Let's just get it out the way. I watched this a few days ago but I wanted to get some of my thoughts into some order because I do think this is important. I know nobody reads any of this but that doesn't mean I don't want to get it right. And I want to preface all of this by saying that I don't know anyone with Tourette's. I've never met anyone with Tourette's. If I say something that upsets someone, it is absolutely unintentional. It is not your responsibility to educate me, but if you feel like it, please reach out to me because I don't want to piss people off - I want to do better.

Every review of Motherless Brooklyn should have two parts. The part that addresses the problems surrounding Ed Norton playing a character with Tourette's, and the part that actually reviews the film. Everyone involved in this film had to know that this was what would happen.

The problem with Ed Norton's portrayal of someone with Tourette's is quite circular in my mind, and that is seeded in the fact that it's based on another story. If there wasn't external source material then I would just pose the question: "why did you make this character this way, if you're planning to have Ed Norton play them?" and be done with it. But you can't remove a Tourette's character from an existing story without incurring a totally separate (and arguably much worse) wrath.

So we have a character with Tourette's (and if I'm critiquing the source material or maybe the screenplay, his condition has almost no impact on the story), and the issue with Tourette's is control. When you're making a film, you need your actors to be able to mould their character around the character and the schedule. If you hire someone with Tourette's, it seems very unlikely to me that you're going to find an actor with Tourette's who's going to be able to turn it off at will, to be able to actually make a film. They are not the character, so their tics will not match the tics of the character. And, I suppose, that is why you have actors!

So you need to find an actor who is going to inhabit the character and play it with sensitivity and authenticity and not feel like they're mocking the condition. For me, Ed Norton does achieve that. It never feels like cheap shots, but it does sometimes feel like they sneak in a tic to remind you that Lionel has Tourette's. During the parts of the film where levity and gravitas (OK, no Tourette's) are required, you get Ed Norton as Ed Norton. And Lionel feels like a layer on top of that character, rather than the actual character.

You might be able to tell that I've been turning this over and over in my head, but I think this is important. I firmly believe that people getting good and faithful representation in media is crucial to not only feeling like you're part of a species, but also allowing people to see you and live some of your experience with you. And in order to do that, it has to be an authentic performance otherwise it's just "this is what I think it's like".

Ultimately, Ed Norton's performance in this movie fluctuates between the exceptional quality I expect from him, and something that makes me feel very uncomfortable because I feel like he's playing it as a tourist. This may be my liberal snowflake showing, but that's just how it lands for me.

With all that being said, and with that constantly in the back of my mind, damn it this is such a good Noir/conspiracy drama with an incredible cast, beautiful photography, a jazz soundtrack that I actually like (I hate jazz), and a lovely platonic relationship that could, so easily, have awkwardly skewed romantic and I am very glad they resisted that temptation.

The pacing of the story is absolutely perfect. You can tell that the editors watched it over and over, and aggressively cut it to ensure that it moves along in the right way. I genuinely wouldn't cut a moment of it.

But damn it I wish there was a way we could've approached Tourette's sensitively. I feel like this wasn't it, but is potentially as close as you can get.