Hilary and Jackie

Dir: Anand Tucker

1998

****

I have a real soft spot for British films made in the mid to late 1990s and Hilary and Jackie was one of those great ones that flew under the radar somewhat. However, it came with controversy. It starred Emily Watson and Rachel Griffiths who were both at exciting points of their careers and their performances here were, in my opinion, two of their best to date. The film is about the lives and careers of British classical musician sisters Jacqueline du Pré (who played the cello) and Hilary du Pré (who played the flute). The screenplay by Frank Cottrell-Boyce is often claimed to have been based on the 1997 memoir A Genius in the Family by Piers and Hilary du Pré (Jacqueline’s siblings) which was later republished under the title Hilary and Jackie. However, thier memoir had not yet been published when Hilary and Jackie was being filmed. Cottrell-Boyce stated, "Hilary was working on the book at the same time as I was working on the film ... it was at a very early stage when we were doing the script.” The film was instead based on conversations with Hilary and Piers; unlike the book it does not claim to be the true story, and contains some fictionalised incidents. This led to controversy and criticism for allegedly distorting details in Jacqueline's life, and several personal friends of Jacqueline du Pré publicly condemned it which damaged the film rather than bring more attention, even though both Emily Watson and Rachel Griffiths were nominated for Academy Awards for their performances. The film begins in the 1960s, where sisters Hilary and Jacqueline "Jackie" du Pré both pursue musical professions after being instructed throughout their childhoods in music by their mother (played by Celia Imrie). Though Jackie rebelled against practicing as a child, she became a virtuoso in early adulthood, quickly rising to international prominence. It is suggested that Hilary’s early success pushed Jacqueline to do better out of jealousy. While Jackie tours throughout Europe, Hilary remains in London with her parents and brother, Piers, and struggles in her musical studies at the Royal Academy of Music. She becomes acquainted with a gregarious fellow student, Christopher "Kiffer" Finzi (played by David Morrissey), son of composer Gerald Finzi, and the two begin a romantic relationship. Hilary begins playing in a community orchestra, where she garners local notoriety. Jackie returns home from touring in Moscow, and pleads Hilary to get a flat with her. Instead, Hilary marries Kiffer, and the two relocate to a farmhouse in the country to start a family. Meanwhile, Jackie begins dating pianist and conductor Daniel Barenboim, with whom she bonds over their mutual love of music. Her eventual conversion to Judaism and subsequent marriage to Daniel garners significant publicity. Later, Jackie arrives unannounced at Hilary and Kiffer's home, inexplicably forgoing scheduled engagements she has in Los Angeles. She confides to Hilary that she wants to have sex with Kiffer, and makes attempts to seduce him. The next day, Hilary finds Jackie stripped naked in the woods in the midst of an emotional breakdown. Daniel arrives and attempts to console her, but she is indifferent to him. Jackie remains at Hilary's home, and Hilary consents to Jackie having a sexual encounter with Kiffer, hoping it will help her work through her nervous breakdown. This, however, ultimately drives a rift between the sisters as the affair becomes emotionally suffused. Jackie leaves and resumes touring, but yearns for a different life. From Jackie's perspective, Hilary chose a life with Kiffer over their relationship. While Jackie found solace in her marriage to Daniel, she began to notice a subtle yet progressive deterioration of her motor skills and hand-eye coordination. It had in fact been unspoken anxieties over her health that led to her previous visit to Hilary's. During a live performance, Jackie finds herself unable to stand, and has to be carried offstage by Daniel. She is diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, and Hilary goes to visit her in hospital. Jackie remains optimistic about her diagnosis, but the disease progresses rapidly, leaving her unable to position her fingers or use a bow. Daniel continues to conduct around the world, and Jackie finds he is having an affair. As her disease progresses, she becomes paralysed before going deaf and mute. One night, Hilary goes to visit Jackie, who is in the throes of tremors, and recounts a cherished childhood memory of the two playing on the beach. Shortly after, Hilary hears news of Jackie's death on the radio. The film ends with Jackie's spirit standing on the beach where she used to play as a child, watching herself and her sister frolicking in the sand as little girls. It’s a fascinating film with some brilliant performances but when you read about the sisters and hear what Jackie's friends all say it soon becomes apparent that not all is as it seems. A group of Jackie's closest colleagues, including fellow cellists Mstislav Rostropovich and Julian Lloyd Webber, sent a bristling letter to The Times in February 1999 that included this statement from Webber: “Hilary and Jackie is an ugly film, not because it is badly made or acted - quite the reverse - but because Emily Watson's du Pré bears no resemblance to the radiant Jackie I remember so well, first as a brilliant cellist, and later when I came to know her after she contracted MS. The film woefully fails to convey Jacqueline du Pré's wonderful joy in making music and her unique ability to bring that joy to her audience. Worst of all, the book that spawned the film was written by her elder sister, Hilary, and younger brother, Piers - two siblings apparently eaten up by bitterness and jealousy.” This totally rings true when you think about the turn of events in the film. Even Clare Finzi, Hilary du Pré's own daughter, charged that the film was a "gross misinterpretation, which I cannot let go unchallenged” particularly surrounding the ‘affair’ between her father and her aunt. It is suggested that Kiffer only had sex with Jackie when it was agreed by Hilary but the truth was that Kiffer was a serial adulterer who took advantage of Jackie when she was ill and not of sound mind. It is clear to see that Hilary du Pré wanted to protect herself, indeed, in reality she was the jealous sister. I can’t really fault the film though as it always claimed that this was the story as seen through Hilary’s eyes. You can question her turn of events but they exist never the less. The film is beautifully shot and wonderfully performed, it just isn’t necessarily the truth.

This Land Is Mine
Dir: Jean Renoir
1943
*****
A few films touched on the rise of fascism before the Second World War started (such as La Grande Illusion) and many a great anti-war film was made after the war had ended. There are also plenty of great war films that were made during the war, most of which were propaganda films requested by governments. The majority of these films focused on morale and comradery, for those fighting and for those at home suffering bombs, rationing, fear and worry. Then there were a few films that really got to the roots of the war and the crux of society. This Land Is Mine is one of those few films and I believe it should be regarded as one of the best war films ever made – a good war film being an anti-war film. The great Jean Renoir begins the film with a shot of a World War One monument with Nazi troopers entering the town (‘somewhere in Europe’) in the background. The First World War was of course known as the ‘War to end all Wars’ and the first scene already becomes more poignant and devastating then most films ever manage in their full run-time. Our protagonist is Albert (Charles Laughton), an unmarried schoolmaster living with his dominating mother. Albert is secretly in love with his neighbour and fellow teacher Louise (Maureen O'Hara) but hasn’t the confidence to tell her, besides, Louise is engaged to George (George Sanders), the head of the railway yard, who like many in the town believes that collaboration with the German occupation is the only logical course. Widely regarded as ineffectual, Albert is unable to control his class, is looked down upon (but isn’t disliked) and on one occasion embarrasses everybody by his panic during an Allied air raid. Louise’s brother Paul (Kent Smith), who works in the yard, befriends the German solders but is in fact an active resister and, trying to kill the German commandant Major von Keller, instead kills two German soldiers. After turning a blind eye to previous acts of resistance in the hope of preserving good relations, Major Erich von Keller (Walter Slezak) must now act and takes 10 hostages, saying they will be shot in a week if the guilty person is not found. Albert's mother, jealous of Louise, tells George that it was Paul. George tells von Keller and then, in a crisis of conscience, shoots himself. Albert bursts in a minute later, furious at discovering his mother's treachery, and is found with corpse and gun. Regarding it as a matter for the civilian courts, the Germans expect Albert to be condemned. When in his defense he starts an impassioned plea for resistance, the prosecutor requests an adjournment. That night, von Keller comes to his cell and offers a deal: If he will keep quiet next day, new forged evidence will acquit him. To emphasise the point, in the morning the 10 hostages are shot beneath his window, one of them being his friend and colleague Prof. Sorel (Philip Merivale) who he greatly admired. Back in court, Albert is all the more eloquent in the cause of liberty and the jurors proclaim him innocent. Freed and back in his schoolroom, with a proud Louise by his side, he reads to his pupils who all now stand as he enters the room. The courtroom speeches Albert gives are extraordinary but the talk he gives the boys is breathtaking. Time of of the essence as he addresses his class, “I'm afraid this is my last class. I don't know how much time I have. If this must be a short lesson, I think I've found the best book. It was given to me by Professor Sorel. The only reason it wasn't burned with the others is because I hid it away in my bedroom. I'm going to read you something that was written by great men. Written in a night of enthusiasm a long time ago. 150 years ago. These men came from all classes, rich people, poor people, businessmen, men of religion. And they didn't fight with each other. They all agreed on that wonderful night. Now, other men have tried to destroy this book. Maybe this copy will be burned. But, they can't burn it out of your memories. You'll have to rewrite it someday. That's why you young people are so important. You're the new nation! "A Declaration of the Rights of Man!" Article I - All men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Article II - The purpose of all political parties is the safeguarding of the natural and inalienable rights of man. These rights are liberty, property security, and resistance to tyranny. Article III - The principle of all government resides in the Nation itself. No group, no individual can exercise any authority that does not expressly emanate from the people. Article IV - Liberty consists in freedom to do all that does not harm others. Article V - The law has the right to forbid only..” Albert pauses as the German solders arrive for him. “Just one moment, gentlemen, please.” Albert asks before continuing, “The law has the right to forbid only those things that are harmful to society. Well, I must go. I must go, not because I'm harmful to society - which is you - but, I am harmful to tyranny.” It is a remarkable speech to end a remarkable film. While it felt far more mainstream than Renoir’s earlier film La Grande Illusion, it still hit all the same notes. The prime purpose of the film is propaganda, to strengthen Allied resolve in the fight against Nazism, but once more Renoir adopted a distinctively nuanced approach. The Germans, with von Keller an eloquent advocate of the advantages for Europe of Nazi rule, are not shown as mere brutes. Nor are the French shown as heroes battling tyranny. Instead, as in Renoir's previous films La Grande Illusion and La Règle du Jeu, class is shown to be more significant than race or nationality. The film blames the bourgeoisie, a few left-wing intellectuals excepted, for letting Hitler into power in 1933, for surrendering France in 1940 and for collaborating actively or passively. This stance was confirmed by Renoir shortly after the film came out when, in a speech, he asserted that his recent films "breathed this breath of anti-Fascism" and were rooted in the experience of the Popular Front of 1936, which was "a magnificent exposition of human brotherhood". It is for this reason that This Land Is Mine, as well as his other films, have stood the test of time and will always be relevant.

The Water Diviner

Dir: Russell Crowe

2014

****

Before sitting down to watch The Water Diviner, a film I knew little about, I did wonder how and why, an Australian of all people, could think about making a film about Gallipoli after Peter Weir had made his masterpiece on the subject. The answer, of course, is that he, Russell Crowe, didn’t, rather he made a film about what happened after the battle of Gallipoli and how wounds are best healed. Loosely based on the book by Andrew Anastasios and Dr Meaghan Wilson-Anastasios, The Water Diviner deals with regret, honour and redemption. The film begins in 1919, just after the First World War, and centres around Joshua Connor (Russell Crowe who stars and directs), an Australian farmer and water diviner. His three sons Arthur (Ryan Corr), Edward (James Fraser), and Henry (Ben O'Toole) served with the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps during the military campaign in Gallipoli four years previously and are presumed dead. After his wife Eliza (Jacqueline McKenzie) commits suicide out of grief, Joshua resolves to bring his sons' bodies home and bury them next to their mother. Joshua travels to Turkey and stays in a hotel in Istanbul run by war-widowed Ayshe (Olga Kurylenko), but is unable to travel to Gallipoli by road. Ayshe treats Joshua with contempt at first but learning the purpose of his journey, she tells him to bribe a local fisherman to travel to Gallipoli by boat. When he arrives, Joshua learns that ANZACs are engaged in a mass burial detail and all civilians are banned. Major Hasan (Yılmaz Erdoğan), a Turkish Army officer assisting the ANZACs, persuades the ANZAC captain Lt-Col Cyril Hughes (Jai Courtney) to prioritize helping Joshua with his search, arguing that while they can’t necessarily every father who has lost their sons, he is the only father that has come looking. After finding Edward and Henry's graves, Joshua sees in his dreams that Arthur survives the battle. Hasan recognizes Joshua's surname and tells him that Arthur might have been taken prisoner. Joshua returns to Istanbul, but fails to find out which prison camp Arthur was transferred to, as many Turkish records have been burned. He returns to Ayshe's hotel and learns that she is being pressed to marry her brother-in-law, Omer. Their argument becomes heated and Omer retreats when Joshua intervenes. Ayshe lashes out, blaming Joshua for making things worse and tells him to leave. As Joshua leaves the hotel, Omer and a few of his friends attack him, only to be stopped by Hasan's subordinate, Sergeant Jemal (Cem Yılmaz). Jemal takes Joshua to Hasan, who explains that the Greeks have invaded and they are going to defend their country as the British are not intervening. Joshua decides to travel with Hasan's group, who will pass through the region where his son might be. As Joshua returns to the hotel to retrieve his belongings, Ayshe apologizes for her earlier words. While on the train, Greek soldiers attack with only Jemal, Hasan and Joshua surviving the initial assault. Joshua saves Hasan as a Greek officer prepares to execute him but Jemal is killed in the resulting struggle. Joshua and Hasan flee to a nearby town where they spot a windmill, which Joshua saw in his recurring dream, the sort he taught his son to build before he went to war. There he finds Arthur alive but traumatized. Arthur reveals that at the end of the battle, Edward was still alive but badly wounded. He pleaded with Arthur to end his suffering, and Arthur reluctantly complied. Blaming himself for his brothers' deaths, Arthur felt he could never return to his family. The Greek soldiers who previously attacked the train begin to attack the town, and the two men try to escape through the mountains. Arthur refuses to follow his father, but relents when Joshua says that without his wife and sons, he has nowhere else to go. They successfully evade the Greek army and return to Ayshe's hotel. The film ends with Joshua drinking a cup of coffee made by Ayshe with lots of sugar in it, which, thanks to an earlier conversation, indicates that she has fallen in love with him. I have a few issues with the story but these are generally overshadowed by what I really liked about it. I really didn’t think it needed a romantic story line, especially as Joshua still clearly loved his wife who had only recently killed herself. Life goes on for sure, but it was a little too soon I feel. I also felt the dream sequences let the film down, surely finding Arthur by chance would have had far more impact. It would have certainly made the film a lot less predictable, one of the big things it has against it. However, I hugely respect the film for the way it handles war. It addresses wrongs made on both sides and shows that there really aren’t any winners in war. It looks at prejudice and redemption without shying away from the brutality of things. The depictions of one of the brothers, dying slowly and helpless is a shocking and upsetting scene but exactly the sort of thing a film about war should never shy away from. The story concept originated from a single line in a letter written by Lieutenant-Colonel Cyril Hughes who was a worker in the Imperial War Graves unit. The footnote simply said, “One old chap managed to get here from Australia, looking for his son’s grave.” After a year of research the writers were unable to identify the man or his son which gave them the freedom to imagine a story which would become their screenplay and thankfully they saw fit to examine both sides of the historic battle. While I feel the film was a little ambitious I thought it was very well constructed. That said, co-screenwriter Andrew Knight's own grandfather had fought at Gallipoli, so he and fellow writer Andrew Anastasios were able to derive elements from his diary. In addition, they read a lot of Turkish accounts of the war and the period immediately after to try to tap into the prevailing mood in the country and the different political and social divisions that existed. The screenwriting duo of Knight and Anastasios actually based the water diviner aspect of the character of Joshua on Anastasios's own grandfather, who was a real water diviner in the countryside of New South Wales in Australia. It’s personal passions that make good films like this and it comes through as clear as day. It is a fine debut feature by Russell Crowe and it has a great script, but it also represents a sad farewell to the brilliant cinematographer Andrew Lesnie, as this would be his final film.

The Man in the Iron Mask

Dir: Randall Wallace

1998

***

You can tell a classical adaptation by the decade it was made. I think the 1970s remains the peak decade, everything before and after still haven’t quite matched it, but then I think the same could be said of all genres of film, the 1970s were the best. After Ridley Scott’s Gladiator the grand epic made a revival, with very few being of great quality, and the swashbuckler seemed to all but disappear. Randall Wallace’s adaptation of The Vicomte de Bragelonne isn’t great but it is very 90s, making it not so bad. It hasn’t aged well but I really dig it, as it reminds me of how wonderfully silly many 90s films were. It also shamelessly copies Richard Lester’s Three Musketter films, although it has very little of their charm. For me it was all about the cast and their performances. It was a relatively early film for Leonardo DiCaprio who was a real pin-up at the time, so choosing such a deplorable role was very canny of him. It did him well to play the villain and he plays it well, but his character is also the bad boy that many a young girl is attracted to, so it is a role with duel reward – which is fair I guess, seeing as it is also a literal duel role. Jeremy Irons plays Aramis, John Malkovich plays Athos, Gerard Depardieu plays Porthos and Gabriel Byrne is D'Artagnan. It seemed a novelty for Irons to play a good guy for once and he suited the role well. Gerard Depardieu seems a far too obvious choice for Porthos but you wouldn’t want anyone else and Gabriel Byrne is rather good as D'Artagnan. I think my favourite performance was from John Malkovich, and to cast Peter Sarsgaard as his son was a genius decision. The film is more Douglas Fairbanks than it is Alexandre Dumas but it is what it is. Set in 1662 (half a century before the real Louis XIV’s birth), the Kingdom of France faces bankruptcy from King Louis XIV's wars against the Dutch Republic, which has left the country's agriculture impeded by a heavy tax burden and forced the citizens to live on rotten food. Though the country appears to be on the verge of a revolution, Louis continues to spend his time preparing for war and seducing countless women. The three musketeers have gone their separate ways; Aramis is now an aging priest, Porthos has become a philandering drunk, and Athos is retired and living with his only son, Raoul, who aspires to join the Musketeers. Only D'Artagnan has remained with the Musketeers, now serving as their Captain. Aramis learns that the Jesuit order has declared Louis's wars unjust and the source of public hunger and outrage. Louis personally instructs Aramis to secretly hunt down and kill the Jesuit leader. Also in attendance are Raoul and his fiancée, Christine Bellefort. Louis immediately sets his sights on Christine, but faithful to Raoul, she resists his affections. A Jesuit assassin attempts to kill Louis but is killed by D'Artagnan instead. Louis immediately plots to seduce Christine by having Raoul sent to the battlefront. D'Artagnan visits his old friend Athos to warn him of the danger Raoul faces but then Raoul arrives and informs his father he has been recalled to his regiment because he believes Louis desires Christine, Athos turns on his friend and holds him partly responsible. Raoul nevertheless resolves to go because he will not risk making Christine a widow nor consider himself a coward. Athos angrily warns D'Artagnan that if Raoul is harmed, then Louis will become his enemy. D'Artagnan tells Athos he will personally speak to Louis about the situation. An angry crowd from Paris attacks the Musketeers when they are fed rotten food, but D'Artagnan calms the crowd and says he will personally speak to Louis about public hunger. Louis assures D'Artagnan he will deal with the matter, and that Raoul will return soon from the war. Instead, Louis orders his chief adviser Pierre executed for distributing the rotten food (despite the fact that Louis earlier ordered him to do so), and orders that all rioters are to be shot from now on. Raoul joins the war and is killed at the battlefront by cannon fire. Upon learning of his son's death, Athos attempts to kill Louis but is stopped by D'Artagnan, and goes into exile. Louis invites Christine to the royal palace and coerces her into sex by pretending to care for her mourning and by promising to have his personal doctor treat her sick mother and sister and has them sent to recover at his country estate. Aramis summons Porthos, Athos and D'Artagnan for a secret meeting in which he reveals that he himself is the Jesuits' leader and has a plan to depose Louis. Athos and Porthos agree, but D'Artagnan refuses to cooperate citing his oath of honor cannot be removed or betrayed. Athos angrily confronts D'Artagnan over his devotion and loyalty to Louis, but D'Artagnan still refuses to join their plot. Athos brands him a traitor and threatens him with death should they ever meet again. The three musketeers enter a remote prison and smuggle out an unnamed prisoner in an iron mask, taking him to the countryside, where Aramis reveals that he is Philippe, Louis's identical twin brother. Aramis reveals that the night Louis was born, his mother, Queen Anne, gave birth to twins. Louis XIII, hoping to avoid dynastic warfare between his sons, sent Philippe away to live in the countryside with no knowledge of his true identity. On his deathbed, Louis XIII revealed Philippe's existence to Anne and Louis. Anne, having been told by her priest that Philippe had died at birth, then wished to restore Philippe's birthright. But Louis, now king and too superstitious to have his brother killed, had Philippe imprisoned instead in the iron mask to keep his identity secret, something Aramis reluctantly carried out. Aramis's plan is now to redeem himself and save France by replacing Louis with Philippe. The musketeers begin training Philippe to act and behave like Louis, while Athos develops fatherly feelings for him. At a masquerade ball, the musketeers lure Louis to his quarters and subdue him, dressing Philippe in his clothes while taking Louis to the dungeons. D'Artagnan uncovers the ruse, after Christine accuses Philippe with evidence of Louis's role in Raoul's death and is not rebuffed. He forcibly escorts Philippe to the dungeons and they confront the musketeers before they can take Louis to the Bastille. They trade twins, but Philippe is captured before the musketeers escape. D'Artagnan is shocked to learn who Philippe is and begs Louis not to kill him, as does Anne. Louis refuses, but after Philippe pleads with Louis to kill him rather than put him back in the mask, Louis decides to send Philippe to the Bastille and have the mask placed on him again, cynically stating Philippe will "wear the mask until [he] love[s] it...and die in it". He orders D'Artagnan to bring him the severed heads of Athos, Porthos and Aramis or Louis will have his head. Meanwhile, Christine commits suicide by hanging herself outside Louis's bedroom window out of grief and remorse. D'Artagnan contacts his friends for help in rescuing Philippe from the Bastille. Louis, who suspected D'Artagnan would help his friends, ambushes them at the prison. Though he offers D'Artagnan clemency in exchange for surrender, D'Artagnan refuses, privately revealing to Philippe and his friends that Louis and Philippe are actually his sons from an affair with the Queen. He also reveals he never knew Philippe existed, and never felt pride as a father until now. They charge one final time at Louis and his men and are fired upon; their bravery compels the soldiers to close their eyes before firing and all miss. Louis attempts to stab Philippe but wounds D'Artagnan fatally. Philippe attacks Louis but stops when D'Artagnan reminds him that Louis is his brother. Athos asks D'Artagnan's forgiveness, realizing his loyalty to Louis was out of fatherly devotion to his son, the same fatherly devotion Athos had to his son Raoul. D'Artagnan dies in his friends' arms. D'Artagnan's top lieutenant, Andre, angered by his mentor's death, swears his men to secrecy and orders them out of the prison, siding with Philippe. He and the Musketeers switch the twins' places again. Philippe orders Louis locked away and fed by a deaf mute, placing him in the iron mask, and then names Athos, Porthos and Aramis as his royal counsel. A small funeral is held for D'Artagnan, where Philippe admits to Athos that he has come to love him like a father, which Athos reciprocates. Philippe later issues Louis a royal pardon and sends him to live peacefully in the countryside visited often by Anne, and goes on to become one of France's greatest kings. The tombstone of D'Artagnan has an iron mask imprint chiseled upon it by his friends with Philippe saying earlier that due to his secret, D'Artagnan was the real man in the iron mask. In Alexandre Dumas's The Vicomte de Bragelonne, although the plot to replace King Louis XIV with his twin brother is foiled, the twin is initially depicted as a much more sympathetic character than the King. However, in the last part of the novel, the King is portrayed as an intelligent, more mature, and slightly misunderstood man who in fact deserves the throne - and the Musketeers themselves are split, Aramis (with assistance from Porthos, who is ignorant and easily duped) siding with the prisoner, D'Artagnan with King Louis, and Athos retiring from politics entirely. D'Artagnan, foiling the plot of the others, is tasked with capturing his friends, who have taken refuge in a fortress in Bretony: he resigns his command, knowing that he will be arrested and his subordinate will open fire anyway. Without D'Artagnan's command and his tactical knowledge of his friends-turned-foes, Aramis's fortress refuge is taken by the king's men but at great loss of life, while Porthos dies in a heroic last stand and Aramis escapes to take political asylum in Spain (and later return as a member of the Spanish embassage, to ensure their neutrality should France and Holland come to blows.) D'Artagnan explains himself to the King, and is pardoned and restored to his position, and told that if he wants the final promotion he was on the point of earning, he had better go and win it on a foreign field: in the later war against Holland, he is finally awarded promotion to the supreme command, only to be killed while reading the notice of his promotion at the siege of Maastricht. I can see why the change was made but the ending of the film is fairly rubbish compared to the classic novel. It’s a bit of fluff, a Sunday afternoon film. It’s a terrible adaptation and not a particularly well made film but it’s incredibly watchable and totally forgivable.

Age of Consent

Dir: Michael Powell

1969

****

Age of Consent has become something of a cult film, although I don’t personally consider it a masterpiece as many do, especially as it was directed by the legendary director Michael Powell. However, I did enjoy it, and no, not just because it features a young naked Helen Mirren. The story is based on Norman Lindsay's 1938 novel that was actually banned in Australia for several years. The novel was later adapted into the 1994 film Sirens, starring Hugh Grant, Sam Neill, and Elle Macpherson. The first adaptation was announced in 1961 by producer Oscar Nichols who said he wanted Dan O'Herlihy and Glynis Johns to make the film. In 1962 Michael Pate bought the rights and he eventually brought in Michael Powell. Several changes were made from Lindsay's novel including shifting the location from New South Wales to the Barrier Reef and making the artist a success instead of a failure. While the film was still in production, director Michael Powell said “My next film is the story of a painter who believes that he will no longer paint and of a girl who persuades him to begin again...He will probably end up painting her; but to see a painter sit down and paint a girl, this could be exciting, but I had the hardest time explaining to my scriptwriter that this didn't excite me at all. What interested me was the problem of Creation and the fact that this creation in the case of the painter was very physical. He will have to struggle, to fight, even more strongly than he will move away from reality. It will be a slightly bitter comedy that I will produce with James Mason who will play the leading role.” Powell and Mason had wanted to work together in the past, on I Know Where I'm Going!, but had not been able to come to an agreement on billing and Mason was unwilling to go on location to Scotland. It was originally intended to cast an unknown seventeen-year-old Australian actress opposite Mason but in the end twenty-two-year-old Helen Mirren was chosen. For some reason they added the line "Miss Mirren is a member of the Royal Shakespeare Company" underneath her name. maybe it was to let the audience know she was an actor and not just a model who had agreed to take off her clothes, I don’t know, but I’ve always thought it to be rather condescending. That said, maybe it was on her request and she had predicted the sort of interview Michael Parkinson gave her six years later, but like I say, I really don’t know. The film follows Bradley Morahan (James Mason), an Australian artist who feels he has become jaded by success and life in New York City. He decides that he needs to regain the edge he had as a young artist and returns to Australia. He sets up in a shack, just him and his dog (who receives his own credit at the beginning of the film), on the shore of a small, sparsely inhabited island on the Great Barrier Reef. There he meets young Cora Ryan (Helen Mirren), who has grown up wild, with her only relative, her difficult, gin-guzzling grandmother 'Ma' (Neva Carr Glyn). To earn money, Cora sells Bradley fish that she has caught in the sea. She later sells him a chicken which she has stolen from his spinster neighbour Isabel Marley (Andonia Katsaros). When Bradley is suspected of being the thief, he pays Isabel and gets Cora to promise not to steal any more. To help her save enough money to fulfill her dream of becoming a hairdresser in Brisbane, he pays her to be his model. She reinvigorates him, becoming his artistic muse. Bradley's work is disrupted when his sponging longtime "friend" Nat Kelly (Jack MacGowran) shows up. Nat is hiding from the police over alimony he owes. When Bradley refuses to give him a loan, Nat invites himself to stay with Bradley. After several days, Bradley's patience becomes exhausted, but Nat then focuses his attention on romancing Isabel, hoping to get some money from her. Instead, she unexpectedly ravishes him. The next day, he hastily departs the island, but not before stealing Bradley's money and some of his drawings. Ma subsequently catches Cora posing nude for Bradley and accuses him of carrying on with her underage granddaughter. Bradley protests that he has done nothing improper. Finally, he gives her the little money he has left to get her to go away. When Cora discovers that Ma has found her hidden cache of money, she chases after her. In the ensuing struggle, Ma falls down a hill, breaks her neck, and dies. The local policeman sees no reason to investigate further, since the old woman was known to be frequently drunk. Later that night, Cora goes to Bradley's shack, but is disappointed when he seems to view her only as his model. When she runs out, Bradley follows her into the water, where he finally comes to view her as a desirable young woman. Mason’s accent isn’t great, although I love his voice, and the desire between both he and Mirren is never really that convincing. I didn’t find the last scene to be the most logic as neither character ever saw each other as anything other than an opportunity – inspiration for him and a way out for her. As much as I enjoyed Jack MacGowran’s performance, he brought the film back to the typical sex comedy of the era, when before his appearance it all seemed rather grown up and contemporary. The younger actor’ performances were a stark contrast to the more seasoned actor’s performances and they never really worked in unison. Months later Michael Powell admitted the film had turned out to be too comedic, suggesting it was "A sensual comedy. Not a big success, but interesting anyway." The film will always be best remembered for the nude Helen Mirren and the problems the production had with censorship. It’s a shame in many respects, because all of the great scenes and the clever script have been overlooked ever since. It is a nice film, no masterpiece and no where near Powell’s finest work but it does have a lot of charm to it and it remains a fascinating film for various different reasons.

Can You Ever Forgive Me?

Dir: Marielle Heller

2018

****

It’s a funny old world when forged letters are now more valuable than originals but you can never put a price on a good story. Can You Ever Forgive Me? Is an adaptation of the confessional memoir written by Lee Israel. Israel, down on her luck in the early 90s following the critical and commercial failure of her biography of Estée Lauder, began forging letters from deceased authors and playwrights when she found there was a market for them. The failure of her Estée Lauder biography left her with financial troubles, writer's block and ignited her decent further into alcoholism. She was forced to sell many of her things to cover expenses, including her prize possession, a personal letter she received from Katharine Hepburn. She sold the letter to a local book dealer and learned that there was a market for such things. While drinking away her sorrows she bumped into an old friend, Jack Hock, a flamboyant drug dealer and her story took off from there. I’m really not much of a Melissa McCarthy fan but I know she can act. I just wish she’d do more of this than the usual duff comedies she gets involved in. Jack Hock is played brilliantly by Richard E. Grant, who by all accounts, is said to have got the character right by the few people who remember him, while also dusting off Withnail for another outing. I know many will suggest that his Hock and his Withnail are different, but director Marielle Heller, or the producers, or both, clearly wanted a bit of Grant’s classic character and had him toasting his double whiskeys with a chin chin, standing in the rain and cleaning a filthy apartment – all classic Withnail memories. No complains here and I’m sure the real Jack Hock would have been thrilled. McCarthy and Grant make a great double act and the film is an easy watch. While conducting research for a potential Fanny Brice biography, Israel discovered two letters written by Brice, one of which she takes and shows to Anna, the book dealer she sold her Katharine Hepburn letter to. Anna gives a low offer due to the letter's bland content, prompting Israel to return home, add a postscript to the second letter, and bring it back to Anna, who takes the letter for $350. Israel then starts forging and selling further letters by deceased celebrities, incorporating intimate details in an attempt to command higher prices. Anna, who is a fan of Israel's writing, tries to initiate a romantic relationship but is rebuffed by an unconfident Israel. When one of Israel's letters raises suspicion for its unguarded discussion of Noël Coward's sexuality – something his fans and experts know would not exist - her buyers start blacklisting her. Now unable to sell the forgeries, she has Jack sell the letters for her. She also begins to steal authentic letters from libraries and archives to sell, replacing them with forged duplicates. While Israel is out of town committing one such theft, her elderly cat dies under Jack's care – or lack of. She ends their friendship but continues their criminal partnership out of necessity. Jack was caught by the FBI while attempting a sale and cooperated with them, resulting in Israel being served with a court summons. She retained a lawyer, who advised her to show contrition by getting a job, doing community service, and joining Alcoholics Anonymous. In court, Israel confesses she enjoyed creating the forged letters and does not regret her actions, but realizes her crimes were not worth it because the forgeries did not show her true self as a writer. She is sentenced to five years' probation and six months' house arrest. Sometime later, Israel reconciles with Jack, who is now dying of AIDS, and asks his permission to write a memoir about their escapades, to which he agrees. While passing a bookstore, she sees a Dorothy Parker letter she forged on sale for $1900. Disgusted, she writes the store owner a sarcastic note in Parker's voice. Upon receiving Israel's note and realizing that the letter in the storefront window is a fake, the owner removes it from the window but changes his mind and decides to keep it on display. While I’m sure many book store still sold her work, knowing full well it was one of hers, the part about asking Jack permission to write the memoir is untrue. The pair never met after the FBI investigation, although Israel said in her memoir that in 1994, a few months before his death from an HIV-related cause , she saw him in the waiting area of a Manhattan medical clinic for poor people. She admitted that she had the urge to trip him after he stood up from his seat, but she restrained herself. He did not see her. In the film he asks that when she writes about him that she doesn’t make him out to be an idiot. It’s sadly not true but he certainly isn’t depicted as an idiot. Artistic licence is a grey area and I’m a firm believer in sticking to the facts – particularly when real people are involved, and especially when they are no longer alive and therefore cannot defend themselves. However, both characters strike me as people who enjoyed a little magic and clearly had a thing for stories and fiction, so I don’t think any harm is done by sprinkling a little bit of sugar on what is still an authentically sad story. Lee forged and sold approximately 400 letters in total and two of them were included in Noël Coward's 2007 biography, although they were removed by the second printing. The New York Times called Lee Israel's book a "sordid and pretty damned fabulous book." And I think the film also reflects that. It certainly looked like the early 90s and each character was researched and performed with respect. That said, the film is all about the lead performances, Julianne Moore was originally set to play Israel, while both Sam Rockwell and Chris O'Dowd were both once attached to play the Jack Hock character – three great actors who I admire – but McCarthy and Grant, two actors who I wouldn’t have thought of personally, absolutely (with)nailed it.

Cat on a Hot Tin Roof
Dir: Richard Brooks
1958
***

Tennessee Williams plays are not to be messed with, you either get them right or you get them wrong, with Richard Brooks’ 1958 adaption of Cat on a Hot Tin Roof being the only exception, as it is both good and not so good. The direction is fine and the performances by Elizabeth Taylor and Paul Newman are legendary, and I think Burl Ives is the best Big Daddy to date, but the source material had been tampered with. Indeed, Tennessee Williams so disliked Brooks’ adaptation that he told people queuing outside theatres in its first week "This movie will set the industry back 50 years. Go home!". It was originally to be filmed in black and white, as was the standard practice with artistic films in the 1950s. Virtually all film adaptations of the plays of Tennessee Williams had been in black and white up to that time but once Newman and Taylor were cast in the lead roles, director Brooks insisted on shooting in color, in deference to the public's well known enthusiasm for Taylor's violet and Newman's strikingly blue eyes. I understand his decision, but black and white could have been glorious, as it is the direction is adequate and the performances are magic but it has nothing to do with eye colour. The story begins late one night when a drunken Brick Pollitt (Newman) is out trying to recapture his glory days of high school sports by leaping hurdles on a track field, dreaming about his moments as a youthful athlete. Drunk, he falls and breaks his leg, leaving him dependent on a crutch. Brick, along with his wife, Maggie "the Cat" (Taylor), are seen the next day visiting his family's estate in eastern Mississippi, there to celebrate Big Daddy's (Burl Ives) 65th birthday. Depressed, Brick has spent the last few years drinking, while resisting the affections of his wife, who taunts him about the inheritance of Big Daddy's wealth. This has resulted in an obviously tempestuous marriage - there are speculations as to why Maggie does not yet have a child while Brick's brother Gooper (Jack Carson) and his wife Mae (Madeleine Sherwood) have a whole pack of children – but no great detail is given. Big Daddy and Big Mama (Judith Anderson) arrive home from the hospital via their private airplane and are greeted by their family, minus Brick. Despite the efforts of Mae, Gooper and their kids to draw his attention to them, Big Daddy has eyes only for Maggie. The news is that Big Daddy is not dying from cancer as they had first expected. However, the doctor later meets privately with first Gooper and then Brick where he divulges that it is a deception. Big Daddy has inoperable cancer and will likely be dead within a year, and the truth is being kept from him. Brick later confides in Maggie with the truth about Big Daddy's health, and she is heartbroken. Maggie wants Brick to take an interest in his father for both selfish and unselfish reasons, but Brick stubbornly refuses. As the party winds down for the night, Big Daddy meets with Brick in his room and reveals that he is fed up with his alcoholic son's behavior, demanding to know why he is so stubborn. At one point Maggie joins them and reveals what happened a few years ago on the night Brick's best friend and football teammate Skipper committed suicide. Maggie was jealous of Skipper because he had more of Brick's time, and says that Skip was lost without Brick at his side. She decided to ruin their relationship "by any means necessary", intending to seduce Skipper and put the lie to his loyalty to her husband. However, Maggie ran away without completing the plan. Brick had blamed Maggie for Skipper's death, but actually blames himself for not helping Skipper when he repeatedly phoned Brick in a hysterical state. After an argument, Brick lets it slip that Big Daddy will die from cancer and that this birthday will be his last. Shaken, Big Daddy retreats to the basement. Meanwhile, Gooper, who is a lawyer, and his wife argue with Big Mama about the family's cotton business and Big Daddy's will. Brick descends into the basement, a labyrinth of antiques and family possessions hidden away. He and Big Daddy confront each other in the film’s pinicle scene that is far from anything Tennessee Williams would ever write. Meanwhile the rest of the family begins to crumble under pressure, with Big Mama stepping up as a strong figure. Maggie says that she'd like to give Big Daddy her birthday present: the announcement of her being pregnant. After the jealous Mae calls Maggie a liar, Big Daddy and Brick defend her, even though Brick knows the statement is untrue and Big Daddy thinks the statement may be untrue. Even Gooper finds himself admitting, "That girl's got life in her, alright." Maggie and Brick reconcile, and the two kiss, with the implication that they will possibly make Maggie's "lie" become "truth". While the original is a passionate drama, it was never as melodramatic as this. However, my problem with the film is the same as Williams’. He was reportedly unhappy with the screenplay, which removed almost all of the homosexual themes and revised the third act section to include a lengthy scene of reconciliation between Brick and Big Daddy. Paul Newman, the film's star, had also stated his disappointment with the adaptation. The Hays Code limited Brick's portrayal of sexual desire for Skipper, and diminished the original play's critique of homophobia and sexism. It is an integral part of the play and the change undermines everything that was special about it. In truth I didn’t hate the extended reconciliation scene between Brick and Big Daddy and it is impossible not to love both Newman and Taylor’s performances but as much as I like it, it isn’t quite right. Marilyn Monroe actually  sought the role of Maggie the Cat and Elvis Presley was approached to play the role of Brick. As much as I loved the two leads, I do wonder what the Monroe/Presley version would have looked like and am a little sad that it doesn’t exist.