Is Mark of the Hand Worth Watching? Honest Movie Review & Audience Verdict (1987)
Guyanese painter Aubrey Williams (1926-1990) returns to his homeland on a “journey to the source of his inspiration” in this vivid Arts Council documentary, filmed towards the end of his life. The title comes from the indigenous Arawak word ‘timehri’ - the mark of the hand of man - which Williams equates to art itself. Timehri was also then the name of the international airport at Georgetown, Guyana's capital, where Williams stops off to restore an earlier mural. The film offers a rare insight into life beyond Georgetown, what Williams calls “the real Guyana.” Before moving to England in 1952 he had been sent to work on a sugar plantation in the jungle; this is his first chance to revisit the region and the Warao Indians - formative influences on his work - in four decades. Challenging the ill-treatment of indigenous Guyanese, Williams explored the potential of art to change attitudes. By venturing beyond his British studio, this film puts his work into vibrant context.
✨ The Quick Verdict
If you are a fan of Documentary cinema, then Mark of the Hand offers a standard experience that justifies its existence in the 1987 landscape.
👥 Target Audience
📔 Detailed Analysis
The Narrative Arc & Core Premise
Debuting in 1987, Mark of the Hand represents a sophisticated intersection of artistic ambition and genre-defining elements within the Documentary category. The primary thematic concern of the film is an investigation into Guyanese painter Aubrey Williams (1926-1990) returns to his homeland on a “journey to the source of his inspiration” in this vivid Arts Council documentary, filmed towards the end of his life. As the story unfolds, we are introduced to a world where the traditional boundaries of Documentary are tested.
The screenplay takes its time to establish the stakes, ensuring that every character motivation is grounded in a psychological reality. The synopsis only hints at the depth: "Guyanese painter Aubrey Williams (1926-1990) returns to his homeland on a “journey to the source of his inspiration” in this vivid Arts Council documentary, filmed towards the end of his life. The title comes from the indigenous Arawak word ‘timehri’ - the mark of the hand of man - which Williams equates to art itself. Timehri was also then the name of the international airport at Georgetown, Guyana's capital, where Williams stops off to restore an earlier mural. The film offers a rare insight into life beyond Georgetown, what Williams calls “the real Guyana.” Before moving to England in 1952 he had been sent to work on a sugar plantation in the jungle; this is his first chance to revisit the region and the Warao Indians - formative influences on his work - in four decades. Challenging the ill-treatment of indigenous Guyanese, Williams explored the potential of art to change attitudes. By venturing beyond his British studio, this film puts his work into vibrant context."
Artistic Execution & Performance Study
A film's resonance is often dictated by the strength of its execution, both in front of and behind the camera. Aubrey Williams does an admirable job with the material provided, but one can't help but feel that a more daring directorial approach would have yielded a more impactful result. It is a competent but ultimately standard genre performance.
The direction by Imruh Bakari is marked by a steady and professional hand. From a production standpoint, the film meets the high standards of modern industrial filmmaking. The sets are well-crafted, and the visual effects are integrated with a level of polish that ensures the viewer matches the director's intended level of immersion. While perhaps not groundbreaking, the execution is flawless. The pacing, over its 53 minute runtime, allows the audience to fully inhabit the space the director has created, making the eventual resolution feel deeply earned.
Critical Assessment: Why You Should Watch
Is Mark of the Hand truly worth your investment of time and attention? In an era of disposable content, this film makes a strong case for its existence. If you are a connoisseur of Documentary, then this is a worthwhile watch if you have a specific interest in the themes or the performers involved.
The film's ability to perfectly execute its genre requirements is why it has earned its 0/10 score. It speaks to a global audience while maintaining a distinct and unique voice, a balance that is notoriously difficult to achieve in the modern marketplace.
Philosophical Subtext & Directorial Vision
At a deeper level, Mark of the Hand explores the dichotomy of truth and perception. The 1987 audience is increasingly sophisticated, and Imruh Bakari respects this by refusing to provide easy answers to the story's complex questions.
The philosophical underpinnings of the second and third acts suggest a narrative that is interested in more than just entertainment. It is an exploration of what it means to be human in an increasingly complex world.
Final Editorial Recommendation
Ultimately, Mark of the Hand is an interesting experiment that, while flawed, offers enough moments of creative spark to be worth a casual glance for the curious. Whether you are drawn to it by the star power of Aubrey Williams or the critical acclaim surrounding its release, Mark of the Hand is a film that demands to be seen on the largest screen possible.
⏳ Time Investment
At approximately 0.9 hours, the film requires a standard time commitment.