On the surface, this legal drama by David Mamet (based on a play by Terence Rattigan) is as straightforward as it gets: in early 20th century Britain, cadet Ronnie Winslow (Guy Edwards) is accused of theft and expelled from the naval academy; his family, led by father Arthur (the great Nigel Hawthorne), starts a legal crusade to prove the boy's innocence, hiring famed lawyer Sir Robert Morton (Jeremy Northam).
Mamet and Rattigan operate a deconstruction of the genre in both structure and themes. Court scenes are almost nonexistent; what we do see are preparations and aftermaths in the Winslow household, and the fallout of the case on the family's welfare.
For every character, there is something more at work than the pursuit of truth. Is Arthur Winslow motivated by paternal devotion and sense of justice or merely by pride? Does Sir Robert care about the case, or he just fancies Ronnie's spirited sister Catherine (Rebecca Pidgeon)? Catherine herself, the idealist, at one point appears ready to drop everything to save her imminent marriage with a conservative officer; the mother (Gemma Jones) worries about their waning wealth; the other son (Matthew Pidgeon), forced to abandon his studies, becomes eager to join the impending conflict and will probably end up on the trenches of WWI a few years later.
Even sneakier, is Ronnie truly innocent? The movie seemingly implies he is, but leaves a trail of breadcrumbs leading in the opposite direction as well. There is no explicit "Har har I did it!" twist - but, at the very least, it leaves you wondering. But maybe Ronnie's innocence is truly besides the point, as illustrated by his casual reaction to the final verdict - the family goes through a legal crusade, putting everything at stake, and the central figure of the whole case is just a boy oblivious to all the brouhaha.
Hawthorne and Northam are great; the movie is worth multiple viewings.
7/10
Mamet and Rattigan operate a deconstruction of the genre in both structure and themes. Court scenes are almost nonexistent; what we do see are preparations and aftermaths in the Winslow household, and the fallout of the case on the family's welfare.
For every character, there is something more at work than the pursuit of truth. Is Arthur Winslow motivated by paternal devotion and sense of justice or merely by pride? Does Sir Robert care about the case, or he just fancies Ronnie's spirited sister Catherine (Rebecca Pidgeon)? Catherine herself, the idealist, at one point appears ready to drop everything to save her imminent marriage with a conservative officer; the mother (Gemma Jones) worries about their waning wealth; the other son (Matthew Pidgeon), forced to abandon his studies, becomes eager to join the impending conflict and will probably end up on the trenches of WWI a few years later.
Even sneakier, is Ronnie truly innocent? The movie seemingly implies he is, but leaves a trail of breadcrumbs leading in the opposite direction as well. There is no explicit "Har har I did it!" twist - but, at the very least, it leaves you wondering. But maybe Ronnie's innocence is truly besides the point, as illustrated by his casual reaction to the final verdict - the family goes through a legal crusade, putting everything at stake, and the central figure of the whole case is just a boy oblivious to all the brouhaha.
Hawthorne and Northam are great; the movie is worth multiple viewings.
7/10