Things to Come - L'Avenir

Seen at the Gala Cinema in Warrawong, NSW

Cecil says: This film brought back so many memories for me, especially of my life in Paris when I had a job as a university assistant. I shall never forget a dinner party organised by one of the senior lecturers in the English department, in which she actually referred to ‘Nous, les intellectuels’ (We intellectuals). Part of me felt inadequate, but part of me also thought: ‘speak for yourself, darling’, and yet another part of me kind of despised her for being pretentious.

Being intellectual is such a French thing to take pride in, whereas for Brits it is seen as out of touch, something almost to be ashamed of. The long dinner time discussions (something else that marks out both the film itself and French society) over philosophical questions felt soooo French. Attractive on one level, but never something I felt at ease with when I lived there.

Somehow the school student rebellions and big discussions between far left and pragmatic progressives also felt like a very French way of doing things. Not sure how many picket lines there would ever be outside a British high school…

But this film is not really about intellectuals. It is actually making the point that you still need to get on with the daily practicalities of life however intellectual you are: dealing with demented Mum, dealing with unfaithful husband, even doing the washing up while at the mountain retreat with the other young thinkers (and surely that was a conscious decision of the director to have the two women wash up while the men continued their important debate?).

The 1960s were an iconic period in France as much as Britain, but awareness of sexism was definitely way way behind where we are now – or are we?

I enjoyed this film. The plot moved along, not at an express pace, but the life changes did come one after the other so must have felt like a tsunami to the main character, played brilliantly by Isabelle Huppert.

None of the other characters or actors stood out for me, though I did wonder why the daughter was so insistent that her Dad confess to his affair, but we didn’t get enough of an insight into the kids to know really what was going on for them; and again, when same daughter had her baby, it is not clear why she is crying. It’s one of those films that could actually be developed into a TV series, with each episode seeing the same events and actions from a different character’s perspective.

***.5

Bea says: Yes, an excellent piece of French film-making and such a treat to see a French film; reminded me of the weekend trips Cecil and I sometimes used to do to Paris, when we would see 3-4 films in a row.

A strong plot is what kept this film going for me; the themes are universal – life issues and changes.  That the central character is a woman (Huppert) and we see all aspects of her life; family, partner, work, is actually a rare treat; this film passes the Bechtel test superbly.

We see her survive her husband’s affair and move on to an independent life in keeping with how she really wants to live; and despite setbacks and disappointments (when the university bookshop drops her book and her publisher cancels a new edition), we also see the joys (her work, new friendships, even if they don’t quite go as expected, a new addition to the family).  A great film to cause reflection on one’s own life and that reminds us there is always the rough and the smooth.

***1/2

My Cousin Rachel

Seen at the Gala Cinema in Warrawong, NSW

Cecil says: Rebecca was one of those films that haunted me as a child: the scene with the cackling madwoman on the roof of the burning mansion house left me cowering behind the sofa as a 7 year old (or whatever age it was). So when I saw that My Cousin Rachel  was another Daphne Du Maurier adaptation, I was not put off. And surely 50+ year old me would cope with any terrifying characters this plot might conjure up.

I think the trouble with 50+ year old me is that I have no time for the wasted energy of youthful infatuations. And that’s what most of this film is about: a young 24/25 year old (the birthday is a significant point in the storyline) infatuated with the woman who is the widow of his foster father. She turns up in his stately home and wins his heart in no time instead of being subjected to his inquiry into how his beloved parent had died.

Sure there are some mysteries about Rachel Weisz’s Rachel (yes actor and character share the same name) and as the story develops, more and more of her behaviour and actions leave the viewer uncertain as to whether she is evil or just confused, and even more uncertain of what really happened in her life. But right from the start she failed to engage me, and I would have been cautious about any involvement emotional or financial if I had been Philip.

I’m not sure whether this was because Rachel Weisz didn’t draw me in, or whether it was the film’s direction. Or was it back in Du Maurier’s text that my dislike would have found its source?

Having seen that the original 1952 version starred Richard Burton and Olivia de Havilland, I am inclined to seek out the old black and white movie rather than read the novel.

But I felt less engaged by the 2016/7 version of My Cousin Rachel  than I have by any film for quite some time.

Any redeeming aspects? I quite liked the early scene with the horse and carriage going up an Umbrian hill, as it vaguely reminded me of Room with a View. I quite liked Seecombe, the loyal but rather gruff butler, who dressed more like a farmhand than a posh person’s main man, though it did make me wonder if the northern English nobility were a bit more rough round the edges than the image we have from Downton Abbey…

**.5

Bea says: I loved Rebecca and Jamaica Inn, both as novels and film/TV adaptations, but had never seen the earlier version of this or read it.  The story is good – typical du Maurier, with strong, enigmatic female characters and a good dose of crime and psychology.  But, like Cecil, something didn’t quite work in this film.  It wasn’t particularly memorable (we are blogging sometime after seeing it), and it felt rather – stiff, like everyone was trying too hard and not just allowing the strong plot to run. 

I would now like to read the novel, in case that feeling is in the book too; I haven’t’ researched it but perhaps it was an earlier work and du Maurier hadn’t really hit her stride.  Weisz is usually good, and she is really all I can remember about the film; everyone else has faded into oblivion.  Perhaps she was too strong for the other characters and that explains the held back feeling?

Worth a look, but may disappoint.

**1/2

Hampstead

Seen at the Roxy Cinema,Nowra NSW

Cecil says: This film was awful, in spite of its excellent cast.

We had put off going because we had a hunch and sadly all our fears were well-founded. And in the end, it was the film that was starting just as we got to the cinema on a Sunday morning, so we went for it anyway.

I’m trying to find some redeeming features to talk about: the only character who felt remotely believable was Diane Keaton’s son: slightly roguish, fairly posh son who pops round to his Mum’s Hampstead flat unannounced, gets breakfast and probes into her private life.

For the rest, the characters felt more like the fantasies so many second-rate American writers have of what it is to be English (or even Irish in Brendan Gleeson’s case): somehow the men are always debonair, middle-aged and wealthy, usually with a posh accent, or are stone-the-crows cor blimey guv Cockneys. Like Americans never came across Estuary English or just an average Joe or Jill?

This film felt like the sort of script a young tourist might write after her first visit to London. She discovered some of the cute nooks and crannies of Hampstead and just had to let everyone in on her ‘discoveries’ (I say ‘her’, but actually I think it was written by a man); she got the right bus route, pointed out the Marx grave in the cemetery (Highgate of course), even calculated more or less how far it was from Hampstead to Camden, but then made it unreal with the ridiculously ditzy Diane Keaton character, the caricature accountant, and then the Gleeson character: based on a real person, but so so badly- developed (he’d say and do things that were just not what a guy like that would do: he became a kind of goofy American caricature). Even his perfect veggie patch in amongst the trees felt unbelievable – we know how hard it is to grow vegetables in ground that get little sunlight, and his shack was hidden away in the depths of the Hampstead Heath trees.

I could go on and on picking holes in this film but why rack my brain to pick it apart anymore.

Best forgotten.

Stars? Zero or maybe 0.5…

Bea says: Yes, complete disappointment.  

As Cecil says, clearly written by someone who has visited London and fallen in love with it (understandable – I did the same).  But the writer would have been better writing about someone visiting London and falling in love with it, rather than trying to write about two mature “loveable eccentrics” meeting each other in Hampstead.  

The characters were unbelievable despite apparently being based on real people, the plot was unbelievable, and the clichés were jarring.  Keaton and Gleeson are both capable of much more, although I do tire of Keaton’s constant Annie Hall reprisal.  The fact that they couldn’t save it showed how bad the script was. 

I was flabbergasted that this actually got made, released, and was on a quite a widespread cinema run at the time we saw it.  This may work as a telemovie on a rainy Sunday afternoon, but in general – avoid.

*

The Greatest Showman

Seen at the Waterfront Cinema in Greenock, Scotland

Bea says:  Cecil and I try not to be film snobs, but I was wary that this film might be a tad too commercial for us.  However – we were attempting to keep awake (jet-lagged), it was on at a good time (6 pm Saturday night) and location (The Waterfront, Greenock) for us, and it has a pretty good cast – Hugh Jackman and the always wonderful Michelle Williams – who I have been following since her Dawson’s Creek days.  We’d seen a few previews of it and it looked interesting, colourful and perhaps a bit dark too, so I anticipated a bit of depth.

What the previews didn’t really show was that it is actually a musical (not Cecil’s favourite genre), but apart from a few isolated incidents there wasn’t too much random bursting into song and the song and dance pieces generally were well woven into the story, and fitted with the circus/carnival/concert action anyway.  In fact, the music was great and the choreography spectacular; so much so that Cecil and I both turned to each other at the end and suggested buying the CD (yes, we are that old fashioned…I do use digital music options at times but Cecil doesn’t at all).

The film is purportedly the story of PT Barnum (Jackman), the circus magnate, as he establishes the first circus in New York City; going from rags to riches to the threat of rags again.  He marries his childhood sweetheart (Williams), has a little family and after being made redundant in his post as a shipping clerk, borrows enough money to get the circus – aka museum of curiosities - up and running.  It gets off to a slow start, but after Barnum’s children suggest more live acts he seeks out a range of people to provide them.  The film advertises itself as being about acceptance, and bringing people who were hidden into the light and placing them centre stage; this theme is oft spoken of in the film and some of the songs are about it.  It is a very interesting theme to explore when looking at the history of circus, and it would be interesting to see a heavier, more in-depth film about the same topic actually. 

But to be honest, it was the days between Christmas and New Year, it was fun, it was beautiful to watch, it had comedy and tragedy, and it enough subplots (Zac Efron’s assistant ringmaster role and forbidden love interest; and the character Jenny Lind’s concert tour) to maintain interest.  

The music and dancing were feelgood, and we left feeling happy – what more can you ask for?

Efron is probably responsible for the large (and largely female) youth audience; but I did notice again that the film seemed designed to attract a young audience; it was rather like watching a combination of Harry Potter and the Voice!  But I like both of those, so it was not in a bad way at all.  

***.5

Cecil says: When Hugh Jackman begins to sing within ten seconds of the start of The Greatest Showman, I had to chuckle as I had been caught out just as I was in Sunshine on Leith, when the soldiers in the opening scene burst into song. I had no idea this was a musical but I quickly realised it was.

Funnily enough earlier in the day I had read a Tweet by someone who loved the soundtrack so much that she was planning on going straight out and buying the CD. Actually, by the end of the film, we were both thinking the same. The music was a central part of this film, and the voices were remarkably strong: who knew Jackman could sing that well?

The dancing is also fantastic. I guess to audition for a role in a film like this, you need to have all those skills that go along with voice projection and being able to get inside the role you are playing.

In the case of Zac Efron, I think his dancing skills outdo his ability to act, but boy can he move. I loved the scene towards the end where he swivels on his knees as he spins in to take centre stage. But the best scene of all for movement and choreography has to be on the ropes when Efron and Zendaya flirt with each other and move towards accepting their mutual attraction.

For me, the overall feel was as much a production that will go on to Broadway or the West End as it was The Voice (as Bea says). It is interesting how this style of film-making is taking hold at the moment. This one worked, though. It kept us awake and left us feeling good.

***

Lion

Seen at the wonderful Govinda Cinema in Newtown, Sydney.

 Bea says: Seen without Cecil, with friends at Sydney’s wonderful Govinda’s Cinema; think floor cushions and a big screen above a Hare Krishna restaurant.

This film has been hyped and I am often wary of hyped films, although sometimes they work out and this one certainly did.  It is a fantastic, involving story which doesn’t shy away from presenting the difficulties of international adoption, and family life in general; the main character “Lion” was lost, not orphaned, and the second adoption made by his new family was certainly very troubling indeed.

A side note for me was how digital technology has changed our lives; Lion tracks down his origin family using Google Earth – something that wouldn’t have been possible any earlier in history, and although of course there was barely a dry eye in the house at his reunion with his mother I was very moved by her statement that she had deliberately never moved from the village, in case he came back. 

Good performances throughout, including Nicole Kidman (wearing some great 80s fashion I must say!), and some lovely Tasmanian scenery too.

Highly recommended.

****

The Promise

Seen at the Roxy Cinema in Nowra, NSW

Cecil says: Another film set in one of the world wars, but for once this one tells the story from an angle we do not often hear about in the west: this was all to do with the massacre of Armenians in Turkey in WW1 (and I enjoyed it almost as much as I'd enjoyed Flamme & Citron which looked at WW2 from the perspective of Denmark).

This film had so many aspects worth talking about that it took us virtually our whole half hour drive home to talk through our impressions.

So the plot basically revolves around an Armenian man living in a Turkish village who wants to become a doctor. To raise the money for medical school in Constantinople, he gets betrothed to a young lass in his village and then goes off for two years study with the dowry.

In the meantime, war breaks out, he falls in love with another woman in Constantinople and life changes completely. I'll say no more so as not to spoil for those who haven't seen the film yet, but there are many twists and turns in this epic film that lasts more than two hours and ends in modern-day America with some of the survivors reflecting back on those earlier times.

It was fabulous for us to trigger memories of places visited on our long overland journey from Yorkshire to Australia: there was Istanbul, of course, with its markets and tea rooms, its bustle and beauty, but also its reminder of just how close to the surface oppression is in that city (the prison guards reminded me of those in American Express, and who's to say they aren't still the same today as Pride marchers were arrested on the streets of Istanbul on the same day as when we saw the film in the safety of Nowra); there were memories of Baku and its dimly-lit tea houses and narrow lanes.

And it reminded us of how the people we met in Azerbaijan - in a town close to the Iranian border - had not been keen for us to visit the local memorial for the Armenian genocide.

What was interesting was to learn that the massacres of Armenians began already in 1915 (the few of us who did know about the genocide, think of it as being 1918). It was also moving to see the forced labour made to build a railway in Turkey - Hollywood has made everyone in the English-speaking world aware of the Bridge over the River Kwai  in Thailand, but how many more such projects were forced on POWs in other parts of the world? Probably a lot more than we realise.

Having just seen Their Finest, where propaganda film-makers in WW2 are forced to find a role for an American to broaden the film's appeal, we couldn't help wondering if this was a real life version of the same...

I was tempted to whisper to Bea half way through this film to ask: What was the name of the film? I had genuinely forgotten. But The Promise (presumably by budding doctor to young village girl) began to feel like such a small part of the plot as the film developed. Was there an original version of this screenplay without the love triangle involving the American journalist? He plays a more and more important role as the story progresses and he becomes more and more a hero (very like the American they invent in Their Finest). And the scene where the US Ambassador stands up to the Turkish Interior Ministry felt almost Trumpian in its 'America First' way.

Some of the casting was slightly odd, too. Charlotte Le Bon is good as the new love interest, but she hardly looks like a village Armenian, and we both thought when she first appeared that she was some sort of American governess to the rich man's kids.

Then there's the daughter of same rich man who is delightful but looks so mixed race that when she first appeared, I assumed the rich Armenian had married a black woman, and that confused me for a while as no black woman ever appeared through the film.

For all that, The Promise  is a fabulous film and I'm so glad we chose it over the other option for early Sunday morning, which would have been Churchill. 

****

Bea says: This is a film in the style of the great epics; it put me in mind of Dr Zhivago – the backdrop of war changing the lives of the young people forever; a complicated love triangle; and some lovely shots of the landscape.  Whether it actually quite makes epic status itself is a questionable; it certainly tries but perhaps just falls a little short.

Cecil has summarised the story above, and like him I certainly enjoyed seeing the locations and landscapes that we personally had travelled through and learning about a historical incident I knew little about; as opposed to the more often told stories of the Great War (the trenches, Gallipoli, etc.). 

Its “epicness” worked in that it totally transported me to the place and era, and I was completely caught up in the story, action and characters – a thoroughly enjoyable experience for a Sunday morning matinee.  I really cared about what happened, and the characters developed over time. 

What didn’t work was (and I echo Cecil here) some of the casting (Charlotte Le Bon just doesn’t look like she came from an Armenian village…) and the title didn’t feel at all like the focus of the film. 

Chatting to Cecil on the way home we thought if anything it was more about standing by one’s convictions rather than keeping to a promise; either the plot developed as the film was made, or it was a translation from Armenian that didn’t quite work, or it was two film stories that were merged, which it occasionally felt like to me.  I also wondered if they had tried out a couple of endings, as (spoiler alert) the death of Charlotte Le Bon’s character Anna felt rather….convenient, if sad.  That scene was also a bit derivative – Titanic, The Piano, and it broke my involvement in the story as I thought how similar the scene was to those films’ scenes.

On another note, it was interesting to hear Chris Cornell’s song of the same name while the credits rolled, and Christian Bale was excellent thoughout this film and the standout actor for me.

Definitely worth a watch, a particularly good Sunday film if you want to escape for a while.

***1/2

Their Finest

Seen at the wonderful Theatre Royal in Castlemaine, Vic

Cecil says: I saw this alone as I had the chance to stay a bit longer than Bea in Castlemaine, and this was on as a matinée, which was kind of appropriate for a movie depicting life in wartime Britain, and it was all about the making of a wartime propaganda film based on Dunkirk.

Now, I'm not normally a fan of films about making a film - they are usually too introspective, playing to a film-making audience and just a bit too self-absorbed.

Their Finest could not be further from that description. It laughed at itself, showed the real challenges of creating 'authenticity with optimism' when things don't go to plan, and even the need to create an American hero at Dunkirk as a sub-plot to try to get the American people behind the war worked precisely because it showed the plot acrobatics the writers had to go through to manage this.

It's great that the main character is a woman. Catrin Cole is well played by Gemma Arterton. We see her go through the difficulties of a relationship break-up, falling for her colleague, dealing with cantankerous actor Ambrose Hilliard (Bill Nighy type-cast again but brilliant as ever), and slowly getting recognition for her work, as she pushes to have a stronger role for the women characters in her script.

There are fantastic comic moments, like the filming on the 'Dunkirk' beaches and the drama coaching by Hilliard of the awkward American fighter pilot pushed into the plot with no plausible role. There's the drama of the backdrop of bombings and death around (and among) them, and the terribly moving scene late on in the film when disaster hits the studio where they are filming (I'll say no more to avoid a spoiler moment).

But there's also the wonderfully satisfying moment towards the end when Catrin finally watches the film she helped to write and it plays to a packed audience who hang on every line.

It's not an emotional rollercoaster because of its almost Brechtian way of constantly switching between reality and drama. That somehow stops a complete involvement in the characters, but it is a wonderfully gripping film, with some waves of emotion.

I thoroughly enjoyed it and would happily go to see it again with Bea. Seeing it at the vintage cinema that is Castlemain's Theatre Royal made it even more memorable, though.

****

Hidden Figures

Seen at Roxy Cinema in Nowra, NSW

Cecil says:  At last an uplifting film, after we had unwittingly been to a whole series of gloomy or depressing films so far this year. Everyone knows the plot by now, I’m sure: brainy black women get jobs at Nasa in the early 1960s, as the US tries to catch up with the Soviets in the space race.

But Nasa in 1961 is still very male and very white, making for tough day-to-day life for our three heroines. There’s the ten minute dash to the nearest ‘colored women’ toilets; there’s the coffee pot for ‘coloreds’; there’s the supervisor role without supervisor pay.

But Hidden Figures follows in the footsteps of Dead Poets Society or Good Will Hunting (except that it is now the brilliant minds of black women that have to be nurtured and recognised rather than white males, privileged or not). And then it suddenly becomes a little bit Hollywood formulaic…

It got me and Bea discussing on the way home, not about civil rights and opportunity (we’ve discussed that at length before) but about potential and whether you need actually to fulfil your potential to be happy in life. All these films are about the downtrodden or suppressed coming to life and being true to themselves and blossoming.

But what if you have all that knowledge and ability, but actually don’t wish to use it; or have some experience of using and decide enough is enough? Wouldn’t it be interesting if one of these genius characters one day decided that after a few years of being a genius and getting recognition, they could also tap into other skills or other aspects of their character.

Are they wrong to abandon a road so clearly marked out, where their skills are being used to the full? Or are they in fact just rounding their personality and experiencing everything that life has to offer, even if that means abandoning an apparently successful career.

I basically did that five years ago and am much happier. Though when I watch films like Hidden Figures, it does make me wonder if I am using my skills to the best of my abilities.

Bea is also approaching a similar crossroads in life. So, strangely enough this film was a good launchpoint for a very contemporary dilemma and questioning of life direction for both of us. Even though it was a half fiction, half true story of discrimination in the 1960s. Sometimes, you have to let the subject take you where it needs to.

I wonder if any other couple had such a thought-provoking talk about their own lives after seeing Hidden Figures?

Bea says: I very much enjoyed this film (and its fantastic costumes!).  I am an avid Woman’s Hour listener, so had some background into the licence taken with the plot and event timeline in the film, but that kind of thing doesn’t really worry me as I am quite happy with slightly fictionalised accounts of true to life events.

It was a great film about civil and women’s rights together (I consider myself well up on these issues but had not known of the important role black women had played at NASA in the late 1950s/early 1960s at all), and again a good film for our times.

Not much to pick on here; Kevin Costner breaking down the “no coloreds” sign to the women’s toilet was perhaps a bit contrived (one area where licence was taken with the plot, apparently).  Like Cecil, the most interesting thing for us was our conversation afterwards about using/not using talent…

Highly recommended – and feel-good!

***1/2

Alone in Berlin

Seen at the Roxy Cinema in Nowra NSW

Cecil says: There was something terribly depressing about Alone in Berlin. That probably isn’t the film’s fault, actually. It probably has more to do with the current political situation around the world, and the realisation that in some ways we are closer now in 2017 to a rise of fascistic-style behaviour and morals than we have been at any time since 1945.

OK, so the plot here is: Berlin couple (superbly played by Emma Thompson and Brendan Gleeson) lose their only son at the front in France in 1940 (the opening scene of the film), so while the rest of the country celebrates, they are in mourning. And when Otto (Gleeson) gets criticised at work for not doing more for the cause and the country, he responds gruffly by saying ‘no man can give anything more valuable than his own son’, or words to that effect.

There then follows a lonely campaign to drop hand-written postcards in doorways, staircases, in hallways or entrances all over Berlin, with one-liners criticising Hitler and Nazism.

This is a rare portrait of Germany at war seen from Germany, or at least seen from the point of view of a dissident in the middle of the German capital.

The savagery of the Gestapo is somehow all the more horrific as it is carried out against their own people. We start to sympathise with the poor detective assigned to track down the mystery postcard-writer, and we witness his moment of realisation when he too gets a beating from the Gestapo because he has not managed quickly to find him out.

There have been criticisms of the accents of the lead actors. And it’s true it does ring a bit false to have English native speakers trying to act in a pseudo-German accent. But after a while you get used to it and the main parts are extremely well played.

I didn’t know until the credits that the film is based on a novel by Hans Fallada (“Jeder stirbt fuer sich allein”), and its grey depressing tone reminded me totally of my own A level years when Fallada was again on our reading syllabus (“Kleiner Mann, was nun?” – about a simple guy trying to get through the Depression – yes he did joyous themes, that Fallada).

The film left both of us in a sombre mood, though I’m sure when they started filming it, we had no idea there would be all the political upheaval of Brexit and Trump. But somehow, the mood of the time does feel as dangerous as Germany in the 1930s, and – God forbid – some of us may indeed have to be discreetly placing postcards on doorsteps in years to come, if things carry on the way they seem to have done for the last 12 months.

So, well acted; good story; but a bit grim for me, this film.

***.5

Bea says: Whilst not a feel-good experience, this sobering film was beautifully filmed, directed and acted.  I always like Emma Thompson (Anna), and she was certainly showing her versatility here, although the performances that stayed with me were those of Otto (Brendan Gleeson, also showing his versatility), and interestingly enough the performance of the actor who is (wrongly) about to be arrested by the Gestapo for the Quangel’s crime; as I don’t recall his name I can’t find him in the cast list.

It was not a feel-good experience, but it was a very interesting exploration of grief, and how there can be a purpose after dreadful loss.  This purpose also held the long married couple together after the death of their son; perhaps bringing them closer than they had been in some time, and the final scenes reinforced that.  So it was not all darkness.

Cecil has said it better than me above, but in our times – sobering.

***1/2

Manchester by the Sea

Seen at the lovely old cinema in Cronulla in Sydney's south.

Cecil says: When I first heard people talk about Manchester by the Sea, I had thought for some reason that this would be a gritty northern England film, a kind of kitchen-sink drama, with maybe  some urban fantasies about creating sandy beaches in the middle of Salford or the Northern Quarter.

Well, gritty this film was, in a sense, though American gritty is always a bit different from UK grit. Sure, we have the average Joe the janitor, struggling to make ends meet and trying to keep his plumbing and electricity customers happy as he fixes things in a run-down Boston apartment block.

Casey Affleck is excellent as younger brother to Joe, who dies and leaves Casey in charge of his teenage son. It’s interesting to note that Casey is younger brother to Ben, so I guess he must know all too well how to play the younger brother role, not that we see much of Casey’s character Lee’s older brother, except through the many flashbacks that litter this film.

Lee has a tragedy of his own to deal with, and the nature of that tragedy slowly comes to light as the film develops. It all culminates in an extraordinarily sad scene towards the end where Lee bumps into his ex-partner in the street and they recognise what has happened between them.

I shan’t give any more away for fear of giving a spoiler to readers of this review.

But you will get the drift that this is not a bundle of laughs or a joyous experience. In fact, we both left the cinema on a beautiful sunny afternoon in the lovely beach suburb of Cronulla feeling totally drained and almost depressed. So if you need a pick-me-up, Manchester by the Sea is not for you.

Lucas Hedges plays the 15-16 year old Patrick very well; it’s tough to lose your father at that age, when you need everything to be all about you. And he suddenly has to get Lee involved in some of his scheming and story-telling as he tries to date several girls at once and get violent on the ice hockey pitch.

But again, this film is all about getting through the tough times and dealing with every day issues. It’s compelling, but really not easy viewing. Even the moment where Lee and Patrick seem to have finally agreed on a way forward for the boat Patrick inherited did not end up being a turning point. I mean, I don’t miss the rose-tinted glasses of 1950s Hollywood, but this story could have a tad more smiles than it did.

The main joy for both me and Bea was seeing a town we know and love on the eastern seaboard. Essex, Massachusetts was where much of Manchester was filmed and it brought back fond memories of a wonderful weekend – and many more fabulous road trips we had while we lived in the States.

I hear Manchester is up for a few Oscars this year. Hmmm, not sure about that, but then I rarely do like film that win Oscars, so no change there then.

***

Bea says: I was really looking forward to seeing Manchester by the Sea.  Unlike Cecil, I had read enough about it to know it was set on the north-eastern seaboard of the US; and that it was some kind of gritty family and relationships drama.  

Gritty it certainly was!  I am in a busy and often challenging phase of my life right now, and, well, I could have done with a bit more escapism and a bit less “real life” on a rare free Sunday afternoon.  

It’s not even a weepy, it’s so grim that it is beyond tears really.  However – it is very well written, very well acted and very well produced, and it’s not often you see that in a film these days.  The haunting story and the performances of both Affleck and Williams has stayed with me – a few weeks later I can still remember key scenes in clear detail, almost word for word.  It’s highly deserving of any awards.

I have liked Michelle Williams ever since her Dawson’s Creek days, and have watched her career develop with interest; and although she doesn’t have a lot of screen time in this film, what she does is riveting.  Affleck is similarly good; although since seeing it I have read a lot about his behaviour off screen, which is rather less palatable.  I loved seeing beautiful Essex as the location, and I really, really want Michelle Williams’ coat.

****

Jackie

Another solo viewing for Cecil, this time in a fairly busy Glasgow Film Theatre

Cecil says: I have to say I thought Natalie Portman was excellent in the role of Jackie Kennedy in Jackie. I haven’t really enjoyed her acting or her parts in other films I’ve seen, but for me she captured the mood perfectly of the former First Lady through her first week or so of grieving after JFK’s death.

This film is all about bereavement, especially when your loved one was in the public eye, so it won’t be a barrel of laughs you’ll get when you see it.

I chose to go to see Jackie on a gloomy afternoon in Glasgow at the exact moment Trump was being inaugurated as the next President of the USA. It seemed a poignant moment to see a film like this, and while the Kennedy Beautiful People were potentially the start of everything (the ‘swamp’) Trumps says he wants to get rid of in Washington, there’s something about the values JFK stood for that feel a million miles away from what we have in America today (and I mean today 20 January 2017, not 19 January and the eight years previous to this day).

It was also an appropriate time to watch Jackie, as the added burden of being the widow of the head of state meant she had to vacate the White House pretty damn quickly, with no period of grace the Obamas have just had. So we watch how the removal guys move in and Jackie lives with fears of being destitute in the future (as, we are told, happened to Lincoln’s wife after he was shot). It’s all very well knowing that she would end up with a multi-millionaire, but at the time, that would have been a major concern for her personally and for her kids.

The film cuts constantly between the journalist who has been sent to write a feature on Jackie and his interview with her, the flashbacks of her memories from the fateful day (plus a rather interesting TV broadcast she did to show the American people the inside of the White House back in 1961), and the practicalities of organising the funeral, what form it should take and how to protect the kids.

Billy Crudup was good as The Journalist (Theodore White, though he is never named), but this film is all about Natalie Portman, and she is surely in line for an Oscar nomination for this performance.

Apart from the horrific moment of JFK being shot in the head, though, this is not a tear-jerker or heartstring puller. Maybe that is the numbness of grief, or maybe it is because the whole story is really the telling of the tale for the journalist, who inevitably takes away the emotion from the copy.

Whichever it is, Portman is good; LBJ comes across as heartless and power-hungry, and Bobby Kennedy as a protective brother-in-law who is all too conscious of how things will look in public. “They’re blaming me for getting LBJ sworn in in Dallas”.

To go home from this to watching Trump getting sworn in, I felt more grief sitting in front of my telly than I had in the cinema. Hats off to Portman, though, for this one.

Oh, and final shout out for John Hurt, who played the Irish priest admirably. So good to see him back on the big screen. Great to see there are roles for him still, and long may that continue.

***.5

Silence

Cecil saw this one solo at the Waterfront Cinema in Greenock

Cecil says: Looking at Martin Scorsese’s filmography, I realise I haven’t been to one of his movies for over 30 years. He’s not a prolific director, but he’s just not my type, usually, so After Hours was the last Scorsese I had seen before Silence.

I have to say Silence is beautifully filmed (in Taiwan, by the way, not Japan, where the story is set) and the storyline reaches epic proportions, with its nod to films like The Mission or The Piano in telling of Europeans heading to far off shores in various spiritual quests.

The film opens in 1633, with young Jesuit zealots wanting to head off from the sanctuary of their friary in Macau to try to find Ferreira, who has gone AWOL over in the Far East, where the Japs are cracking down on Christians.

I suppose we are meant to empathise with the two young protagonists and to share their hopes of saving souls over there and finding their lost brother. But I found it hard to care really what happened to them, and rather hoped that the Japanese would find them out in order to preserve their own local culture. I found myself wondering how the film might have been shot by a Japanese director, looking at how locals felt about these foreign invaders trying to influence their society.

It’s only about an hour into the story when we first hear a little of what the Japanese authorities’ thinking is on the Jesuits. But when Rodrigues finds himself face to face with the Inquisitor, the Japanese head honcho is portrayed more like a sort of mediaeval Joker character out of a Batman film. I guess Scorsese needed to do that for his American audience.

A scene shortly after that, when the Rodrigues is paraded through the town as a prisoner felt like a 21^st century version of a 1950s western, when the Injuns have captured the film’s hero and he is being prepared for the pot or the scalping stake. Made me wonder how American audiences – especially the Trump supporters – would view a scene like this?

Of course, this is Portugal (well Portuguese Macau), not America, but these are Christian heroes trying to spread the Truth to the far east, so surely they are the goodies?

Well, I’m not sure that really was Scorsese’s message.

The character who comes out of Silence the strongest is Ferreira himself – played by Liam Neeson. He is more grounded as the new Buddhist monk he has become; he is a pragmatist, and has bought his survival with a virtually normal life in compensation for sacrificing his ‘faith’.

I had to wonder also if someone forced on Scorsese the very last scene of what lay in Rodrigues’ hand as his body was laid to rest. No spoiler here, either, but it felt trite to me, and not very believable.

I’m not really sure why the film is called Silence. It’s true, there are many scenes with no soundtrack and the protagonists need to stay silent in order not to be found, though the opening and closing scenes sound as if they have a background noise of cicadas or frogs chirping in the undergrowth. And it reminded me that the only place on earth I ever experienced total silence was the North Pole. But that has nothing to do with this film.

It’s a marathon, too, by the way. Be prepared for 2h40m of your life to be spent watching this one.

***