Baywatch

Dir: Seth Gordon

2017

*

I loved a bit of Baywatch back in the day as did most people but when the series ended in 2000 after a decade of being on air, it felt right. There was a made-for-TV Hawaii special in 2003 if I recall but it wasn’t very good and lacked the magic of the original series. I enjoyed the days of Erika Eleniak and Billy Warlock but, unlike most series, it enjoyed a second wind half way through it’s run. They first announced a big movie version in 2004 but it became lost in development hell for many years, with multiple writers penning drafts that were never acted upon. I’m guessing at this stage people had moved on and the studios had other projects that took priority but with an already established name it is puzzling as to why they couldn’t get their act together. This was around the time that studios were remaking old TV shows like The Dukes of Hazzard, Charlie’s Angels and Starsky & Hutch, so I guess Baywatch wasn’t old enough to be retro, and thus considered. The comedy approach of those old remakes was clearly the only way that Paramount saw it being made, so in 2017 it finally happened. I can’t help but think it was made without passion, that the rights they owned were about to revert back because they’d done nothing with them, so decided to make it quickly, make some profit and essentially get rid of it. I get it, no masterpiece was ever made through this process but that’s fine, Baywatch never needed to be a masterpiece, it just needed to be fun and at least celebrate the original, if capturing the essence that made it popular in the first place seemed too impossible. Basically, they just needed to do what The Dukes of Hazzard, Charlie’s Angels and Starsky & Hutch did, but improve on that formula that was now over a decade old. In many respects that is exactly what they did but it is a worse film for it. After scathing reviews poured in from critics and fans alike, Dwayne Johnson tweeted that the film wasn't made for critics. While he might have been correct about the critics (even though that’s a ridiculous statement for an actor to say), he forgets that the fans hated it also. So who was this film made for, apart from the studio? Not the original fans, and why would a new audience be interested? It seems to be the go to feeble excuse when a film experiences negativity. ‘We’re aiming this film at a fresh audience’. Bull and shit, you can’t ever hope to capture the essence of the original so you’re just going to do your own thing. That’s fine, obviously you should never touch the classics (Ghostbusters) but most things a fair game, don’t expect anyone to buy tickets but go for it. Baywatch was a bit of fun, its nothing precious, so a comedy edge seemed reasonable. A full on send up, in the style of 21 Jump Street was also acceptable, preferred even. What they eventually came up with though is pretty horrible. I’ve always said that you can put Dwayne Johnson in any movie and it instantly becomes fun, but I think Baywatch is the film that proves me wrong. I like Johnson and I like Zac Efron but both of them made a huge mistake signing up for this disaster. So I liked the way the film subtly makes comment on the way the Life Guards think of themselves as above the law, like a police force of the beach and surrounding area and I liked how they made light of the fact that the original series was as much about the skimpy swimsuits as it was about the story and characters. The real problem comes with the script, the exaggerations and the grubby humour. The dialogue is dire, the screenwriters seem unable to string a simple and coherent sentence together. I loath the way the characters speak to each other, it’s completely unnatural and troublesome to watch. The ad-libbed lines are also rather painful, it seems that every film of this ilk has to have that ad-libbed scene, even though it hasn’t been funny since The 40 Year-Old Virgin. The character of Ronnie Greenbaum is particularly annoying, as he serves very little purpose and is incredibly unfunny, even though he’s clearly meant to be the funny one. I can’t help but wonder whether one of the producers is Jon Bass’ uncle or something (‘He was always such a funny child’). The David Hasselhoff and Pamela Anderson cameos were welcome but ultimately confusing. The Hoff turns up twice but it is unclear if he is real, a dream, or whether Johnson’s character was taught by him and they just so happen to have the same name. It’s odd that both names have high billing and aren’t uncredited to act as a surprise, like most cameos of this nature. Pamela Anderson also didn’t have any lines, which was odd and was a money saving/rights issue I’m sure. What kept me watching was just how odd the whole thing was. However, for as awful as all that is, I don’t care enough about it to care about it. What I really hated though was the low-level gross-out humour. It’s hard to believe films are still doing this? One scene has Johnson and Efron in a hospital’s morgue, looking under the testicular sack of a dead man for evidence of poisoning. Who on earth comes up with this sort of idea, who on earth green-lights it and who on earth finds it funny? Shock and laughter have always been linked but comedy has lost its way in Hollywood when this sort of thing is churned out again and again, without any focus on what is genuinely funny, and what is disgusting and shocking. By this point people are pretty numb to this sort of thing anyway, it has totally lost its edge and just isn’t funny anymore, the ball in zip scene in There’s Something About Mary having been the peak of its success. I’m certainly not taking the film too seriously, I really don’t care, but for those who suggest I lighten up and just let myself go (because the film wasn’t made for the critics anyway), I would suggest you are the ones taking it so seriously that you have to defend it so. To be clear, I like a bit of silly, I just don’t like stupid very much. Again, if you think that’s too critical then punch yourself in the face and then maybe I’ll laugh.

Mary Poppins Returns

Dir: Rob Marshall

2018

***

I liked the original Mary Poppins film as a kid, I gave it a five star review even, but I don’t really hold the same warm memories for it than I do for other such films, such as Chitty Chitty, Bang Bang or Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. If they made sequels (not remakes) to either one of those films and didn’t use the original actors I’d be mildly outraged. I’m kind of over being upset about remakes, prequels and silly sequels though and I generally either ignore them or refuse to accept their legitimacy. P. L. Travers wrote a series of Mary Poppins books, so I totally understand why many would want to see a visual representation of her other works, but if you were a true fan surely you’d want a more authentic adaption than what Walt Disney produced? It’s well known, especially following 2013’s Saving Mr. Banks, that P. L. Travers was unhappy with Disney’s 1964 film, after he’d convinced her to make it after three decades of trying. Uncle Walt attempted to produce a sequel the year after the original, but was rejected by the author P. L. Travers, who categorically dismissed Disney's first adaptation. In the late 1980s, then-chairman of Walt Disney Studios Jeffrey Katzenberg and vice-president of live-action production Martin Kaplan approached Travers with the idea of a sequel set years after the first film, with the Banks children now as adults and Julie Andrews reprising her role as an older Mary Poppins. Travers again rejected the concept, except for Andrews' return, suggesting a sequel set one year after the original film with Andrews reprising the role. This idea was also shot down, however, because Travers imposed her own strict rules which were not negotiable. Travers did aim for a sequel though and in the 1980s she and Brian Sibley wrote a screenplay for a sequel entitled Mary Poppins Comes Back, based on the parts from Travers' second Mary Poppins book unused in the 1964 film. Sibley then wrote a letter to Roy E. Disney about making the film, to which Disney contracted them to supply a film treatment. According to Sibley, Travers wrote notes on his script ideas and though she rejected some of them, she liked some of them too, including replacing Bert with his brother, an ice cream man in a park in Edwardian London who similarly served as Mary's friend and potential admirer. Four months later, however, casting issues emerged, as Andrews temporarily retired from making films and wasn't interested in reprising her role as Mary Poppins and it was tricky to find an actor to play Bert's brother, though one executive suggested that Michael Jackson was right for the part. The planned sequel eventually was cancelled upon the casting problems and the fact that new executives were now running the company. Never at ease with the handling of her property by Disney or the way she felt she had been treated, Travers never agreed to another Poppins/Disney adaptation. So fervent was Travers' dislike of the Disney adaptation and of the way she felt she had been treated during the production that when producer Cameron Mackintosh approached her about the stage musical in the 1990s, she acquiesced on the conditions that he use only English-born writers and that no one from the film production be directly involved. She stipulated more rules than that but died before the eventual run, so many of her wishes went ungranted once again. So if you consider yourself a true fan of Travers' work, you wouldn’t go anywhere near 2018’s Mary Poppins Returns. Julie Andrews certainly wasn’t interested, not even for a cameo. The film is nothing but a cash-in for the studio, devoid of any real soul or passion. It’s something that doesn’t bother me one bit. I didn’t much care for it because it was a cheap and modern looking copy of the original and not its own thing. It also couldn’t have tried to copy Paddington any more than it did. They boast that Mary Poppins herself is a lot more how Travers wrote her but again, who cares, at this point and in this version Julie Andrews is and always will be Mary Poppins. That said, I thought Emily Blunt was fantastic in the role and it was nice to see her clearly having the time of her life. Lin-Manuel Miranda however, is no Dick Van Dyke. Dick Van Dyke does make an appearance however, playing the elderly son of the elderly gent he played in the first film, which has quite a nice feel about it. Bert, we are told, is exploring the world. Ben Whishaw, Emily Mortimer and Julie Walters are there to remind Americans that this is still a twee British film, with British film legislation now requiring Walters to be in every single imported British film. The songs are quite good and I liked the animation, at times it felt like a filmed stage show – which made me think maybe it should have been just a stage show – but none of it was awful. I didn’t for one moment see Ben Whishaw or Emily Mortimer as the Banks kids, and I didn’t care much for the cliché story line but Emily Blunt kept me watching. I also liked the voice cameos from Edward Hibbert, Chris O’Dowd and Mark Addy and the lovely cameo from Angela Lansbury who was originally set to play Mary Poppins in the original. As a whole I found it forgettable but I certainly didn’t hate it. Interestingly, I asked my older sister and my niece what they thought of it and my sister thought it was on par with the original while my niece thought the original was much better. I’m somewhere in the middle. Like I said, just as long as they don’t remake Chitty Chitty, Bang Bang I’m good.

Mary Poppins

Dir: Robert Stevenson

1964

*****

There is no doubting that 1964’s Mary Poppins isn’t a classic, it was never one of my favorites growing up mind, but there was plenty that I loved about it. It is now well known that it isn’t quite what author P. L. Travers wanted for her beloved character but, as much as I have issue with Walt Disney, he did add a level of magic that I believe improved on her novel. The story begins in Edwardian London in the year 1910. It opens with Bert (Dick Van Dyke) as he entertains a crowd as a one-man band, when he suddenly senses a change in the wind. Afterwards, he directly addresses the audience, and gives them a tour of Cherry Tree Lane, stopping outside the Banks family's home. George Banks (David Tomlinson) returns home to learn from his wife, Winifred (Glynis Johns), that Katie Nanna has left their service after their children, Jane and Michael, ran away again. They are returned shortly after by Constable Jones, who reveals the children were chasing a lost kite. The children ask their father to help build a better kite, but he dismisses them. Taking it upon himself to hire a new nanny, Mr. Banks advertises for a stern, no-nonsense nanny. Instead, Jane and Michael present their own advertisement for a kinder, sweeter nanny. Mr. Banks rips up the letter, and throws the scraps in the fireplace, but the remains of the advertisement magically float up and out into the air. The next day, a number of elderly, sour-faced nannies wait outside the Banks' home (all men in drag), but a strong gust of wind blows them away, and Jane and Michael witness a young nanny descending from the sky using her umbrella, which I have to admit petrified me as a child. Presenting herself to Mr. Banks, Mary Poppins (Julie Andrews) calmly produces the children's restored advertisement, and agrees with its requests, but promises the astonished banker she will be firm with his children. As Mr. Banks puzzles over the advertisement's return, Mary Poppins hires herself, and she convinces him it was originally his idea. She meets the children and helps them magically tidy their nursery by snapping, through the song ‘Spoonful of Sugar’, before heading out for a walk in the park. Outside, they meet Bert, working as a screever, Mary Poppins uses her magic to transport the group into one of his drawings. While the children ride on a carousel, Mary Poppins and Bert go on a leisurely stroll. Together, they sing ‘Jolly Holiday’, where Bert flirts with Mary Poppins. After the duo meets up with the children, Mary Poppins enchants the carousel horses; they participate in a fox hunt followed by a horse race which Mary wins. Describing her victory, Mary Poppins uses the nonsense word "Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious". The outing is ended when a thunderstorm dissolves Bert's drawings, returning the group to London.The next day, the four meet odd Uncle Albert (Ed Wynn), who has floated up in the air due to his uncontrollable laughter. They join him for a tea party on the ceiling and tell jokes with each other, in what is easily my favourite scene of the film. Afterward, Mr. Banks becomes annoyed by the household's cheery atmosphere, and he threatens to fire Mary, but Mary convinces him instead to take the children to his workplace, the bank, the next day. Mr. Banks does so, and the children meet Mr. Dawes Sr. and his son. Mr. Dawes aggressively urges Michael to invest his tuppence in the bank, with the song ‘Fidelity Fiduciary Bank’, ultimately snatching the coins from Michael. Michael demands them back; other customers overhear the conflict, and they all begin demanding their own money back, causing a bank run. Jane and Michael flee the bank, getting lost in the East End until they run into Bert, now working as a chimney sweep, who escorts them home. The three and Mary Poppins venture onto the rooftops, where they have a song-and-dance number with other chimney sweeps, ‘Step in Time’, which spills out into the Banks' home. An incensed Mr. Banks returns and receives a phone call from his employers. He speaks with Bert, in ‘A Man Has Dreams’, and Bert tells him he should spend more time with his children before they grow up. Jane and Michael give their father Michael's tuppence in the hope to make amends. Mr. Banks walks through London to the bank, where he is given a humiliating cashiering and is dismissed. Looking to the tuppence for words, he blurts out "Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious!", tells a joke, and happily heads home. Dawes Sr. mulls over the joke and, finally understanding it, floats up into the air, laughing. The next day, the wind changes, meaning Mary Poppins must leave. A happier Mr. Banks is found at home, having fixed his children's kite, and takes the family out to fly it. In the park, the Banks family meets Mr. Dawes Jr, who reveals his father died laughing from the joke. Although initially sorry, Mr. Banks soon becomes happy for him, as Mr. Dawes Jr. had never seen his father happier in his life and re-employs Mr. Banks as a junior partner. With her work done, Mary Poppins flies away; Bert bids her farewell, telling her not to stay away too long. The first novel in the Mary Poppins series was the film's main basis. Walt Disney's daughters fell in love with the Mary Poppins books and made their father promise to make a film based on them. Disney first attempted to purchase the film rights to Mary Poppins from P. L. Travers as early as 1938 but was rebuffed because Travers did not believe a film version of her books would do justice to her creation. In addition, Disney was known at the time primarily as a producer of cartoons and had yet to produce any major live-action work. For more than 20 years, Disney periodically made efforts to convince Travers to allow him to make a Poppins film. He finally succeeded in 1961, although Travers demanded and got script approval rights. The Sherman Brothers composed the music score and were also involved in the film's development, suggesting the setting be changed from the 1930s to the Edwardian era. Travers was an adviser to the production and she disapproved of the dilution of the harsher aspects of Mary Poppins' character and felt ambivalent about the music. She also hated the use of animation so much that she ruled out any further adaptations of the later Mary Poppins novels. She objected to a number of elements that made it into the film. Rather than original songs, she wanted the soundtrack to feature known standards of the Edwardian period in which the story is set. Disney overruled her, citing contract stipulations that he had final say on the finished print. Much of the Travers–Disney correspondence is part of the Travers collection of papers in the Mitchell Library of New South Wales, Australia and makes for fascinating reading that might just shatter childhood memories. The film changed the book's storyline in a number of places. For example, Mary Poppins, when approaching the house, controlled the wind rather than the other way around. As another example, the father, rather than the mother, interviewed Mary Poppins for the nanny position. A number of other changes were necessary to condense the story into feature length. In the film, there are only two Banks children, Jane and Michael. The satirical and mysterious aspects of the original book gave way to a cheerful and Disney-fied tone. Mary Poppins' character as portrayed by Andrews in the film is somewhat less vain and more sympathetic towards the children compared to the rather cold and intimidating nanny of the original book. Bert, as played by Van Dyke, was a composite of several characters from Travers' stories. Travers demanded that any suggestions of romance between Mary Poppins and Bert be eliminated, so lyrics were written for "Jolly Holiday" that clearly indicated that their friendship was purely platonic; some subtle hints of romance, however, did remain in the finished film. I have always had issue with Disney for rewriting classic literature but this is one of the few stories I believe he improved. The truth is, Mary Poppins is full of fantastic performances by a collective of brilliant actors. Dick Van Dyke’s cockney accent is famously bad but absolutely no one cares because everyone loves Bert, P. L. Travers hated the penguins but audiences loved them and after a while something becomes bigger than its creator and that can be a wonderful thing, not always, but I think that is certainly the case with Mary Poppins.

Stromboli

Dir: Roberto Rossellini

1950

****

Stromboli is a beautiful example of classic Italian neorealism and has been hugely influential over the years. It’s conclusion was so powerful and its content so ahead of its time for the era, it’s such a shame that everyone seems to remember more about what happened behind the camera, rather than the final piece itself. The film came about thanks to a letter that Ingrid Bergman wrote to Roberto Rossellini, in which she told him how much she admired his work and wanted to make a movie with him. She and Rossellini ended up creating a joint production company for the film, Societ per Azioni Berit (Berit Films, sometimes written as Bero Films), and she also helped Rossellini to secure a production and distribution deal with RKO and its then owner, the infamous Howard Hughes, thus securing most of the budget together with international distribution for the film. Originally, she had approached Samuel Goldwyn, but he bowed out after having seen Rossellini's film Germany, Year Zero and hating it. The terms of Rossellini's contract with RKO stated that all footage had to be turned over to RKO, who would edit an American version of the film, based on Rossellini's Italian version. However, the US version was eventually made without the director's input. Rossellini protested, and claimed that RKO's 81 minute version was radically different from his original 105 minute version. Rossellini obtained support from Father Félix Morlión, who had been involved in the screenwriting. He sent a telegram to Joseph Breen, director of MPPDA's Production Code Administration, urging him to compare the original script with the RKO version, as he felt that the religious theme he had written into the screenplay had been lost. The conflict eventually led to Rossellini and RKO taking legal action against each other over the international distribution rights to the film. The exact outcome is unknown, but it can be noted that the unrestored RKO version of the film, as distributed, is 102 - 105 minutes long. It lists credits that were missing in the first RKO version, but it still has 1950 as the production year, and the same MPAA number as the 81 minute version. This indicates that the differences were resolved rather quickly. However, resolved or not, this had an impact on the rest of the directors career, with fewer people happy to invest and make contracts with him. Not that the contract altercations was what people remembered though. Stromboli is perhaps best remembered for the extramarital affair between Rossellini and Bergman that began during the production of the film, as well as their child born out of wedlock a couple of weeks before the film's American release. Their affair caused such a scandal in the United States that church groups, women's clubs and legislators in more than a dozen states around the country called for the film to be banned and Bergman was denounced as "a powerful influence for evil" on the floor of the US Senate by Colorado Senator Edwin C. Johnson. Furthermore, Bergman's Hollywood career was halted for a number of years, until her Oscar-winning performance in Anastasia. In the film Bergman plays Karin, a displaced Lithuanian in Italy, who secures release from an internment camp by marrying an Italian ex-POW fisherman, (Mario Vitale), whom she meets during her time in the camp. He promises her a great life in his home island of Stromboli, a volcanic island located between the mainland of Italy and Sicily. She soon discovers that Stromboli is very harsh and barren, not at all what she expected, and the people, who are all very traditional and conservative, show hostility and disdain towards this foreign woman who does not follow their ways. Karin becomes increasingly despondent and eventually decides to escape the volcano island. It is a no thrills drama in fairness but I believe that is what makes it feel so authentic. The film features documentary-like segments about fishing and an actual evacuation of the town after an eruption of the volcano which is clumsily edited in my opinion but Bergman and Vitale’s performances more than make up for any misgivings. The truth is that it was meant to be somewhat muted and humdrum. It was a  piece of realism, so everyone in 1950 wanting a bit of escapism were always going to struggle with it. While promoting the film, Howard Hughes played up the parallels between the character she played and the recent indiscreet behavior of Bergman. I understand why he did this but it was a pretty nasty move. He re-cut the film behind Rosselini's back and refused to screen it for the press. The film got talked about before it was seen. It was banned outright in Memphis, and the Roman Catholic church urged its priests not to see it. As a result of the public tempest, the movie opened to phenomenal business, earning nearly $1 million on its first day. Hughes argued that this was Bergman and Rosselini's fault and that he was protecting his investment but it’s a particularly sorry affair looking back at it. People also forget that Bergman and Rosselini were in love and married soon after. A sad story but a wonderful film, without Stromboli we wouldn’t have some of my favorite films and thankfully it is now regarded as the masterpiece that it is.

Blindspotting

Dir: Carlos López Estrada

2018

*****

There have been quite a few (but not enough) films about racism and police violence over the last few years. I thought Dear White People was an original and refreshing look at the subject but I felt The Hate U Give was somewhat contrived. Fruitvale Station dealt with a real life shooting excellently and BlacKKKlansman was a different kind of masterpiece entirely. Blindspotting however is the first film of this kind, I believe, to hit that higher note. I think The Hate U Give is fine for kids and Dear White People is good for teens and those in their early twenties. Fruitvale Station is a well crafted reconstruction of real events and BlacKKKlansman uses comedy, visual pop and a heavily stylized look to convey its serious message but Blindspotting is direct and utterly captivating. I have never lived in Oakland, I haven’t even been there and I don’t know anyone who has, and yet, I understood the two lead characters. Their story is universal in many ways, its concentrated in Oakland, but it happens all over. No, I’ve never been the victim of racism and British police don’t go around shooting people but I understand both men’s frustrations and anxiety. We’re worlds apart but I still connected with them. The film stars starring Daveed Diggs and Rafael Casal childhood friends in real-life, who wrote the screenplay in the mid-2000s, initially to speak for the city of Oakland which they felt was often misrepresented in film. After years of delays, the pair's schedules finally allowed them to make the film. It’s clear that time only added to their performance, story and script. Diggs plays Collin Hoskins, a convicted felon with just three days left of his probation. His best friend Collin (Casal) is a liability. Collin and Miles work for a moving company located in Oakland, a city in the Bay Area. One night while waiting for a red light, Collin witnesses a white police officer (Ethan Embry) gun down a black civilian. As Collin is haunted by the incident, he begins to have nightmares and experiences hallucinations. At the same time, Miles becomes distraught by the gentrification of Oakland, and a resulting sense of loss of identity, home, and belonging. The story is very simple really, the film is ultimately about the characters and representation. As the pair converse in lengthy dialogue little aspects of Oakland make themselves known. Miles purchases a gun from a friend on the basis of self-protection, an action which makes Collin nervous. As Miles continues to display erratic behavior, Collin's ex-girlfriend Val (Janina Gavankar) warns Collin of the dangers that may come from a continued friendship with Miles. Later that evening while having dinner, Miles' gun accidentally ends up in the hands of his young son Sean, an incident which horrifies Sean's mother Ashley (Jasmine Cephas Jones), forcing both Collin and Miles to leave the house. The pair then attend a party that they had repeatedly agreed not to attend throughout the film. There, an agitated Miles assaults a black man who misinterpreted Miles' persona as cultural appropriation, leading to a fight between the two. Miles uses his gun to terrorize the party guests before being stopped by Collin. In an explosive argument, Collin criticizes Miles for his reckless behavior and the trouble it keeps causing him. This powerful stuff, as Miles persona and the subject of cultural appropriation had clearly never come up in conversation before and it is an interesting subject. There are white kids who try to sound black, but Miles’ argument was that he was the only white kid in the neighbourhood and that is who he is. The subjects of identity and misinterpretation, have never quite been tackled from a 30-something point of view. If they have it is usually involving a middleclass white family, with a good jobs, two or three kids and a nice house with a white picket fence. When you do the maths with most films you realise that the dad of the house is always ten years older than the mum and the mum must have had her children when she turned twenty. Sure, this happens, but most of us these days don’t have nice houses, great jobs or kids in our late thirties and most couples are the same age. I know hundreds of Collins, they’re not from Oakland but it’s all relative. My neighbourhood isn’t the same, things I like have been taken over by hipsters and the world is slowly going mad. I totally expected Miles to get Colin in so much trouble that he would get arrested in the final minutes of his probation, but no. His probation is now over, but Collin continues to feel mentally troubled by the murder he saw. As they are finishing a moving job, the house is revealed to be that of Officer Molina, the same officer whom Collin witnessed gunning down a black man a few days earlier. Colin and Miles are moving out belongings of Officer Molina’s wife and child who are clearly leaving him. Just when you think the film had already reached its crescendo, Collin confronts the officer at gun point and criticizes the relationship between the police and black America. Collin had been developing his rapping technique throughout the film and in this one scene he suddenly masters it and works out exactly what he wants to say. It’s one of those moments that make the hairs on the back of your neck stick up. Daveed Diggs has referred to rapping as a heightened language, which I totally agree with – and it’s hard not to after that scene. There is a Shakespearean quality to the films, not just in speech but also in structure. I’m not sure whether misdirection was intended but it was refreshing when the plot went in a different direction than what one would usually expect. It has been a while since I’ve been excited by a little indie that came out of nowhere. It flew under the radar but effected everyone who saw it and its become one of those word of mouth successes. It’s intelligent, surprising, refreshing, engaging and timely. If that isn’t enough, it also features a Wayne Knight cameo.

The House That Jack Built

Dir: Lars von Trier

2018

*****

In 1995, Lars von Trier and Thomas Vinterberg presented their manifesto for a new cinematic movement, which they called Dogme 95. The Dogme 95 concept, which led to international interest in Danish film, inspired filmmakers all over the world. Essentially, was an attempt to take back power for the director as artist, as opposed to the studio through following simple rules to create film-making based on the traditional values of story, acting, and theme, and excluding the use of elaborate special effects or technology. As an inspiring film maker at the time I was thrilled at the concept and I still am today. By 1995 von Trier had already made The Element of Crime (1984), Epidemic (1987), and Europa (1991) and had proven his worth as a great director. The trilogy of films illuminated traumatic periods in Europe, both current and historically. Each film was challenging, both in content and visually. He once said that ‘A film should be like a stone in your shoe’, it should challenge you and you should question it – always. In 1996’s Breaking the Waves he showed us beauty where we’d never seen it before, he challenged ignorance with his provocative 1998 film The Idiots and he made a stunning alternative musical with Dancer in the Dark. People then started to suggest he hated women, when he was clearly celebrating their strength and writing characters that had never been written for women before in a male dominated world. He continued to challenge himself by throwing out the rule book, making brilliant comedy and fascinating documentaries. With Dogville and Manderlay he literally stripped a film of all of its unnecessary elements and made one of the most profound films of the millennium so far. I believe the criticism fuelled him even more but he was never going to spell out what he was trying to achieve, as it is fairly obvious to those who are concentrating and are bothered to think for themselves. No other director has deconstructed every genre of film like von Trier has. Antichrist is the ultimate horror film, Melancholia is the ultimate apocalypse movie and Nymphomaniac shows up the porn industry for what it is. We’ve become so detached that audiences no longer know what true horror is, or what it is we’re watching. Most apocalypse movies are awful, they play with our emotions and manipulate them and the porn industry is grim and it is brutal. It is a misunderstanding to think von Trier is a sick and twisted soul, he’s not, we are for watching such garbage that doesn’t challenge these concepts. We buy these cheap horror films, emotionally-manipulative apocalypse movies and we download porn. Surely von Trier is just giving us what we want? What he has been doing all these years is showing us the ingredients of the films we’ve been enjoying all these years. We shouldn’t be angry at him when we discover that they are full of the things we like the least. We also shouldn’t overlook the positive messages his films give. In Breaking the Waves he shows the power of love over all things, he explores the meaning of true sacrifice in Dance in the Dark and in Antichrist he shows us all of our real fears. He doesn’t enjoy the suffering of women, he’s highlighting the cruelty of men and the clear inequality that exists in our world. He isn’t provoking his audience to annoy them, he’s asking you to think and it seems he’s doing it genre by genre. What he’s doing isn’t new either. Many film makers have used confrontational methods in the examination of existential, social and political issues and many have explored the themes of mercy, sacrifice and mental health. It’s just that he does it more effectively, better in my opinion. In The House That Jack Built Lars von Trier explores many levels, including horror, religion and the serial killer genre. True crime documentaries are as popular as ever, as are case studies and recreations. People have a morbid fascination and they like to be scared. Detail is also very important and it seems knowing the facts ins’t enough, people want to see the evidence and the graphic crime photos. It’s dark sensationalism. It’s perfectly natural, you can be interested in such things and not be a complete psychopath. Thing is, in some cases, people have become obsessive, which is unhealthy. Then you have series like Dexter that puts the serial killer in the position of likable protagonist. Interestingly, von Trier almost made The House That Jack Built as a television series. We all like a good thriller and some serial killer films are masterpieces (Se7en) but in real life there is nothing nice about killing lots of people and von Trier is pointing that out. The film is gratuitous because it has to be. There is a scene in the movie whereby a young Jack snips the leg off of a duckling and there has been a huge backlash about it with von Trier being reported many times over to various different authorities. Of course it wasn’t a real duckling, it was a simple special effect but people have got it in for the director. Interestingly though, PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) defended the film in a statement praising its accurate portrayal of the link between adolescent animal abuse and psychopathy and for the realistic special effects. Thankfully there are still some people around who are intelligent enough to understand what von Trier is doing. Matt Dillon plays Jack and it is one of the best performances of his career. It’s not really a film about serial killing either, it’s really an exploration of narcissism. It’s quite timely. Each killing is separated into chapters and in each chapter we learn a little more about how Jack thinks. Psychopaths walk among us, they don’t all kill, many run large corporations and govern countries, but von Trier explores the condition through a classic theme. It is probably the most realistic portrayal of a psychopathic serial killer in a film ever, much research went into it, so it’s ridiculous that a society so obsessed with true crime stories are so repulsed by it and von Trier. Like most of von Triers films, the difficult themes and hard-to-watch stories are all a set up for the eventual conclusion and no one ends a film quite as spectacularly as he. Throughout the film we hear a voice talking to Jack and assume it is the voice inside his head, there is an element of ambiguity here, so it still might be and the vision of Dante's Inferno might also be what Jack sees when he dies. However, even if it is real, the scene is the perfect representation of narcissism. It has been suggested to von Trier in the past that his films are too nihilistic and he beat the press to it by declaring that the film is celebrating "the idea that life is evil and soulless". He doesn’t believe this, he’s having fun with the press who will print what they want anyway, like he did during the press conference for Melancholia when he declared he was a Nazi. He’s not a Nazi. He really is just showing life for what it is, which is often brutal and cruel, like nature, but he always, in every single one of his films, shows us something beautiful. One of the greatest films of all time is Pier Paolo Pasolini’s Salò, or the 120 Days of Sodom. It’s a very hard film to watch but when explaining a subject such as fascism you have to show it for what it is, whether it be cruel, ridiculous or whatever. There is no beauty in Salò, but there is in von Triers films. Breaking the Waves has the greatest ending to a film of all time. The director once said “True values entail suffering. That’s the way we think. All in all, we tend to view melancholia as more true. We prefer music and art to contain a touch of melancholia. So melancholia in itself is a value. Unhappy and unrequited love is more romantic than happy love. For we don’t think that’s completely real, do we?…Longing is true. It may be that there’s no truth at all to long for, but the longing itself is true. Just like pain is true. We feel it inside. It’s part of our reality.” That doesn’t sound like narcissism or nihilism to me, more like romantic realism. The House That Jack Built is an uncomfortable watch because it needs to be, von Trier is giving the public what they say they want, so the criticism towards him is quite ridiculous. People get angry with him because he’s addressing everything that is wrong with modern day film, including the audience. I really don’t get it, surely once you can see the beauty in ugliness, this ugly world becomes more beautiful? He wouldn’t have to be as brutal as he is if more film makers did their jobs properly and challenged their audience.

Shattered Glass

Dir: Billy Ray

2003

****

Shattered Glass was one of the most hyped films of 2003 but has since become almost forgotten. I’m not sure why though, as the story is still intriguing and as relevant as ever. The performances are also very strong, although I think Star Wars may have hampered Hayden Christensen’s career now to the point where people may well be avoiding anything that he stars in – staring in straight to DVD pap also doesn’t help. A real shame because he carries this film brilliantly and he really proves his worth as a great actor. He is surrounded by other great actors including Peter Sarsgaard, Chloë Sevigny, Hank Azaria who also turn in impressive performances but he still holds his own. Billy Ray is a great writer and an occasional director, his directorial work is good but his writing is superb. I’m generally hesitant about films based on magazine articles but this one was particularly compelling. Stephen Glass (Christensen) was a reporter at The New Republic, where he made a name for himself for writing colorful stories. His editor, Michael Kelly (Hank Azaria), was revered by the magazine's young staff at the time. This is where the story begins. When David Keene (at the time Chairman of the American Conservative Union) questions Glass's description of minibars and the drunken antics of Young Republicans at a convention, Kelly backs his reporter when Glass admits to one mistake but says the rest is true. Kelly is fired after he stands up to his boss Marty Peretz on an unrelated personnel issue, and fellow writer Charles "Chuck" Lane (Peter Sarsgaard) is promoted to replace him. The magazine publishes an entertaining story by Glass titled "Hack Heaven" about a teenage hacker named Ian Restil who was given a lucrative job at software company Jukt Micronics after hacking into its computer system. After the article is published, Adam Penenberg, a reporter at Forbes Digital Tool, begins researching the story in order to discover how Glass scooped everyone else. Penenberg is unable to uncover any corroborating evidence for Glass's story. Questioned by the Forbes reporter, Lane becomes suspicious when Glass cannot provide sources for his article and when the few pieces of concrete evidence are discovered to be an amateurish website representing Jukt Micronics and a Palo Alto phone number where every call goes directly to voicemail. Penenberg and his colleague, Andy Fox, can find no proof Jukt or any of the people mentioned in the story: Ian Restil, Jukt president George Sims, former NBA agent Joe Hiert, and Nevada law enforcement official Jim Ghort even exist. Lane drives Glass to the convention center where the hacker convention supposedly took place. When Lane asks a security guard for information, he is told the convention center was not open that day. Lane also discovers that the restaurant where the hackers supposedly ate dinner afterwards closes in the early afternoon. After haphazardly trying to defend himself, Glass finally "admits" to Lane that he wasn't actually at the hacker convention, but relied on sources for information and pretended he was there to give the article a first-person feel. Lane is outraged, but proceeds cautiously while seeking the truth. He suspends Glass, earning him the enmity of staff reporters, who all are fond of Glass. Caitlin Avey (Chloë Sevigny - a fictional character based on Hanna Rosin), a writer at the magazine, is so angered by Lane's actions that she considers quitting. When a colleague calls Lane to express concern for Glass's state of mind, he also mentions that Glass has a brother living in Palo Alto. Lane realizes the brother must have posed as the president of Jukt Micronics on the day he returned Lane's phone call. Glass pleads for another chance, but Lane orders him out of the office and takes his security access card. Searching through back issues of The New Republic, Lane realizes that much of Glass's previous work was falsified. When an emotional Glass returns, Lane fires him. Caitlin accuses Lane of wanting to get rid of everyone who was loyal to Kelly, but he challenges her to act like the good reporter she is. He reminds her that half of the falsified stories were published on Kelly's watch, after being fact-checked, and that the entire staff will have to apologize to their readers for allowing Glass to continue to hand in fictitious stories. The following day, a receptionist wryly remarks to Lane that all this trouble could have been averted if the stories required photographs. Lane discovers the staff has written an apology to their readers. They spontaneously applaud their editor, signifying their unity. At a meeting with Glass and a lawyer, Glass tacitly admits that 27 of the 41 articles he wrote for The New Republic were fabricated in whole or in part. An epilogue reveals that Glass decided to complete law school and wrote a novel called The Fabulist about a reporter who fabricates his stories, and that Michael Kelly was killed in Iraq while covering Operation Iraqi Freedom. Producer Craig Baumgarten, working with HBO executive Gaye Hirsch, optioned H.G. Bissinger's Vanity Fair magazine article about Stephen Glass for an HBO original movie. They hired screenwriter Billy Ray based on the script he had written for the TNT film Legalese. Ray grew up with Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein as his heroes and studied journalism for a year. It was this love for journalism that motivated him to make Shattered Glass. A sudden change in management put the film into turnaround and it remained inactive for two years until Cruise/Wagner Productions bought it from HBO. They took it to Lionsgate and Ray asked the studio if he could direct in addition to writing it. Ray stuck with the project because he knew Bissinger, having previously adapted one of his books, Friday Night Lights. The challenge for Ray was to make the subject matter watchable because, according to the filmmaker, "watching people write is deadly dull ... in a film like this, dialogue is what a character is willing to reveal about himself, and the camera is there to capture everything else". The breakthrough for Ray came when he realized that the film's real protagonist was not Glass but Chuck Lane. According to Ray, "as fascinating as Stephen Glass is by the end of the movie people would want to kill themselves – you just can't follow him all the way". He used the Bissinger article as a starting point, which gave him a line of dialogue on which to hook the entire character of Glass: "Are you mad at me?" According to Ray, "you can build an entire character around that notion, and we did". To prepare for the film, Ray interviewed and re-interviewed key figures for any relevant details. He signed some of them as paid consultants and gave several approval over the script. Early on, he spent a considerable amount of time trying to earn the trust of the people who had worked with Glass and get them to understand that he was going to be objective with the subject matter. The real Michael Kelly was so unhappy about how he was portrayed in Bissinger's article that he threatened to sue when Ray first contacted him about the film and refused for two years to read Ray's script, which he eventually approved. Ray attempted to contact Glass through his lawyers but was unsuccessful. Lionsgate lawyers asked Ray to give them an annotated script where he had to footnote every line of dialogue and every assertion and back them up with corresponding notes. Ray shot both halves of the film differently – in the first half, he used hand-held cameras in the scenes that took place in the offices of The New Republic, but when the Forbes editors begin to question Glass, the camerawork was more stable. It was a subtle but effective technique. It’s funny, one one hand I really wanted Glass to get away with it and I disliked Lane for investigating him but as the film progressed – watching Glass squirm out of every accusation – I soon wanted justice to prevail and for Lane to give him everything he got for making a mockery of journalism. The problem these days is that there are too many Glass and not enough Lane’s working in media, so the film is an interesting investigative recreation and also a lesson that viewers should heed the next time they pick up a newspaper with wild allegations.

Beast

Dir: Michael Pearce

2018

****

Writer/director Michael Pearce really didn’t make his life easy with his intense 2017 thriller, Beast. It’s a beautifully shot and unnerving psychological thriller that is intensified by the incredibly hypnotic performance by Jessie Buckley. The story could have gone anywhere and Buckley would have steered the way perfectly. The problem with the film is that the beginning is so intense and full of intrigue and suspense that the conclusion was always going to be an anti-climax. I didn’t hate the ending, but it could never live up to the slow burning feeling of dread and anticipation felt throughout the film. It’s a problem that many of the truly great thrillers have always had. It’s ambiguous but not ambiguous enough, although it is nice and eerie. The film begins with a rather ominous series of beautiful landscapes, each with a floral tribute laid within it, suggesting places of recent murder. We then follow 27-year-old Moll (Buckley) who works as a tour guide on the Island of Jersey, while living with her wealthy parents to help care for her father who has dementia. It is soon revealed that he community is on-edge following a string of unsolved rapes and murders of young women in the area – an idea based on the notorious ‘Beast of Jersey’ who terrorized the island in the 1960s and 1970s. I bet the film hasn’t been popular with the locals. During Moll's birthday party, her sister, who is clearly the most popular of the siblings, hijacks the reception to announce that she is pregnant with twins. Irritated at being upstaged, Moll leaves the party and goes to a nightclub on impulse, where she dances all night with a young man she meets there. The man aggressively pursues her as they leave the club and forces himself upon her near the beach, but Moll is rescued by poacher Pascal (Johnny Flynn), who fends off her pursuer with a hunting rifle. They soon strike up a romantic fling after becoming infatuated with each other’s mysteries, much to her family's discomfort, due to his outsider status and suspicions surrounding the ongoing murder case. As their relationship blossoms, Moll reveals some of her troubled past to Pascal and why she is still treated as a young child by her mother. It is revealed that as a teenager she stabbed one of her classmates, and was home-schooled from then on, though she claims it was in self-defence. A fourth murder victim is discovered on the Island, a girl who disappeared on the night of Moll's birthday party. Moll begins to wonder if Pascal might be involved. However, when she is questioned by Clifford, a police detective and family friend who had previously revealed he has a crush on her, she lies about her first encounter with Pascal, claiming she met him at the nightclub and they danced there all night. Clifford informs her of Pascal's criminal past, which includes an assault charge for choking a girl as a teenager. Moll confronts Pascal about it and he reacts angrily, saying he has made mistakes in the past but regrets it to this day. They profess their love for each other and their bond is strengthened. An indignant Moll causes a scene at a pre-wedding meal her sister has thrown and is kicked out of the fancy club, disowning her family and defiling the club’s golf course with a putter. She soon moves in with Pascal, but is taken into custody on official police suspicion of his involvement in the murders. She repeats her prior claim about meeting him in the club. The lead detective accuses Moll of protecting a possible murderer and wonders aloud if she is seeking retribution against the community, to which Moll storms out. Wracked with guilt over the latest murdered girl, Moll abandons her job and goes to a department store, where she finds the girl she stabbed as a teenager working. She apologizes and claims it was in self-defence; the employee reacts angrily and tells her to leave. Moll then goes to the deceased girl's memorial and comforts the girl's mother, but she is regarded as an outcast and told to leave. Clifford visits Moll at her home and informs her that they caught the murderer who was an immigrant farmer. He also apologizes for treating her with suspicion, but insists that Pascal is still bad news. Relieved, Moll celebrates by going out drinking with Pascal. During a drunken argument, and partly by her request, he choke-slams her against a wall in anger. Moll escapes to Clifford's house and admits to lying about Pascal's whereabouts on the night of the murder, he chastises her harshly and tells her to get out. During a dinner date, Moll invites Pascal to admit his involvement in the murders, now convinced it was him. She coaxes him by admitting her own secret: that she stabbed the girl not in self-defence, but in revenge, trying to kill her. The film then enters its spiraling conclusion and I’m still unclear who the real murderer is, which is to the story’s credit. It’s bleakness in technicolor, a film that will haunt its viewer and will never quite reveal any answers. Flynn is great in his role but Buckley steals the show, in fact she is the show. I think Michael Pearce has made an incredibly uneasy film, in that sense it is a masterwork, although it isn’t perfect and the story jumps and relies on dream sequences a little too often. Still, a great director and a wonderful lead actor make this is an uncomfortably hypnotic experience.

Suite Française

Dir: Saul Dibb

2015

***

The story behind Saul Dibb’s Suite Française is, in my opinion, far more interesting than the film itself. Irène Némirovsky’s novel Suite Française remained unfinished and unpublished for over fifty years. Némirovsky herself died in Auschwitz in 1942. Némirovsky's older daughter, Denise, kept the notebook containing the manuscript for Suite Française for fifty years without reading it, thinking it was a journal or diary of her mother's, which would be too painful to read. In the late 1990s, however, she made arrangements to donate her mother's papers to a French archive and decided to examine the notebook first. Upon discovering what it contained, she instead had it published in France, where it became a bestseller in 2004. The story was to be made into two novels portraying life in France between 4 June 1940 and 1 July 1941, the period during which the Nazis occupied Paris. These works are considered remarkable because they were written during the actual period itself, and yet are the product of considered reflection, rather than just a journal of events, as might be expected considering the personal turmoil experienced by the Jewish author at the time. The right to the novel were acquired by Universal Pictures in 2006 and Ronald Harwood, who wrote the script for The Pianist, was set to write the screenplay, with Kathleen Kennedy and Frank Marshall producing the film. However, TF1 Droits Audiovisuels acquired the rights to the novel from publisher Éditions Denoël and the novel was adapted for the screen by Saul Dibb and Matt Charman, with Dibb directing. Dibb focused his adaptation on book two of Némirovsky's novels, which explores the relationships between the French women and the German soldiers who occupied their village, in particular the story of Lucile Angellier who is awaiting news of her husband, who went to war, when a German officer is billeted in her home. Dibb used the account of the discovery of the manuscript of the novel by Némirovsky's daughter, Denise Epstein, to book-end the film and pay tribute to Némirovsky. Epstein died shortly before production began, but she read drafts of the script. In German-occupied France, Lucile Angellier (Michelle Williams) and her domineering mother-in-law Madame Angellier (Kristin Scott Thomas) await news of her husband, who was serving in the French Army. While visiting tenants, Lucile and Madame Angellier escape an air raid by German bombers. Following the French surrender, a regiment of German soldiers arrives, and promptly moves into the homes of the villagers. The Wehrmacht Oberleutnant Bruno von Falk (Matthias Schoenaerts) is billeted at the Angelliers' household. Lucile tries to ignore Bruno but is charmed by his kindly demeanor and his piano music. Lucile later learns that her husband Gaston's unit has been imprisoned at a German labor camp. Elsewhere, the farmer Benoit (Sam Riley) and his wife Madeleine (Ruth Wilson) chafe under the German officer Kurt Bonnet (Tom Schilling), who harasses Madeleine. Benoit, who was denied the chance to fight because of his leg wound, hides a rifle. As an act of resistance, he steals the German soldiers' clothes while they are bathing. When Lucile discovers that one of her mother-in-law’s tenants Celine (Margot Robbie) is having sex with a German soldier, Celine reveals that Gaston has been having an extramarital affair and has fathered a girl named Simone. Angry with Madame Angellier for withholding her son's indiscretions, Lucile develops romantic feelings for Bruno and he gifts her a piece of his music score. At Lucile's request, Bruno confronts Kurt over his harassment. Lucile's relationship with Bruno draws the hostility of many of the townsfolk. The Viscountess de Monfort (Harriet Walter) later catches Benoit stealing a chicken from her coop. When Benoit points a gun at her, she tells her husband, the collaborationist Viscount de Monfort (Lambert Wilson), who sends the German soldiers after Benoit. While hiding in a barn, Benoit kills Kurt with his gun and flees into the forest. The Germans launch a manhunt and give the town's population 48 hours to surrender Benoit. The German Major (Heino Ferch) takes the Viscount hostage and threatens to execute him if Benoit is not found. At Madeleine’s request, Lucile hides Benoit in the attic of the Angellier mansion with the help of the reluctant Madame Angellier. Despite a massive manhunt, the Germans fail to capture Benoit and the Viscount is executed by firing squad. With the Germans planning to withdraw from the town, Lucile takes part in a plan to smuggle Benoit into Paris, where the French Resistance is gathering. She manages to convince Bruno to issue her travel pass to Paris. However, Bruno’s suspicious orderly suspects that Lucile is harboring Benoit and issues special instructions for the checkpoint guards to search her car. At the checkpoint, Benoit manages to shoot the German soldiers dead with his pistol but is wounded in the shoulder. Bruno arrives on a motorcycle. Lucile faces him with her pistol but is unable to bring herself to kill him. To Lucile’s surprise, Bruno helps her lift the wounded Benoit into the car and allows them to escape to Paris. As she drives away, Lucile smiles at Bruno in gratitude. Lucile and Benoit later join the French resistance and help drive out the Germans. While Lucile later learns that Bruno perished during the war, she treasures the memory of his music score Suite Française. The cast is made up of many actors whom I admire but I can’t say anyone brings a standout performance to the film. I don’t think the film works the way it is written and the stories have been merged quite clumsily. I can’t say I cared for the story at all but romance between solders and French girls did happen, I just find it bizarre that a Jewish women would write about such things as it was happening. That said, the truth should always out, whether we like it or not, although this is a fictional story. It’s just a terrible shame that the romance is unconvincing on screen and the film only really finds it’s pace in the third act. I also find it strange that, once being acquired from an American studio, the French TF1 Droits Audiovisuels decided to still film it in English. It is odd how the Germans still speak German but the French speak in posh English. Overall it is a good film, it just suffers from all the usual cliches that are very easy to avoid in the scheme of things. The story of the novel itself is fascinating and a real success story, the film itself however is devastatingly unremarkable.

Testament of Youth

Dir: James Kent

2014

***

Adapted from the heartbreaking memoir written by Vera Brittain, 2014’s Testament of Youth concentrates on the crux of the novel, omitting much of what really happened. I’m not sure a memoir such as this should be shortened or edited in any way and a Television mini-series would have been far more appropriate. That said, the direction and performances are grand. I thought that the introduction to the memoir was especially well handled, when we see Vera (played by Alicia Vikander) in 1914 arguing with her father (played by Dominic West) after expressing her desire to escape her traditional family in Buxton, by attending Oxford University with her younger brother Edward (Taron Egerton) and his friends Roland Leighton and Victor Richardson (Kit Harington and Colin Morgan). Against her father's opposition, but with the support of her mother (Emily Watson), she passes the entrance examination for Somerville College, Oxford. Before enrolling at Oxford, Vera and Roland, who shares her interest in writing and poetry, begin a romance, although she knows that Victor is in love with her. After the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand starts World War I, Vera helps convince her father to let Edward join the army instead of Oxford; Roland and Victor also join, and Roland is the first to reach the Western Front. As long lists of casualties appear in newspapers, Vera leaves Oxford to volunteer for the Voluntary Aid Detachment as a nurse tending the wounded in a hospital in England. His friends still see the war as exciting, but Roland tells Vera of his traumatic experiences from trench warfare at the front. He proposes to Vera; they will marry during his next home leave. Roland returns to France, now with Edward. Roland writes in late 1915 that he has been granted leave, and is safe away from the front. As Vera awaits his arrival during the Christmas holiday, Roland's crying mother tells her on the telephone that he has been killed. The army tells Vera and Roland's family that he died "bravely and painlessly". After she demands the truth, George Catlin, who saw the wounded Roland in Louvencourt, admits that Roland died from his abdomen gunshot wound in agonizing pain. When Victor, blind from his own injuries, arrives at Vera's hospital, she proposes to him out of kindness, sympathy and because it would be something Roland would have liked her to do, but he gently turns her down before suddenly dying from his head injury. In 1917 Vera asks to transfer to France to be closer to Edward, but her first assignment is to treat wounded Germans. She is reluctant, but learns that they suffer and die like English soldiers. Vera finds Edward among the dying, and helps save his life. After recovery she is glad that he is sent to the safer Italian Front. Edward insists that Vera return to Oxford after the war. Vera returns home after her mother has a nervous breakdown. She sees a telegram being delivered and learns, from her father's weeping, that Edward has died. With the death of Geoffrey Thurlow, another friend of Edward's, Vera has now lost in the war the four young men closest to her. In 1918 Vera cannot celebrate as crowds cheer the Armistice with Germany. Back at Oxford, she has nightmares about Roland's and Edward's deaths. Winifred Holtby, another student at the college, helps Vera cope with her trauma. Vera attends a public meeting where speakers debate how to punish Germany for the war. Most of the audience is against George Caitlin (her future husband), who warns that "the philosophy of 'an eye for an eye'" could cause another war. Vera confesses her guilt over persuading her father to let Edward join the army, and tells of how she held the hand of a dying German soldier, who was not different from her brother or her fiancé. She says that their deaths have meaning "only if we stand together now and say 'No'" to war and revenge. Now a pacifist, Vera promises to her dead men that she will not forget them and the film ends with a very poignant dedication to them. The BBC had previously adapted the book as a five-part television serial which was transmitted in 1979 which is perhaps why they decided to make a feature length adaptation instead but in my opinion the film could have done with far more time. The character development is fine but it needed longer, the characters needed more time to really flourish and become established. It felt like a great novel was edited down to soundbites, missing out many other details that would have built the story higher. It does feel like a TV movie but a very cinematic one, in its defense. That said, the film had the support of Shirley Williams, Brittain's daughter, and of Mark Bostridge, Brittain's biographer, editor, and one of her literary executors, who was reportedly acting as consultant on the film, giving it authenticity and a feeling of sincerity. It is a tricky one really, as it feels like the big element missing from this war film is the war, but this is a tale told through the eyes of Vera, who wasn’t in trenches or on the front line. She had also worked as a nurse in Malta though and the ship she was travelling on was almost sunk by a torpedo which could have added a bit of much needed action to the film but I’m guessing the budget nor run time would allow it. I’ve always said though, that a good war film is an anti-war film and that is exactly what it is. The fictional moment that Vera met her future husband George Catlin is a little heavy-handed and a little unfair on Catlin as he did volunteer at the beginning of the war but was rejected. However, he did serve in Belgium as a soldier late in the war. It’s a nice film, hard to pick fault with, it just needed more time devoted to it, given the importance of the novel and the story’s message. I’m an avid movie film above all else but sometimes a story needs to be told properly and a lot of the time that means it should have been on TV rather than on the big screen.