epaulguest Reviews

Back to Black (2024)

Uneven but interesting

[6/10 · 7 May 2024]

Amy Winehouse's life was inherently dramatic. This film by Sam Taylor-Johnson starts, however, rather quietly in her teenage years. So there's no insight into her earlier childhood (she apparently had a flair for maths), the development of her musical gifts or how she started recording and got gigs at the Dublin Castle pub, Camden Town, and Ronnie Scott's in Soho. Some background information on the screen might have been helpful.

Though the film centres on songs on the eponymous "Back to Black" album, I found their lyrics muffled on the sound track and very hard to follow, except on "Rehab" and "Valerie". There's no insight, either, into the background of the latter, which was a cover version; as a result its lyrics, unusually, don't reflect Amy's personal experience.

The portrayal of her husband Blake Fielder-Civil (Jack O'Connell) seems controversial; some critics have found it too sympathetic. The Winehouse family blamed him for introducing her to heroin and she said that their marriage was based on doing drugs. The film, however, suggests that she was more dangerous for him.

Positively, Marisa Abela is spectacular as Amy; she makes her seem real and does full justice to a number of her songs. The film quite subtly shows us Amy's Jewish family and close relationship with both her father, Mitch (Eddie Marsan), and especially her grandmother, Cynthia (Lesley Manville). It makes clear her sophisticated musical tastes, too. She had a strong need to live her songs. In one brief scene she looks and sounds touchingly kind and natural, not a "celebrity".

Appropriately, "arty" effects are avoided. There's just one very striking visual touch, I think: a face half-reflected in a mirror. Scenes shot after dark might recall film noir, though I was a bit disappointed by the limited outside scenes in Camden Town. It would have been interesting to follow Amy's moves in different parts of the district.

We see her, more than once, being chased through the streets. Perhaps these scenes unavoidably recall another woman with a tempestuous life who died very sadly early.

I think this film is uneven but never less than interesting.

Napoleon (2023)

Doesn't do him justice

[5/10 · 30 December 2023]

Sadly Sir Ridley Scott's film doesn't do Napoleon justice. Joaquin Phoenix seems miscast or perhaps the screenplay makes him play the character on one note: morose, surly, un-charismatic. He was much more compelling as the tyrannical Roman emperor Commodus in "Gladiator", also directed by Scott. As Josephine, Vanessa Kirby only appears in some brief scenes and their relationship isn't very passionate.

There are some blatant historical errors: Napoleon wasn't present at the execution of Marie-Antoinette, Robespierre was guillotined not (as in the film, I think) beaten to death, Napoleon has an imaginary meeting before the Battle of Waterloo and, most blatantly, he wasn't born in February 1768 as he states, but on 15 August 1769. In fact, 1768 - though in May - was the year when his native Corsica officially became French.

The battle scenes are certainly spectacular, and superbly choreographed. However, their choreography perhaps makes them look too elegant, not drenched in blood and gore (maybe my attention wandered). The choreography is excellent in the Court scenes, with beautiful dances - making an ironic contrast with the battles. Those are the only scenes in the film that I really enjoyed.

Understandably, it's impossible even to condense Napoleon's biography in 2½ hours. We see nothing for instance about the Napoleonic Code, which had a far-reaching influence on civil law, or his pioneering, and perhaps grandiose, town planning projects. So it would have been helpful to caption various scenes on the screen, explaining the nature of the battles and sketching his origins, earlier life, other achievements and rise to power.

Oppenheimer (I) (2023)

Gripping, complex, deep

[8/10 · 15 September 2023]

This film gripped me for almost all of its three hours. It gives quite a complex account of J. Robert Oppenheimer's life and work in terms of science, politics and personal relationships, against a background of war and political witch-hunting. (To prepare for this review, I saw it a second time - and was even more impressed than before.)

Personal relationships colour the work of Oppenheimer (Cillian Murphy) in two crucial ways: the critical reactions of his wife, Kitty (Emily Blunt), and his increasingly difficult relationship with the Chair of the US Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), Lewis Strauss, pronounced 'Straws' (Robert Downey Jr.). We see how that relationship deteriorates, while Oppenheimer's relations with Lt-General Leslie ("Dick") Groves (Matt Damon), who directed the Manhattan Project (1942-46), grow warmer.

The film places Oppenheimer in the context of his times: two immensely influential scientists appear - Niels Bohr (Kenneth Branagh) and Werner Heisenberg (Matthias Schweighöfer) - and there are brief, but telling, allusions to ground-breaking figures in the arts. This is very much to the credit of the director, Christopher Nolan, who also wrote the screenplay.

Oppenheimer tends to appear curiously passive at times in relation both to his wife and to his mistress Jean Tatlock (Florence Pugh), but Murphy also portrays him as a thoughtful, brooding character; the physical resemblance between them is striking, even including hollow cheeks. While the drama's essential framework is political, Oppenheimer's talents as a physicist are still very clear. Early in the film he looks like an inspirational teacher too; as such, he offers a simple yet vivid explanation of quantum mechanics, the scientific basis of the atomic bomb.

He is not only inspirational but dazzling when he makes a triumphant announcement to an ecstatic audience. By contrast he is later deeply subdued in a meeting with President Harry S. Truman (Gary Oldman).

While the film is largely realistic and based on documentary evidence, Nolan allows himself some fantasy scenes. These are especially effective when Oppenheimer imagines everyone around him turning a deathly white; this contrasts strongly with earlier brief shots of multi-coloured particles soaring into the air.

Oppenheimer even comes to form a fantasy vision, prompted inadvertently by a conversation with Einstein (Tom Conti), of the course his life might have taken after the hearings in 1954 over the issue of his security pass.

Those momentous hearings lie at the heart of the film; they generate scenes in flashback with a justifiable non-linear sequence. In some other inventive camera work, they are filmed partly in black and white. Nolan has said this symbolises that the scenes concerned are viewed objectively. Perhaps they also hint at film noir ("dark film").

A trial in all but name, the hearings seem scarcely any different from those held by the notorious Joseph McCarthy. Oppenheimer appears tense yet restrained, and tension mounts from the way he contrasts with Roger Robb (Jason Clarke), special counsel for the AEC, who is deceptively quite affable. It is chilling to see how the Establishment seeks to close ranks against someone who doesn't "fit in" with it.

Sadly, the film's music, composed by Ludwig Göransson, strikes a discordant note literally and figuratively. So loud is it at times that it even drowns out the actors. This makes it less intense, not more.

There is a historical error in the film: some famous words are wrongly attributed to Karl Marx. Far more important, the area of New Mexico where the Trinity Test (experimental explosion) was held was not as deserted as it appears. This is quite a serious omission.

Overall, though, the acting, filming and directing of "Oppenheimer" are all first-class; they draw us deep into the great scientist's life, times and complex character.

Early in the film, by the way, Oppenheimer says that his initial J doesn't stand for anything. His first name was in fact Julius.

Tár (2022)

Curious but engaging

[7/10 · 17 February 2023]

This curious but engaging film, over 2½ hours long, centres on the public and private lives of Lydia Tár (Cate Blanchett). As the first female conductor of a major Berlin orchestra, she is addressed as "maestro". The film opens with an interview in which she tells the real-life journalist Adam Gopnik about her dedication to classical music. This offers some real insight into conducting and there are a few references to composers and conductors in the film.

The film's leading characters are all female. Lydia is in a same-sex relationship, with Sharon Goodnow (Nina Hoss), and dotes on her very young daughter. It may seem that she's a committed feminist. She's too self-centred, though, to be a true "sister".

Her darker side emerges in a scene at the Juilliard Music School, New York City, when she defends a great composer against some contemptuous remarks by a student, Max (Zephthan Smith-Gneist), who gets angry with her haughty and patronising attitude.

It's clear from her early conversation with Eliot Kaplan (Mark Strong), an amateur conductor and her partner in a charity, that she feels no real loyalty to her staff. She can be arrogant and dictatorial, spreading her favours quite capriciously, and even alienate those closest to her. She angrily accuses one character of obsequiousness and hypocrisy.

As "Tár" goes on, her private life intrudes on her public life and she suffers some humiliation. The film moves rapidly between short scenes from both. Here, though, it looks too much like the sum of its parts. It could have centred on an event which surely would have been humbling: the death of a woman very close to Lydia. This is a major loose end, as the consequences for her are very serious and potentially complex. There is another loose end, less serious but still glaring, involving a brutal assault.

Artistically, there's a striking interplay of light and dark, notably when Lydia is at home with Sharon. I found Cate Blanchett's performance spellbinding (again) and it's remarkable that as a "maestro" in Berlin she speaks quite a lot of German.

Unusually, the credits roll at the beginning. There are a great many.

Mrs. Harris Goes to Paris (2022)

More than a charming fairy tale

[10/10 · 6 December 2022]

Lesley Manville excels in this comedy drama, which is also a charming, good-natured fairy tale - and something more.

Ada Harris, a widowed middle-aged charwoman from Battersea, is hilarious as an 'innocent abroad' among upper-class snobs at the House of Dior in Paris. Her language itself is very funny, full of London slang with no concessions to French. She chatters almost non-stop but is treated politely by the accountant André Fauvel (Lucas Bravo) and the fashion model Natasha (Alba Baptista), who befriend her. She gets on less well, though, with Dior's manageress Madame Claudine Colbert (Isabelle Huppert), at least initially...

In London she contrasts with her employer Lady Dant (Anna Chancellor), who keeps failing to pay her. So, to buy the Dior dress of her dreams, she relies on the football pools and betting. Thanks to more than one windfall too, she's even able to fly to Paris - in 1957.

Her home is obviously far humbler than Lady Dant's, not to mention the House of Dior. She has two faithful friends in London, though: Vi Butterfield (Ellen Thomas) and Archie (Jason Isaacs). Their respective backgrounds, West Indian and Irish, hint at London's multiculturalism.

Vi and another West Indian character, Chandler (Delroy Atkinson), look surprisingly welcome in the era of 'No Blacks, no dogs, no Irish' but this is best seen simply as part of the film's fairy-tale charm. With its sub-text about class differences, however, it is more than a fairy tale. Ada is a David to the Goliath of high fashion, ostentatious wealth, conspicuous consumption and class-ridden snobbery.

Full credit to the director Anthony Fabian, the costume designer Jenny Beavan and the cast - but, above all, Lesley Manville.

Cyrano (2021)

Visually stunning but disappointing overall

[5/10 · 22 March 2022]

I found this film sadly disappointing. It has some stunning visual effects but as drama it's quite dull and the singing is utterly unappealing.

Being unaware it would be a musical, I imagined that the first song, by Roxanne (Haley Bennett), was a "one-off". All the songs sounded monotonous and uninteresting to me, almost dirges, and I simply didn't listen to their lyrics. I gather the director, Joe Wright, has said it's a musical for people who don't like musicals. If so, why make it like that?

The relationship between Cyrano (Peter Dinklage) and Roxanne didn't seem interesting either, in fact unconvincing. No doubt it's meant to be an exploration of the quest for true love. Those two form a triangle with Roxanne's suitor Christian (Kelvin Harrison Jr), and De Guiche (Ben Mendelsohn) is in the background. The sudden changes of location near the end seemed confusing - or did I miss something?

The film scores highly, though, for some great settings and visual effects, despite too many close-ups (including one of two characters in profile). It felt much better at the beginning, with a delightfully riotous playhouse scene (shades of "Shakespeare in Love"?). What a pity it soon went downhill. I'm giving visual qualities 4 points, drama 1, songs 0. Even the best visual effects shouldn't have to "carry" a film.

This film is based on the play "Cyrano de Bergerac" by Edmond Rostand (1868-1918), which I haven't seen but I'm aware that it famously features Cyrano's enormous nose. Instead of that, the film focuses on Peter Dinklage's height, 4 ft 5in (when he first appeared, I was surprised his nose wasn't big). I imagine "Cyrano" would work better on stage, with more intensity, especially given Dinklage's booming voice and strong facial features. In 2019 he starred in an Off-Broadway production, which was well received.

Last Night in Soho (2021)

Skilful blend of the mundane and uncanny

[8/10 · 7 December 2021]

What is reality? What is delusion, not merely illusion? Edgar Wright's ingenious film prompts those questions with great and unsettling power.

It causes unease almost from the start, when Eloise Turner, "Ellie" (Thomasin McKenzie), takes a black cab to her students' hostel in Soho. London here contrasts very unpleasantly with Cornwall, where Ellie has grown up in the care of her loving grandmother, Margaret Turner (Rita Tushingham), and with a large collection of 1960s records, which she loves despite her age.

Her fear gives way to tension when she meets fellow students, including her roommate Jocasta (Synnøve Karlsen), who comes across as conceited, two-faced and simply odious. The viewer is led, I think, to share her feelings as a timid newcomer. Later, some brilliant camerawork makes her appear literally on the outside looking in, somewhere else.

It seems a relief when Ellie finds some digs. There, however, the trouble starts. She has bizarre dreams, apparently imagining her breakthrough as a beautiful 1960s blonde nightclub singer, surrounded by male admirers. At first these look like classic examples of Freud's theory that dreams are essentially wish-fulfilments.

Ellie remains innocent and vulnerable while the blonde becomes an alter ego in the full sense: a second self for Ellie but also an individual, "Sandie" (Anya Taylor-Joy). She's heartlessly exploited by the men, who in one case even fight over her, and has a relationship with a domineering and abusive club owner, Jack (Matt Smith). At one point a famous 1960s Eurovision winner is performed at his club in music-hall style with a fantastic troupe of dancers; this is by far the film's happiest scene but with sinister undertones. Taylor-Joy is dynamic throughout the film.

The film blends naturalism with the uncanny very skilfully. No doubt due to her fashion course fees and her rent, Ellie finds evening work at a pub. Both there and at college her life seems completely mundane - until she keeps getting horrifying visions of Sandie, including one in the college library; these make her flee as though running for her life. She even dashes along Carnaby Street - legendary for '60s London fashion - but doesn't seem to notice it, which suggests how distraught she is. Soho and the '60s really have starring roles.

Her terror gets even worse when it seems a "silver-haired gentleman" (Terence Stamp) has his eye on her. Another figment of her deluded imagination? In the end his identity is revealed in a shocking yet perfectly naturalistic scene.

Her panic attacks alarm both her would-be boyfriend, John (Michael Ajao), and the pub owner, Carol (Pauline McLynn). They and Ellie's landlady Miss Collins (Dame Diana Rigg) are portrayed naturalistically - though not entirely in the case of John and Miss Collins. Ellie, John and Carol are the film's most likable characters; Diana Rigg makes Miss Collins look rather maternal with hints of menace.

If the film has a moral, it is not only "Be careful what you wish for" but "Don't believe that - to adapt a song by Petula Clark (1967) - 'The other man's (or woman's) grass is always greener.'" Given Ellie's devotion to '60s music, there's also a veiled warning against glamorising the past - though Miss Collins remarks that the songs were better then.

Is Ellie a victim or a victor? Ultimately it seems impossible to say.

Petula Clark's classic Downtown is among the numerous '60s hits on the film's sound track. These were a bit too insistent for my liking in the first half but less noticeable in the second. Just one other reservation: the horrors seem disproportionate and "stagey" towards the end.

There's an error in the ad that Ellie answers, for a room in Soho. Miss Collins actually lives in Fitzrovia. An envelope with her full address is shown near the end. It also shows her first name.

If.... (1968)

In the spirit of '68

[8/10 · 2 September 2021]

This film is a powerful and largely satisfying satire on boys' public schools. It's extremely well acted, especially by Malcolm McDowell as 'Mick' Travis, who's on screen for most of it.

The drama focuses on College House, part of an unnamed school. Near the opening a new boy, Jute (Sean Bury), is very bewildered and can't find his class. Though he's a minor character we see the school through his eyes at that point and may appreciate how vulnerable he is. The juniors are called 'scum' by older boys.

The Housemaster, Mr Kemp (Arthur Lowe), delivers a short address then hands over to the leading 'Whip', i.e. Prefect, Rowntree (Robert Swann). Kemp effectively looks subordinate to him. Rowntree's power becomes increasingly clear - in hindsight, he's asking for trouble. Teachers are largely absent, so the boys can be as anarchic as they like - shades of 'Lord of the Flies'? The quality of teaching is appalling and the maths master Rev. Wood (Geoffrey Chater), who is also the school chaplain, is especially obnoxious. Religion merely gets lip-service at the school.

The Headmaster (Peter Jeffrey), while superficially caring and fair-minded, may act as a caricature of the permissive '60s ethos. At least he's not as much of a 'slimeball' as the headmasters Frobisher in 'The Browning Version' and Felix Armstrong in 'The History Boys', but he is essentially quite stupid and ineffective.

The staff clearly have no conception of a duty of care and there's even licensed bullying, which reaches a horrifying climax in one scene. These points, together with the teachers' tendency to keep away outside class times, sadly have the ring of truth much exaggerated though they are.

The second half of the film is less strong than the first, weakened by some effects that are too stylised, 'arty', notably in scenes involving The Girl (Christine Noonan). Boys seem free to roam around the local town. Another possible weakness is that no boys are from ethnic minorities (I can remember pupils with an African-Caribbean or Asian background at boarding school in the '60s).

There are hints of homosexual inclinations but, not surprisingly, they aren't very explicit. Rowntree smugly assigns a junior, Bobby Philips (Rupert Webster), who appears gay to serve the puritanical prefect Denson (Hugh Thomas).

I'd have liked the ending to be more naturalistic. It can't simply have seemed pure fantasy ever since a 16-year-old American schoolgirl declared 'I don't like Mondays' as in the Boom Town Rats song. So the film is dated in that sense. It does, however, capture the rebellious spirit of 1968, as Lindsay Anderson must have been aware.

There's a nicely symbolic, and perhaps ominous, touch when a print of Edvard Munch's famous painting 'The Scream' is briefly shown on a wall of the study that Travis shares with his mates Wallace (Richard Warwick), and Knightly (David Wood).

I saw the film when on release but only remembered the bizarre history master (Graham Crowden) asking Travis a pointless question. What could any boys possibly have learnt at that abysmal school?

The fine hymn 'He Who Would Valiant Be', sung a couple of times in 'If...', also features in the John Cleese film 'Clockwise' (1986), which satirises the public school ethos and class system less directly and menacingly.

The Personal History of David Copperfield (2019)

Deserves to be a double film

[6/10 · 10 February 2020]

This is a likeable film, with some comic touches handled with Armando Iannucci's characteristic skill. Dev Patel plays David with his customary charm, and it's not all played for laughs.

It brings out the themes of family life, financial insecurity, friendship and deception, and - especially - child abuse, which David suffers shockingly at the hands of the Murdstones (Darren Boyd and Gwendoline Christie) and in factory labour.

Its period details are vivid, especially in bustling City of London scenes (even if the lighting makes Victorian England look too sunny). The character of James Steerforth (Aneurin Barnard) develops subtly, from something like an upper-class twit to a nasty piece of work. It was a clever idea to have the same actress (Morfydd Clark) playing David's mother Clara and first wife Dora. In one scene there's a nice, and pointed, touch of topical relevance to "rough sleeping".

Ben Whishaw makes Uriah Heep look truly odious and brings out his sinister cunning, though I think Nicholas Lyndhurst was even better as Heep in the 1999 TV adaptation.

The film obviously takes some liberties with the novel. Heep and Steerforth know each other though I don't think they ever meet in the novel, some characters are missing, especially Tommy Traddles (a loyal friend of David and foil for Steerforth), perhaps Mr Dick (Hugh Laurie) is a bit too prominent, Agnes (Rosalind Eleazar) seems more "forward" than I remember in the novel and Micawber (Peter Capaldi) rather slyer. The intimate relationships between David and Dora and between Steerforth and "Little Emily" are shown but not developed. However, the climactic scene relating to the latter couple is extremely powerful and true to the novel.

There's some un-Victorian language when Betsey Trotwood, well played by Tilda Swinton, exclaims on her lawn "This is a donkey-free zone".

Dickens's novel really deserves a double film, like that of "Little Dorrit" by Christine Edzard (1987). This would do justice to the ways in which David learns from his varied experience. Maybe too expensive to make nowadays?

1917 (2019)

The pity of war

[9/10 · 16 January 2020]

This fine film's title made me think immediately of the Third Battle of Ypres, better known as Passchendaele. That, however, was fought between 31 July and 6 November 1917, whereas the film is set on 6 April. 1917 draws upon the memories of the director Sir Sam Mendes's grandfather and was designed, remarkably, to look like one continuous shot.

The two central characters, Lance-Corporals Tom Blake (Dean-Charles Chapman) and Will Schofield (George McKay), go on a desperate mission. This lasts one day, and certainly feels like it, and they're exposed to the full horror of World War 1. There's also a devastating tragedy along the way.

Together with the horror, I think, there's pathos. I was reminded of the words of the great WW1 poet Wilfred Owen, "My subject is War, and the pity of War. The Poetry is in the pity." This is partly reflected in the film's central theme of devotion to duty, based on absolute obedience to orders - even when a high-ranking officer tells Will to "f off" (I'd say that's one of the most shocking moments in the film).

There's some underlying pathos too in the camaraderie between most of the young soldiers. Of course we know now that the great majority had to make the ultimate sacrifice, so the pathos is self-evident. They couldn't have known that, though, and we see that they're generally innocently good-natured and quick to help their comrades. Tom and Will clash at times but essentially they have a strong bond of friendship.

Pity and horror are combined when soldiers are shot dead on sight simply for being identified as "the enemy". Some words from Wilfred Owen's poem "Strange Meeting" come to mind: "I am the enemy you killed, my friend. /I knew you in this dark: for so you frowned/Yesterday through me as you jabbed and killed." This is even more poignant as Owen himself was killed one week before the Armistice.

This film is deeply impressive and has, I think, no major faults. There are just some "arty" effects of flashing colours and some insistent background music. It also has touches of an action movie in which heroism triumphs against the most overwhelming odds. This is redeemed by the desperate seriousness of the mission at the heart of the film.

It was clever to give cameo roles to a few star actors, including Colin Firth, Benedict Cumberbatch and Richard Madden. Nicholas Hytner had already done the same in "The Lady in the Van", redeploying stars from the stage and screen versions of "The History Boys".

Mrs Lowry & Son (2019)

Doesn't do Lowry enough justice

[5/10 · 2 October 2019]

This film is mostly a 'two-hander'. It is set in 1934, when Lowry (Timothy Spall) was showing promise as an artist. It's quite intense and well acted, but sadly I don't think it represents his life or work adequately.

He only seems from the film to go about his day job, often pursued by cheeky kids, and then go home - at the same time every day - to his domineering and disapproving mother (Vanessa Redgrave). They both talk for hours in her claustrophobic bedroom, till he goes upstairs and secretly paints. It's worth noting that the director, Adrian Noble, also works in theatre.

The pair's conversations must be imaginary. However, Elizabeth Lowry is known to have been embittered at 'coming down in the world' to a lower-class industrial area, well conveyed in the film by long terraces on steep hills. She takes a rosy-eyed view of a neighbour, Mrs Stanhope (Wendy Morgan), who strikes her as posh. Dramatic irony: Mrs Stanhope and her husband (Stephen Lord) aren't happy together.

Lowry spies on Mrs Stanhope and it seems to be implied that he finds women inscrutable. There's no hint that he in fact had platonic female friends and was a football supporter, and also had a mischievous sense of humour (though it's amusing that he has clocks around the house, all telling different times - which is based on fact).

Vanessa Redgrave comes across as 'shabby-genteel' and tiresome but with some flashes of sensitivity. Timothy Spall gives Lowry a bemused manner and facial expression, as though never able to understand his mother. Both performances are memorable but I just don't think the film does Lowry enough justice.

An engaging short film is shown afterwards, 'Looking at Lowry', with Claire Stewart, a curator at 'The Lowry' in Salford.

Tolkien (2019)

Opportunity sadly missed

[5/10 · 6 July 2019]

J. R. R. Tolkien is best known for "Lord of the Rings" and "The Hobbit", but Dome Karukosi's film focuses on his early life till he becomes an Oxford don and suggests how his prodigious flair for philology and early Germanic languages developed. However, there's no strong focus on this and I think too much time is spent on his antics with fellow pupils at a grammar school in Birmingham.

Flashbacks from his service in WW1 (in which he suffered tragic losses) and scenes from his early childhood, which was rather complicated, are more substantial; likewise the beginnings of his relationship with Edith Bratt, his future wife. All these and his school life could, however, have been secondary to his intellectual development and achievements.

On his first day at the grammar school we see him reciting lines from Chaucer in perfect Middle English, with a convincing accent, after an obnoxious teacher mocks his surname. While it's not clear if there's any truth in this, he did teach himself Old English (Anglo-Saxon) as a boy. By the way, having studied Old English though not very good at it, I was pleased to recognise a quotation, near the end of the film, from the epic poem "The Battle of Maldon": "Courage shall be the greater as our strength lessens" (maybe not the same wording as in the film).

Tolkien's specialist fields are rather esoteric, but less so than those of the mathematical genius Srinivasa Ramanujan, central to "The Man Who Knew Infinity" (2016), directed by Matthew Brown. The latter film succeeds, even so, in charting Ramanujan's life and work very clearly. I wonder whether it influenced this film: Ramanujan had a mentor at Cambridge, the distinguished mathematician G. H. Hardy, while Tolkien seems to have had a mentor at Oxford, the great philologist Joseph Wright. It's not certain, though, that Tolkien begged to join Wright's course as he does in the film.

The scene in which Tolkien recites lines from Chaucer by heart could have been a major turning point. Sadly, the opportunity to explore his development as an extremely distinguished scholar and imaginative writer was missed.

As Tolkien, Nicholas Hoult is quite charming and Lily Collins portrays Edith Bratt as both sensitive and yet forceful. They formed a very solid, enduring relationship. Derek Jacobi only has a minor role as Joseph Wright but makes a real impact.

Germinal (1993)

Worthy to stand alongside Zola's great novel

[10/10 · 10 May 2019]

Emile Zola's novel "Germinal" is an epic masterpiece. So is Claude Berri's film of it. This film brings out the intensity of Zola's novel, its terror and the shocking divisions in French society during the Second Empire (1852-70). It centres on a community of miners whose bosses effectively pay starvation wages, reduce pay by altering working conditions unfavourably and fine miners for faulty work (whether their fault or not). Conversely, the mine owners expect the miners' families - including children who go down the pit - to save money while themselves living and feasting in luxury.

The miners receive some little acts of kindness from one or two of the younger bourgeois women, but it seems their only real amusements are drinking and watching cock-fighting.

Such a society looks ripe for uprisings by the working class, if not a revolution, though both the novel and the film reflect tensions between revolutionary aims and reformism. The Russian anarchist Souvarine (Laurent Terzieff, of Russian descent) has a crucial role in this context.

The film very probably has a real cast of thousands. It is said to have been the most expensive French film of its time. Tramping en masse across the northern French countryside, the miners are a terrifying sight.

The scenes featuring miners are mostly very dark, a sharp contrast with the colour and elegance of the pit bosses' homes. They live in hovels where whole families have to share a dirty bath, and we can really feel the terrible dangers of their daily work.

As in the novel, the central characters are Toussaint Maheu (Gérard Depardieu) and his family. He displays great dignity and a generous spirit, while his wife "La Maheude" (Miou-Miou), not called Madame Maheu, has a quiet intensity and burning sense of injustice on her family's behalf. Etienne Lantier (Renaud), one of Zola's "outsider" figures, seems to be less of a catalyst for radical change than in the novel. He's more reactive, but has a thoughtful, brooding presence.

This film is inevitably more schematic than the novel. It can't, for instance, reproduce a poetic passage evoking the plight of horses down the pit (though the horses in the film look pretty sad). More than one disaster occurs in the story, and I think the transitions back to normal life look too quick. There are touches of caricature, especially in the villainous Chaval (Jean-Roger Milo) who seems a bit "stagey". In contrast, the mean-spirited local shopkeeper Maigrat (Gérard Croce) is convincingly odious; he suffers a horrible fate, though it is shown more explicitly in the novel.

Overall, this film by Claude Berri and his sister and co-writer Arlette Langmann fully deserves to stand alongside Emile Zola's great novel.

The Favourite (2018)

Unrewarding and wastes good opportunities

[3/10 · 29 January 2019]

This is not my favourite film. Apparently it's a comedy, but I found it unrewarding and not funny at all. Though perhaps superficially true to the historical facts, it's completely lacking in depth and only "nods" towards its historical background. The War of the Spanish Succession (1701-14) is a backdrop to the film but, absurdly, seems the only public issue in the reign of Queen Anne (Olivia Coleman).

True, there was a triangular relationship between Anne, Sarah Churchill (Rachel Weisz) and Abigail Hill, later Baroness Masham (Emma Stone). However, there seems to be no evidence of a real lesbian relationship between Anne and Abigail, just an allegation by Sarah - who according to evidence could be cold, bossy and vengeful.

The film makes Robert Harley, 1st Earl of Oxford & Earl Mortimer (Nicholas Hoult), look effete and rather effeminate, but he was in fact effectively Anne's First Minister from 1711 to her death in 1714.

The historical figures are, then, pretty crudely drawn. Anne is often caricatured in the film. She seems to have had quite a hard life, with serious ailments - especially gout, which the film doesn't treat seriously - and, as she mentions herself, she lost 17 children. She's also portrayed as prone to alarming mood swings and pompous behaviour, e.g. by exclaiming "I am The Queen" and ordering Abigail only to speak when spoken to. No one would know from this film that she was deeply religious.

The portrayal of Anne reminded me of George III in Alan Bennett's film and the lesbian faded soap actress "Sister George", both in much better dramas. Perhaps "The Favourite" is a film in which "The Madness of King George" meets "The Killing of Sister George".

"The Favourite" wastes some good opportunities. As it's based on real events, it should have exploited them in some detail. At least I found the leading actresses' performances very powerful and was impressed by the film's lighting, which suggests how much an interior depended on natural light from outside. The sound track, however, is rather strange: in a couple of early and late scenes there's a noise like a siren. Some of the dialogue (leaving expletives aside) sounded far more 21st-century than 18th.

Queen Anne would make quite an interesting subject for a serious film. She has a pivotal place in British history, as the last Stuart monarch and the daughter of this country's last Catholic monarch, James II. Parts of her biography could be interwoven on film with scenes from her personal life based on reliable sources.

Genevieve (1953)

A sweet, charming, nostalgic masterpiece

[10/10 · 3 January 2019]

A story of rivalry between two Alpha male drivers: no, not James Hunt and Nikki Lauder in the powerful drama "Rush" but Ambrose Claverhouse (Kenneth More) and Alan McKim (John Gregson) in "Genevieve". Those two films could hardly be more different.

Alan's car "Genevieve" dates from 1904, in the Edwardian era, and this sweet, charming film may have been intended to arouse nostalgia for those days. It now makes the early 1950s - just after World War 2 - look like a "golden afternoon" as well. What a delight the two men's language is, e.g. "Steady on, Old Boy", "Jolly good", "Silly ass". All good, clean, innocent fun.

The film recalls not only 1904 but also 1928, then of course quite recent, and 1896 - which is treated as history though still in living memory. Two characters, however, rather undermine the nostalgia: Alan's wife Wendy (Dinah Sheridan) scoffs at a car that's "fifty years old", and a policeman (Harold Siddons) snaps that Genevieve would have been "out of date forty years ago". By contrast, an old gentleman (Arthur Wontner) is enchanted on seeing that the car is just like one that he owned in 1904; Alan's response is surprising and makes him look more likeable.

For all its charm, the film does have some "grit". There's marital strife between Alan and Wendy, implicating Ambrose in the "eternal triangle", and in one scene Alan is thoroughly nasty to an accident victim (Reginald Beckwith). Though that scene is probably meant to be funny, it's still effective if taken seriously - indeed, I found it shocking.

Wendy looks at first like a stereotypical '50s housewife, whose place is in the home. Later on, though, she is remarkably assertive and even perhaps a bit of a proto-feminist. We see the two men, to some extent, through her critical eyes.

There's a wonderfully hilarious scene when she and Alan arrive at a hotel. Joyce Grenfell has a delightful cameo role as the proprietress, and the hotel facilities almost make Fawlty Towers look like the Savoy. The tone gets a little darker once the couple are in their room and Wendy bursts into hysterical laughter; this goes on so long that it's hard, I think, to avoid feeling uneasy.

The film vividly evokes postwar London, with very little traffic on the roads, and a pre-motorway English countryside. Its period atmosphere is all the richer for the theme tune on Larry Adler's harmonica - the best film theme tune I know of.

"Genevieve", in my view, is a masterpiece of film comedy. I think I could watch it again and again and still be moved by its great beauty and charm. As its director, Henry Cornelius even surpasses his success with the classic Ealing comedy "Passport to Pimlico" (1949). How sad that he died aged 44 in 1958.

The car shares the name of the patron saint of Paris, who diverted Attila's Huns away from the city. Whether this is relevant seems hard to tell.

Peterloo (2018)

Gripping throughout

[8/10 · 26 November 2018]

The Peterloo Massacre, on 16 August 1819, undoubtedly deserves the epic treatment that Mike Leigh's film gives it. The film as a whole, however, isn't epic but quite restrained. Despite its unusual length, I found it gripping throughout.

It portrays a society in which poor people are undernourished due to restrictions on grain import, the law freely imposes cruel and disproportionate sentences, and the government spies on dissenters and relies on military force even against civilians. Also, there was no monarch as such at the time, just the bloated Prince Regent. So the people's demands for justice were not surprising.

There's also, however, a suggestion of some sympathy with the authorities who fear the influence of the French Revolution, 30 years earlier. So Leigh's approach is quite fair-minded.

His treatment of characters is not 'top-down'. Henry Hunt (Rory Kinnear), though the central figure, isn't simply portrayed as a hero. A gentleman farmer from Wiltshire, he seems unable, in the film, to overcome certain class assumptions: he tends to treat his Mancunian host family as servants and prevents the activist Samuel Bamford (Neil Bell) from addressing the reform meeting with him. In fact, it appears Bamford did speak and Hunt's friend Richard Carlile (Joseph Kloska) was due to speak before the meeting was disrupted. So Hunt was perhaps less patrician and autocratic than the film portrays him. As for Bamford, it seems unlikely that he was as submissive as the film suggests.

The Press emerges well, and Hunt may have owed a lot to it. Journalists on the 'Manchester Observer' (later Guardian) appear to have coined the name Peterloo and are keen to draw the massacre to public attention.

There's a striking contrast in lighting between the dark, dingy interiors in Manchester and the bright ones in the centres of power in London. The scenes of the Yeomanry's charge on the enormous assembly of men, women and children are absolutely terrifying and bring out the shocking reality of the massacre. Surprisingly few were killed but many were injured. The Yeomanry appear cowardly: though it seems incredible when one officer shames another who's about to strike a woman, that apparently happened.

A short summary at the end might have been helpful, regarding certain later events. For instance, Henry Hunt adopted the first parliamentary petition on votes for women in 1832 but didn't support the Reform Bill as he wanted votes for all women and classes. Ironically,General Sir John Byng (Alastair Mackenzie), who commanded the Yeomanry but handed over to his deputy so as to go to the races, was ennobled as 1st Earl of Strafford for supporting the bill (the Establishment looking after its own). Would there have been a massacre if he'd done his duty? one wonders. The massacre and the movement behind it helped pave the way for Chartism, on which Hunt was a major influence, and thus for the growth of democracy in Britain.

The Children Act (2017)

A phantom love story

[9/10 · 9 October 2018]

Judging by their patronising tone, some Press reviewers have apparently never been 17 or 18 years old. What makes the story credible and touching is precisely Adam's youthful naïvety and idealism. Given the disparity between Fiona's age and social position and his, as well as his terribly delicate health, his feelings for Fiona can only be illusory.

'The Children Act' might be seen, then, as a phantom love story, not about love that dare not speak its name but, rather, simply cannot do so. The director Richard Eyre is known for two films of deep and complex emotion, 'Iris' and 'Notes on a Scandal'. This film is perhaps even more emotionally powerful than those, thanks also of course to the great performances of Emma Thompson and Fionn Whitehead; aged only 21, Whitehead displays real emotional maturity and lends the character of Adam real charm, adding to the drama's poignancy, especially when he calls Fiona 'My Lady'.

I've yet to read the source novel by Ian McEwan but feel sure the film does it justice. The story is stronger than 'On Chesil Beach', also a recent film based on a novel by McEwan, who wrote the screenplay for both. While 'On Chesil Beach' focuses on an intensely private, intimate issue, 'The Children Act' shows how private emotions can get intertwined with professional public duty. It also brings out the tangled relationship between law, religion and morality, and even raises the question whether blood, if regarded religiously as a unique individual's life itself, must remain pure despite urgent medical needs.

The film's only serious fault, I think, is that the relationship between Fiona and her husband Jack is sketchy and lacks emotional tension. I don't find it very convincing. So Stanley Tucci is sadly under-used. Otherwise this is a fine, intelligent and compelling drama. I had secretly cried at the end of some other films, but never during one till now.

The Post (2017)

More critical under the surface?

[7/10 · 2 February 2018]

Perhaps this isn't Spielberg's best film, but it makes a powerful impact, based on a true story, and has elements of a thriller. It might, however, be more critical of the "Washington Post" (WP) under the surface than he or the screenwriter Liz Hannah realised.

"The Post" seems widely regarded as a defence of the mainstream media in response to Donald Trump. We're told as it goes on that the Press should represent the people not the powerful, but it really dramatises the rival claims of moral principles and business pragmatism. This is what puts WP in a critical light.

The story's turning point doesn't in fact arise from commercial calculation but seems oddly arbitrary, maybe even mischievous. Katharine Graham and Ben Bradlee don't seem particularly interested in discrediting the Vietnam War.

Graham, engagingly played by Meryl Streep, is shown inhabiting the different worlds of high society, hard-bitten journalism and business. Her primary role is that of businesswoman: she has to compete with 'men in suits' (she says their talk is like a foreign language) and prove herself despite their sexist attitudes. She's most concerned, though, to save her flagging paper - it's all about 'the bottom line'. Hence WP's desperation to outdo the "New York Times" (NYT) in reporting the Pentagon Papers (one journalist refers to the journalist Neil Sheehan, who's obtained them at NYT, by a very rude word).

Incidentally, it seems WP's management didn't show its staff much respect. Bradlee is offhand with his wife (Sally Quinn, a writer), too: she looks like a maid serving refreshments when he makes their home an outpost of WP's offices.

Being necessarily schematic, the film simplifies. Bradlee is portrayed by Tom Hanks as a dynamic, hard-bitten hack; he was in fact a scholarly educationist. Daniel Ellsberg (Matthew Rhys), without whom there'd probably be no story, is reduced to a mere device for releasing the Papers. We get no insight into his role as an experienced activist. As the reviewer Peter Bradshaw has said, this is a fault in the film.

It's hard to believe that WP journalists 'gutted' the Papers, and rattled off their copy, within 12 hours, but evidently it's true. Their old-fashioned office typewriters are a nice period detail, as are pre-computerised rows of desks and printing presses, and dial-operated phones - but we see that the USA already had hands-free phones by that time.

Perhaps above all, WP's role regarding the Papers appears more significant than that of NYT. This isn't true to the facts, nor, it seems, did numerous other newspapers take their lead from WP as Katharine Graham asserts in the film. Ellsberg circulated them very widely. However, he has personally downplayed NYT's role.

"The Post" does, then, have some flaws and perhaps brings out the mixed motives of Graham and Bradlee unintentionally. Yet this reveals their complex, and real, humanity. In reality too, through the WP and NYT among others, the Papers exposed the lies of successive US administrations in defence of the Vietnam War.

Hampstead (2017)

Surprisingly substantial

[8/10 · 15 August 2017]

Superficially this film looks like a cross between 'Notting Hill' (for older people) and 'The Lady in the Van'. Below the surface, however, it is surprisingly substantial and even has some political implications.

I'd been expecting to like it simply for its local colour, which indeed is quite plentiful. Apart from the Heath, there are shots of Hampstead High Street, Flask Walk, some side roads and courts, and even (briefly) the 18th-century painter George Romney's house on Holly Bush Hill.

The film has been accused of making Hampstead look permanently sunny. In fact, when Emily Walters (Diane Keaton) first appears there is heavy rain outside. Admittedly the weather brightens by the time she befriends Donald Horner (Brendan Gleeson). These, then, may be examples of the pathetic fallacy, or may not.

Emily first sees Donald, symbolically, from a distance while surveying the local area with binoculars. The relationship between them develops in a fairly complex way. This is dramatically satisfying, and so is the underlying tension between Emily and Fiona (Lesley Manville), hypocritical cheerleader of Emily's fellow residents. When Emily eventually loses patience with her, she reveals a steely side beneath her previous passivity.

In siding with Donald against the odious snobs in her block of flats, she certainly isn't passive. They are both outsiders: she as an American widow faced with finding a smaller home, he with his shack on the Heath. Though severely stigmatised by the local snobs, he is quite harmless. As he says, "I've always gone out of my way to keep out of the way." This is a plea to 'live and let live' and thus for tolerance. He scores a surprising victory in the end, though, in fighting for his home – like the late Harry Hallowes, the 'hermit' of Hampstead Heath on whom he is modelled.

Some critics seem to have thought the role of Donald unworthy of Brendan Gleeson. The actor, however, clearly respected his role and took it seriously. He "liked the idea that in a 'fairy tale love story' there was still room to consider vital issues over ownership of land, house prices and whether it is possible to live outside what society considers 'normal' today." And he remarks, "The idea of providing or withdrawing shelter from someone in order to make money is just a crazy way of living." islingtontribune.com/article/brendan-gleeson-on-a-heath-fairy-tale Gleeson does point out one limitation to the film: "There had to be an element of antisepticness applied when we made (Donald's) home – we couldn't make it like Harry's, really." Even so, it is truly shocking to see, at one point, that his home has been vandalised.

Sadly, James Norton's role as Emily's son Philip isn't so worthy of him. Philip seems to serve no real purpose, except for disapproving of his mother's plans. He plays a slightly comic role in one brief scene, when Donald suddenly appears before him and Emily just after having a bath. This, however, looks suspiciously similar to Spike's (Rhys Ifans) shock appearance before the paparazzi in 'Notting Hill'.

So Norton is under-used but Diane Keaton, Brendan Gleeson and Lesley Manville all give strong and memorable performances. It's too easy to sneer at 'Hampstead'. One reviewer calls it a "ghastly faux-mance" and remarks that the musical score "sounds like it was ripped from a feature-length insurance ad." I think the film and the score deserve better.

My Cousin Rachel (2017)

I really wanted to enjoy it but...

[5/10 · 15 June 2017]

I admire Daphne du Maurier's 'Rebecca' and Hitchcock's film, as well as her short stories; also, I love Roger Michell's 'Notting Hill'. So I really wanted to enjoy this film.

It has its strong points: it's a pervasive mystery combined with a complicated love story, it's beautifully shot in a period setting and the action in a sense turns full circle quite satisfyingly. The acting by Rachel Weisz as Rachel and Sam Claflin as Philip is generally quite engaging, too. There are even a couple of jokes: Rachel makes one about a smoking room for women and, when called a 'stickler' by Philip, his lawyer Mr Crouch (Simon Russell Beale) retorts that he will 'stickle'.

Unfortunately the film's pace was too slow for me. It held my attention, paradoxically, because I was waiting for a decisive moment. There are numerous pregnant pauses in the dialogue but I would say there's very little emotional intensity or mounting suspense.

Of course I wasn't expecting an action movie (not a favourite genre of mine), but I believe the film could have done du Maurier more justice. It might have been more interesting if one character had been developed: Rachel's friend Rainaldi (Pierfrancesco Favino). He is enigmatic and she hints at his sexuality, but that is all. I still want to read the novel.

A Quiet Passion (2016)

Makes key points but not exactly quiet

[6/10 · 17 May 2017]

Written and directed by Terence Davies, this film brings out several key points in the life of the great American poet Emily Dickinson: her growing reclusiveness, the fact she dressed in white, the small number of poems she published (in fact she wrote some 1800), her admiration for the Brontës and the major illness she contracted. In one comic scene, she scolds the local newspaper editor for changing her punctuation. This also reflects a key point because her poems are, curiously, full of capitalised initial letters and dashes.

Sadly, though, I think the film's dialogue lets it down. There are a number of epigrams which sound like a pastiche of Oscar Wilde, e.g. (quotations aren't all verbatim) 'Virtue is vice in disguise', 'Admiration is another name for envy', 'Envy is another name for admiration' and 'Contempt breeds familiarity'. Such self-conscious quips are rather distracting, except, I would say, from Dickinson's Aunt Elizabeth.

Despite its title, the film isn't exactly quiet. The characters are very talkative and Dickinson seems to be confined to her room only by her illness. Her physical deterioration is, however, really terrifying; I'd even say it's the strongest part of the film. Another strength lies in the poems that are read in voice-over. Though there aren't many, they do include 'This World is Not Conclusion', which distils her profound sense of the mystery of existence. Expressing this in the film, she displays an unorthodox view of religion which scandalises her family.

Cynthia Nixon sustains the role of Dickinson quite impressively, but Jennifer Ehle seems to me to have more charm as her sister Lavinia ('Vinny'). As Aunt Elizabeth, Annette Badland almost steals the show. It's just a pity that she's only on for a short time near the beginning.

Bean (1997)

Light-hearted horror

[9/10 · 20 April 2017]

This film is a true delight. It might be called a comic masterpiece, only 'comic' isn't good enough. While watching (on TV), I started thinking that it was in a genre all of its own: a light-hearted horror film.

When anything can go wrong for Mr Bean (Rowan Atkinson), it will go wrong. It does so more brutally in this film, I think, than in his TV show. His American host, David Langley (Peter MacNicol), unwittingly invites Sod's Law to strike when he lets Bean do the cooking and, later, leaves him alone with the so-called 'Whistler's Mother' before the unveiling ceremony. The background music in the latter scene sounds rather like that in the famous shower scene from Hitchcock's 'Psycho': maybe no coincidence.

Bean's antics increasingly drive David to distraction. In an especially powerful scene, he sits all alone on the edge of his bed, temporarily abandoned by his wife and children, and sings Paul McCartney's 'Yesterday' straight from the heart.

Following the encounter with Whistler's painting, however, Bean comes to look amazingly resourceful, even revealing hidden depths of intelligence. A good deal of suspense builds up before that happens. This was funny but it provoked nervous laughter when I imagined how horrifying the scene would have been in real life.

'Doctor Bean', supposedly an eminent art historian, even displays virtually miraculous powers when accidentally transformed at one point into a very different kind of doctor. This scene also creates suspense, followed by relief.

The film's only serious fault, in my view, is that its ending is too happy. It struck me as rather facile and sentimental. Ironically, the TV episodes of Mr Bean sometimes end a bit brutally.

Full credit should go to Rowan Atkinson, Peter MacNicol, the writers Richard Curtis, Robin Driscoll and Rowan Atkinson, and the late Mel Smith as director. The late Sir John Mills deserves special mention too, for his cameo appearance as Chairman of the National Gallery; that character,in effect, causes all the trouble. The Los Angeles gallery director,George Grierson (Harris Yulin), thinks it's called the Royal National Gallery - which may be mildly amusing.

Denial (II) (2016)

A lesson from contemporary history

[9/10 · 2 February 2017]

This is a fine film. Full credit to a great cast, the director Mick Jackson and the distinguished playwright David Hare for his screenplay.

Despite knowing the outcome, I found the courtroom scenes really thrilling, and when Mr Justice Gray (Alex Jennings) asks whether David Irving (Timothy Spall) might not have denied the Holocaust in good faith the shock is quite electrifying.

The tensions between Deborah Lipstadt (Rachel Weisz) and her legal team are very intense; the solicitor Anthony Julius (Andrew Scott) appears rather arrogant and high-handed but it becomes clear that (to quote Hamlet) he's being 'cruel only to be kind'. This redeems the soap-opera touches, as I see them, in their exchanges. It's understandable that Lipstadt should find the lawyers' strategy perplexing.

Similarly, the brilliance of Richard Rampton QC (Tom Wilkinson) in court offsets a tendency towards caricaturing him as a bibulous lawyer with a fund of legal anecdotes.

In Timothy Spall's portrayal Irving, representing himself in court, seems dogmatic and devious yet by no means confident of victory. Though clearly concentrating hard, he looks pretty confused. His exchanges with the historian Sir Richard Evans (John Sessions) are embarrassingly unconvincing. At one point he says 'I'm not a Holocaust historian.' That isn't a confession, just an attempt to duck an awkward question from Evans. There's more embarrassment when he tries to look like a good loser.

Only one Holocaust survivor appears in the film: a woman who begs Lipstadt to enable her to testify. Others must have been in court as well, but the woman has a symbolic role. Though unable to grant her wish, Lipstadt assures her that 'The voice of suffering will be heard.' Those words are profoundly moving.

The voice of suffering was indeed heard. Unfortunately, as James Libson (Jack Lowden), a junior lawyer at the time, has remarked, the longer-term consequences ran counter to expectations. Holocaust denial has spread through the internet and Irving claims, chillingly, 'Interest in my work has risen exponentially in the last two or three years. And it's mostly young people.' ('The Observer', 15 January 2017)

Neo-fascist and similar movements are growing across Europe, no doubt encouraged by Donald Trump's election in the USA. 'Denial', then, is also a terrible warning. It teaches a lesson from contemporary history (in 2000) as well as history in the broader sense – at least for those able to learn.

Against the dark decor of the lawyers' offices and the courtroom there are some lighter touches with local colour from London. One long scene, however, takes place at Auschwitz.

I, Daniel Blake (2016)

Institutional sadism, but also some humour

[9/10 · 10 December 2016]

Ken Loach deserves a lifetime award for his humanitarian campaigning, not least in this extremely powerful film. According to Iain Duncan Smith, however, it 'takes the very worst of anything that can ever happen to anybody, lumps it all together, and then says: this is life absolutely as it is lived by people.' In fact the film's veracity is supported by people with first-hand experience of the benefits system, and the number of claimants who have died following acute benefits problems runs to thousands. In Parliament on 2 November 2016 Jeremy Corbyn raised the particularly shocking case of David Clapson, an ex-serviceman aged 59, who starved to death after benefit sanctions.

I had experience of the Employment Service myself in the 1990s, following unfair dismissal. The regulations were less strict then, and Jobcentre staff were just quite brusque at times but generally OK. At one point, though, I was wrongly accused of benefit fraud and threatened with the bailiffs – a horrible experience, for which I only got an offhand written apology.

What the film portrays, in quasi-documentary style, can truly be called institutional sadism: a system that inflicts humiliation and desperation, as when Katie is sanctioned after being five minutes late at the Jobcentre and Daniel is asked ludicrous questions about his health, forced to seek work though deemed unfit by his doctor, and, above all, faced with endless obstacles to his appeal for Employment and Support Allowance. The 'target culture' is seen to reduce claimants to mere statistics, and in the background lurks a sinister unseen figure: 'the Decision-maker'.

Daniel does, however, get some sympathy from one Jobcentre adviser, and at first I thought Katie's hardships were worse than his – but he resolutely refuses to see himself as a victim even though his life is relentlessly laid bare; the great song by Labi Siffre, 'Something Inside So Strong', comes to mind.

Katie's sacrifices, as a single mother with two children, are deeply moving. Forced to move from London to Newcastle, she has had to face – by implication – 'social cleansing'. Daniel's relationship with her and the children is quite delightful for much of the film, though, and there is some nice humour.

Benefit claimants are too often vilified and stereotyped as scroungers (e.g. in the title of a programme shown on 5 Star on 30 October 2016, the day I saw this film: 'On Benefits: Living the High Life'). All too often people in Britain are kicked when down, even by MPs and ministers. Through Daniel Blake and Katie Morgan, Ken Loach has characteristically struck a blow for their dignity. This film is fully worthy to stand alongside 'Cathy Come Home'.

Florence Foster Jenkins (2016)

Stranger than fiction, subtly nuanced

[8/10 · 14 May 2016]

This film tells a tragi-comic story, stranger than fiction. Well up to Stephen Frears's usual high standards, it is full of period scenery and atmosphere – some interior scenes look sepia-tinted. The acting by Meryl Streep, Hugh Grant and Simon Helberg is superb.

Grant plays an Englishman, St Clair Bayfield (1875-1967), but not a bumbling one, in fact quite dignified and 'correct'. As Florence's pianist, Cosmé McMoon (1901-1980), Helberg often steals the show with compelling charm. In a wonderful early scene, McMoon's face falls abruptly when he first hears Florence sing; then, on his way out of her grand New York block, he laughs uncontrollably in a lift.

'Madame Florence' (1868-1944) evidently caused a great deal of uncontrolled laughter. Meryl Streep, however, nuances the character very subtly: apparently unaware that she's a figure of fun, sad that she can no longer play the piano (a bit like Miss Shepherd in 'The Lady in the Van' though for a different reason) and with bad memories of her first husband. Above all, she's patriotic and extremely generous in face of the war.

These elements, I think, make the story tragi-comic. It seems especially sad, even shocking, that Florence was allowed to delude herself for so long; I didn't find myself laughing during the scene where she was supposedly at her funniest. Bayfield's motivation is left unclear: genuine devotion to his wife or financial exploitation (she had a huge fortune)? Her singing teacher, Carlo Edwards (David Haig), seems distinctly shady, but apparently she enjoyed support from the great maestro Arturo Toscanini (John Kavanagh) though he doesn't spend much time with her in the film.

Perhaps inevitably, there are some liberties with the facts: Florence and Bayfield only had a 'common law' marriage, and she met McMoon not in 1944, when the film is set, but in the late 1920s. Streep, Grant and Helberg are all substantially younger than their characters were.

This film invites comparison with 'Marguerite' (French, directed by Xavier Giannoli, 2016). As the title character, Catherine Frot is no less engaging than Meryl Streep as Florence, but I was irritated by the group of men around Marguerite and her husband, which seemed to serve no essential dramatic purpose. 'Florence Foster Jenkins' has a simpler and clearer structure (I'd give 'Marguerite' 7 out of 10).

The sitcom character Hyacinth Bucket ('It's Bouquet') might be another of Florence's descendants: she fancies herself as a diva in stage musicals. With her multiple delusions of grandeur, she is rather tragi-comic too – and she sings hopelessly out of tune.