Last night, I needed to take a vacation from real life, so I watched a movie called Swan Song. Mahershala Ali and Naomie Harris play married couple, Cameron and Poppy Turner. Unknown to Poppy, her husband is about to die. Cameron meets with Dr. Scott (Glen Close) to discuss a radical option, the creation of a Cameron 2.0, a man who is identical to him in every way. This person would replace Cameron without Poppy’s knowledge, thereby sparing Poppy grief over the loss of her husband.

Even as I write this, I know that the plot sounds formulaic and schmaltzy. Trust me, it’s not. Although it would be easy to do, the plot never veers off into sentimentality.

The movie won me over in an early scene. The couple meets while sitting across from each other on a train. The wordless scene lasts a few minutes and is nuanced and mesmerizing. The chemistry between the two actors lights up the screen. Yes, I know this sounds like a Hallmark moment, but it’s not.

This movie is a visual treat.  I loved seeing shots of Cameron’s artsy home and classy workplace. Located on a beautiful island, Dr. Scott’s treatment center is lovely inside and out.

Background music can make or break a movie for me. This movie had some great music, especially a rendition of Moon River by Frank Ocean. How have I not heard of Frank Ocean? In any case, the minute the movie was over, I found Ocean’s version of Moon River on YouTube, dragged out my guitar and attempted to jam along to the tune. It did not work out as well as I’d hoped, but I will continue practicing.

The plot unfolds by revealing glimpses of backstory. Structuring a story in this way presents many challenges, the first of which is building narrative tension. If the backstory segment is too short or too vague, the viewer becomes confused and/or doesn’t invest in the characters. If the backstory is too long, the narrative tension will dissipate, once again leaving the viewer unengaged. However, the writer of Swan Song created a powerful mosaic of events, with each backstory portrayal serving to increase my empathy for and investment in the main characters.

The film is set in the near future and is full of cool mini-inventions that seem absolutely credible. These gizmos enhance the plot—contact lenses with cameras, fuzzy purple notes that cruise through the air then burst, revealing an auditory message, instead of computer screens, images that float in front of you.

Viewers spend a good chunk of the film with two versions of Cameron on screen, the original Cameron and Jack, the temporary name of the new creation. What I loved about this story is that the writer showed each man staying true to identical values and point of view while at the same time revealing minute differences between the two. Those minute differences created significant tension. I was happy to see that the writer did not succumb to a facile approach to the topic presenting the story as a struggle between “good” Cameron and “evil” Cameron. That would have sabotaged the point of the film–a thoughtful exploration of grief, identity and what a person would be willing to sacrifice for love.

For me, the only downside of this movie is that I wasn’t quite on board with the way Cameron resolved his dilemma. His choice made sense in the context of the movie, yet I was left with lots of moral/ethical concerns  regarding the value of honesty, the importance of personal identity, the nature of true sacrifice, the possible benefit of grief, what true love looks like. I can’t wait to discuss this movie with someone who might have a different take than I. If you watch it, please let me know what you think.