aussie stalwarts such as Graeme Blundell, Justine Clarke, Jeremy Sims and rising Underbelly: Razor star Khan Chittenden pepper the supporting cast.
What’s wrong with you?
You probably won't actually be able to see In Her Skin in Australia. First-time director Simone Norris actually shot the movie in 2007 but a dispute between Norris and the Australian production/distribution house over the edit ensured the movie was never released down under. However, it was released overseas in the indie festival circuit so copies are out there, just not by any, ahem, legal means. There's also a bit of a direction problem with the film, particularly with the consistency of the film's tone - some scenes are dramatic, some almost seem darkly comic. Norris seems to struggle with her stars, and Otto and Pearce in particular come across as totally unremarkable. They show flashes of brilliance, but the pacing of the direction makes them totally flat until later in, when they finally show some emotion. As a result, the parents seem kind of passive and annoying.
Neo-Maxi Zoom Dweeb-ery
Australian crime movies of late (Snowtown, Animal Kingdom) have been very gritty. Norris’ interpretation is very different. She uses sweeping, POV tracking shots combined with a weird breathy voiceover affect to make it appear like Rachel is watching the events as they unfold – it came off as clichéd and naff. Similarly, the spooky ‘precognition’ element took away from the heart of the plot. Norris’ comparisons between the Southalls and the Reids are totally unsubtle and amateurish, as is a silly dream sequence where Caroline tries to befriend a mythical Rachel figure. The editing could have done with some more pace to create a real sense of tension, but ultimately falls flat.
Truth?
It’s a very two-dimensional study of a very complex case, and one that I don’t think truly captured the essence of Southall and Norris’ story. An inconsistent but ultimately promising first effort, well worth seeing for Ruth Bradley's performance. Bender Fist Pumps 2/5
