top of page


Ooo, there's nothing worst than admiring the hell-out-of-a canvas portrait before you realize that it is hell. Not that I've ever been in such a predicament, but George Claire has.

Have you had a chance to Netflix & chill with THINGS HEARD & SEEN?

The crew and I took it in over this past weekend and it is well worth a summit about inferred thoughts and feelings. WARNING - Spoilers may be included. Now, let's get in it and to it.

Netflix's original feature film stars Amanda Seyfried as Catherine Claire and James Norton portrays her devoted philandering spouse, George. It's his lips, his eyes, and full head of hair that sells and stereotypes him as the "sexy-type," I guess. The strength of his genes is pretty solid, though I think it's his charm that is both a blessing and a curse in this film.

Interesting fact: As soon as the credit roll concluded we cued up The NEVERS for screening and guess who shows up in stereotypical form with a whole lot of charm? If you guessed it to be James Norton, you are correct. Unfortunately, his role in The NEVERS is almost identical to his character objectives in THINGS HEARD & SEEN. Neither portrayal is a bad position to watch James hold down -- I just couldn't believe that he nearly played the same character twice and how we randomly screened the two films consecutively.

Polling after screening THINGS HEARD & SEEN revealed several things:

  • Interesting story and very engaging but lacked clarity on WHY.

  • Why was Mr. Claire such an infidel?

  • Why did Catherine deserve George Claire or deserve to leave her career?

  • There isn't enough 411 on the couple's life, their past, their issues, or why they decided to procreate.

  • There is very little attention paid to the child or her POV.

  • Their love for art was passive at best throughout the storyline but in the end, it was a beloved canvas work that held Mr. Claire's eternal reward.

  • Several viewers including myself couldn't identify any bold line that connected art to the title, the talent, or the story plot.

  • The art appeared to be a loose model of transitioning; a means to end the film.

  • The talented cast and acting were GRADE-A.

  • The film starts out very suspicious. Suspicion is the binding agent that holds the audience still until revelations in Act II reveal we'll never close many of the issues presented in Act I...

  • Several viewers felt like Amanda Seyfried and John Norton are craftsmen of large capacity and that such talents were lost on the tell of THINGS HEARD & SEEN.

Act II revealed that Mr. Claire was 'far more of a bad actor than womanizing deserves credit for. He was masquerading the artwork of his late brother's as his own, leaving the viewer with questions as to how his brother passed and whether or not Mr. Claire was involved. Because I don't believe in coincidences, I flinched when Mr. Claire told a tale about how he inherited his 1st boat from his late cousin when they were in their teens. Losing a brother is "a close call; a life watermark. Losing a cousin on top of that, harkens to"a suspicious call," and immediately painted George with a scarlet overlay.

THINGS HEARD & SEEN has more to share with you in terms of bad math or "things not adding up," like, Why didn't Claire know her husband was a creep before several years of marriage, birthing a child with him, and leaving her career behind to follow him to Rural, USA to finally and fatally confront what had to be present before the film ever started?

The ending of the film rests in a canvas depiction of hell that the Claire's once admired is now the eternal home of Mr. Claire. If you're wondering what happened to Catherine Claire or her child, you're just going to have to hear and see this piece directed by Shari Springer Berman and Robert Pulcini for yourself.

bottom of page