It is a sad comment on our times that a movie about a tragic event that took place a few years ago should assume a relevance that no right-minded person would want. 

Unfortunately, such is the case with the subject matter of the movie STRONGER. The film focuses on the story of Jeff Bauman, one of the survivors of the Boston Marathon attack, and is largely concerned with his attempts to deal with the loss of both legs below the knee – sad reminder of the horrors that so many now face as a result of the terrible event in Las Vegas.

In a real sense, the film also serves to remind us that for many the tragedy is only just beginning to unfold. Based on Bauman’s autobiographical book, it draws attention to the victim and not, as one might expect, to the perpetrator or with attempts to bring the criminal to justice (as did the highly fictionalized PATRIOT'S DAY). Rather, it aims at being an inspirational story of triumph over tragedy and in large measure succeeds.

The film in no way glamourizes Bauman’s life and is generally true to the book, as it traces the protagonist’s journey from anger and frustration to acceptance and ultimate triumph.

The film does take a few missteps, most notably in attempts to show the factors that resulted in his change in attitude. If one were to judge from the film, a brief conversation with the Hispanic man who was most instrumental in saving his life at the scene of the bombing was all it took to effect the change.

Certainly it is a fact that Carlos Arredondo, an anti-war activist and himself a man haunted by family tragedy, shared his story with Bauman, on whom it had an enormous impact. But the film suggests this, and the news he was to become a father, was what transformed him. This is far from the case. The conversation Bauman has with his rescuer is also so poorly managed that it rings falsely and lacks conviction. However, there are few such flaws in a film of considerable merit.     

Where the film achieves its success is in its realistic portrayal of a man who is no conventional hero, even though he was lauded as such. Irresponsible, a hard-living roughneck, a man prone to anger even before his injury, Bauman is not portrayed through rose-coloured glasses.

The same holds true of the portrait of his family, particularly his mother. She is realistically shown as a smothering woman, decidedly opportunistic, and a heavy drinker – a woman from whom Bauman had to escape if he was to survive, let alone triumph.

Even his relationship with his friend Erin Hurley, ultimately mother of his daughter,  shows Bauman in less than a flattering light. It is this realistic approach to the story which ultimately makes STRONGER so powerful as one watches a very human and ordinary man deal with vicissitude, a man who is reluctantly cast in the role of a hero.

In large measure the film also succeeds because of the strength of the acting.

In large measure the film also succeeds because of the strength of the acting. Jake Gyllenhaal once again proves what a fine performer he is as he makes apparent the realities of the character of Bauman – both less than perfect and yet resilient and essentially likeable.

Tatiana Maslany as his woman friend tested to the point of breaking is equally good. While the rest of the cast provide able support, Miranda Richardson (assuming a very creditable Boston accent) turns in a stunning performance as the mother. Expect to hear more of these fine actors at Oscar time.

David Gordon Green’s direction is sensitive and beautifully manages the tense scenes of Bauman’s cramped and forbidding home life as well as the great set-pieces when Bauman is put on public display to uncomfortably assume the role of hero at sports events.

A further sense of authenticity is lent to the film in that many of the small, supporting roles, including some of the medical staff, are performed by the actual people who looked after Bauman. Nor can one overlook the cinematic skill which makes the protagonist’s amputation appear so convincing.

Clearly, all those responsible for STRONGER approached the subject with respect for its inspiring message, one which is potently moving in its impact. That the film takes on an unintended relevance is not something which anyone could anticipate or wish for. One just hopes that some of the recent victims of the Las Vegas horror may find in it a small note of encouragement as they too cope with the outcome of the event which has imposed on them such a tragic burden.