Military Wives

Seen at the Everyman, Glasgow

Cecil says: We watched Military Wives on our wedding anniversary on a wet afternoon in Glasgow, when it was a relief just to get into the warm and out of the relentless rain outside. It was a good, light-hearted film for a matinee and actually felt very relevant to our own lives in so many ways.

We are both choral singers, rather than karaoke fans, but we have seen enough self-important, know-it-all choir people over the years to recognise the character played so well by Kristin Scott-Thomas.

We also lived a few miles from the UK’s largest garrison for some years in Yorkshire and we rather fancy they filmed part of Military Wives on that garrison that we knew so well (though I guess army housing looks pretty similar wherever you are in the country). And we often drove past the isolated farmhouse, which I’m pretty sure was mainly used for film sets and appeared in this film (though there were no details of where exactly the locations were in the credits at the end).

And we have both sung at the Albert Hall, my first time also being a very emotional occasion, singing a Requiem just days after a close friend had died, so there were lots of memory triggers throughout the film for me, and I’m sure for Bea as well.

The plot is kind of fun: organising morale-boosting activities for wives of servicemen and women left behind when the spouses go on 6-monthly tours of duty; and the very different approach from the senior officer’s (posh) wife to the sergeant-major’s (more working class) partner.

I could never have survived in the armed forces for lots of reasons, but one of the toughest things I think is the stark hierarchy and the tendency for class divides to be so heightened in the forces. I would never have fitted in with the ordinary soldiers, but nor would I have been at ease in the officer’s mess, with all that posh talk going on around me.

There are some comical adjustments to the dialogue and filming to make things easier (I guess) for American – and other overseas – audiences, like the reference to ‘York Cathedral’ instead of Minster; and the hilarious signpost in the middle of the Yorkshire Dales with “London, M1” to the left and the garrison to the right (It reminds me of a final scene in some movie we saw years ago when the main character goes to a ticket counter and asks for ‘two tickets to Africa, please’…).

And although I loved the final song supposedly created from letters the wives had written to their spouses (or vice versa), with beautiful music (I think composed by Scotsman Lorne Balfe), I do not believe they would have been learning their lines still on the coach down to London, or never have rehearsed the song until they got to the changing rooms at the Albert Hall. But, hey, this is fiction and there is dramatic licence, so it didn’t really matter…

Overall, it’s a nice film, with some moving scenes related to loss and grief, but a feel-good film on the whole, and certainly good for a wet afternoon in Glasgow.

***

Bea says:  Seen at my new fave cinema, and sort of my current local – the Everyman in Glasgow, and as Cecil says, this was a bit of welcome light relief, as well as a relief to be dry and warm and sheltered from the Glasgow rain for a few hours!

Cecil suggested this one for our anniversary afternoon (in between lunch at the Willow Tea Rooms and a fish and chip supper), and I was happy to agree as I assumed it would be about the formation of the military wives choir (which it was) – but I hadn’t quite realised how much it would resonate with our life, including the Garrison scenes and the concert at the Royal Albert Hall.

 I entered choral life later than Cecil, and have sung more than once at the RAH, but the first time (the Verdi Requiem for me) is unforgettable.  Cecil and I are spending quite a bit of time apart this year due to differing work commitments, so a film that brought together so many facets of our life, on our wedding anniversary was actually very special and poignant.

However, it could have just been some good writing, and perhaps everyone seeing this film feels connected in some way to its story of marriages, loss, grief, parenting and joy – universal emotions even if one hasn’t shared the exact experience of the women.

Other than these deeper emotions, the film is actually quite lightweight and fun in a “Full Monty” kind of way with lots of singalong tracks (I suspect a stage show is likely to follow) and wisecracking.  Kristin Scott Thomas acts everyone else off the screen, and the scene where she gets into the car and sobs is stellar – I did not share the experience her character had, but I think we can all connect with feeling that wretched, particularly when used to holding it all together.  Her grounding performance lifts the whole film above the forgettable, and I am so glad that she is in it.

Definitely worth seeing – despite the emotions, this will leave you feeling good.

***.5

A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood

Seen by Cecil at the Lido Cinema, Hawthorn, Melbourne Australia & by Bea at the Glasgow Film Theatre, Scotland

Cecil says: The older he gets, the more I find I’m enjoying Tom Hanks’ acting. Maybe that’s just me getting older, too, and relating, but I’m seeing more depth and more layers to his characters than I ever remember in earlier roles.

In Neighborhood, he’s great as Mr Rogers, the children’s TV presenter, known and loved by several generations of Americans, and with a canny knack of tuning into the real needs of each person he connects with.

Funnily enough, the kids TV programmes I thought about as I watched the film were Trumpton and Camberwick Green, the UK equivalent in the 1960s, with model people and buildings, and daily goings-on behind the doors. The windows he opened and the voice he used reminded me more of Play School, but that was for an even younger audience back then.

The main character in this film, though, Lloyd Vogel, is a rather unappealing 40 year old journalist who has a long-suffering wife, a small baby and a Dad he has massive anger towards. His task is to profile Mr Rogers for a magazine feature on ‘heroes’, and he tries to probe under the smiling, calm surface of Rogers to get to the real man underneath.

On the way he has massive fights with his Dad, treats his wife uncaringly and just came across to me as someone who needed a good dose of psychotherapy to get all those demons out in a safe place, rather than taking them out on people around him. I found him a totally unsympathetic character, so had no empathy for his situation, and certainly no tears when things went even further wrong for the man.

Rogers smoothly glances aside any probing questions from Vogel, saying only that he is only human himself, and finds an outlet for any frustrations he may have comes in thrashing down hard on the deepest bass keys of his piano. And there’s a scene very late on in the film, where we see Rogers do just that: so is that just him letting off steam after a hard day? Or is it a hint that maybe there are darker layers to the guy than we get to see in the film? We’ll never know, but it was an interesting moment, and I give the guy the benefit of the doubt…

***

Bea says: I saw Neighborhood at the Glasgow Film Theatre and went knowing very little about it other than it was Tom Hanks’ latest outing.  I thought, from the title, that it would be some kind of happy, pleasant film – and in some ways it was, but it was actually very, very emotionally intense as well. 

Not being American, I know little of Mr Rogers other than that he is/was a popular children’s entertainer from the 1960s-80s.  The insights into his motivation for this – helping children deal with deep and difficult emotions such as anxiety – was interesting. 

Our modern times are complex and difficult indeed – I sat grimacing throughout as I expected Lloyd Vogel’s investigative journalism to uncover some dreadful deed along the lines of those children’s television presenters who have more recently fallen from grace.  But this does not happen, and I was so relieved that it did not.  In a way, this was the only light relief the film had for me – Lloyd is not an overly likeable character but his difficult childhood and family life help to explain that, and his journey of self-discovery as he gets to know Mr Rogers better is heavy but at least ends well.

Tom Hanks is very good – again, perhaps I have been programmed by our modern times but I did find him slightly creepy in this role….maybe that was intentional?  I wasn’t alone, as the cinema usher told me the same thing on the way out.

I suspect the awards surrounding this film are nostalgic and to do with Americans remembering their Mr Rogers years fondly, although the story and acting are very good. 

My main or only critique was that It was surprisingly poor on the Bechtel however…I would have liked to see or hear a bit more from the female characters.

However, recommended.

***.5

1917

Seen in separate cinemas...

Bea says: As Cecil and I are not in the same city at the moment, I saw this alone at the Everyman in Glasgow, on a wet Sunday.  Sofa-style seats and tea/coffee/drinks brought on a tray made this a very comfortable cinema experience.

I did very much enjoy the 1917's narrative style - it feels like a long time since I've seen a film tell a story from start to finish without flash backs or the switching of storylines - and indeed only cover a short period in time, in this case about 11 hours or so.

The long takes have been much discussed in commentary and reviews on this film, and from what I can tell either make it a work of genius or a flop. For me, it fell somewhat in between.  There is a sense of distance (the most common criticism of the long takes), but I didn't find that took away from the film for me - after all, my ability to truly identify with a young soldier in the trenches of WW1 is going to be limited. It felt instead like hearing a story told - and from the credits I gather that's exactly how this film began.

The story is absorbing, beautifully filmed (with the Clyde standing in for northern France) , well-acted and certainly well-directed, and the time passed quickly as the film built to its resolution, which I won't give away.

However - it is rather derivative of the WW1/war genre, and did remind me a lot of the 1980s Peter Weir classic Gallipoli. So nothing new in terms of story. Failed the Bechtel - not surprising, I guess, considering the context. A woman is featured at one stage, desperately trying to keep a baby alive. That particular scene reminded me of a scene in Apocalypse Now (the Directors Cut), which this film was also somewhat reminiscent of, but in general women were mothers, wives, sisters and girlfriends at home, despite the fact that women nursed in the front line in WW1 (Testament of Youth), and were certainly active in WW2 at least as spies and resistance.

I enjoyed this film for its window into history, and family history at that, and for its strong narrative and beautiful filming. Worth a watch.

***

Cecil says:  I saw it on the same weekend as Bea but on the other side of the world, at the Classic Theatre, Elsternwick, in Melbourne’s leafy suburbs.

1917 tells a great story even if I think we focus too much on Tommy experience in WW1 or Churchill/Dunkirk etc in WW2.

The story is told as if with the two characters involved. It's a 'running' mission to get a message to the front line in time to stop a disastrous attack. And unlike Bea, I actually felt like the long takes helped me feel a part of the experience; much more immersed in 'real time' speed of events than in the modern-day social media style video clips which assume a minute attention span, and so zip from scene to scene in a milli-second, leaving old brains like mine still thinking of the action three scenes ago, while the camera has jumped on and taken more youthful brains with it.

As the intrepid pair set off from the trenches and wade through dead bodies, it conjures up images I am lucky enough only to have read before in the fantastic Pat Barker trilogy; and the scenes in the bombed-out town as our hero dodges flares and enemy gunfire; or the camera work in the water as he leaps into the fast-flowing river. It's all really well filmed and I felt a part of the process as it happened.

Apparently the River Clyde comes into it, though god knows where or when - surely it’s the Clyde upstream somewhere near Lanark rather than the wide shipping channel I’m used to seeing near Glasgow...

The final running scene reminded me of Mel Gibson in Gallipoli, so there I did share Bea’s perception, and you realise how awful it must have been to have been a fast sprinter in those war years - you’d get to do all the life threatening jobs that needed speed above all.

I found the scenes with the French/Belgian mother and baby in the bombed-out house very moving, but actually as Bea says, this is a total Bechtel failure overall, as she was the only female appearance in the whole film.

Finally, as usual I was one of the few diehards who stayed for the full credits at the end. I was amazed how many plasterers and carpenters they employed and how many digital artists (mostly with Indian names) appear listed. I do sometimes think they overdo who gets ‘credited’ these days (‘Sheryl Smith brought the tea to the cast and film crew on Day 26 of filming...’), but there is usually something to learn or to note from staying in to watch them all roll through.

***.5

Little Women

Seen at the Village Cinemas, Geelong

Bea says: We saw this on New Year’s Day at the lovely Village cinemas complex in Geelong.  It was a clear, cloudless day after the sad and devastating bushfire news in Australia, and we were in need of a pick-me-up.  After a coffee and a walk on the sea front, we headed in to a relatively busy theatre to watch this latest iteration of Louisa May Alcott’s book.

Now, I am a fan of Alcott’s work and have read all four books in the series as a child/young person (I had a vintage hardcover four book set which I think were my mother’s or aunt’s originally).  I re-read the first two books, Little Women and Good Wives, very often growing up and have seen (I think) every film and TV version made over the years.  I’ve also read some of Alcott’s other work, most notably her novella about nursing in the Civil War in a Washington DC hospital, during the period when we lived there.  However, Cecil and I have watched director Greta Gerwig’s work from early on as well, having seen and reviewed Frances Ha on this very blog.

I’m afraid I was underwhelmed with this version of Little Women.  I’m not sure what it added to the canon.  Its main claim to “innovation” was to tell the story in flashback and move back and forth in time.  Whilst this is a modern (post-modern in fact) approach to storytelling, and one I usually enjoy, it didn’t really work for me in the adaptation of this particular piece of fiction.  Little Women (the book) is a narrative that centres on the growth and personal development of the four sisters – in the actual book, this theme is likened to the Pilgrim’s Progress, the Christmas gift all fours girls are given at the book’s opening.  It is not just a series of connected, cosy stories about four young people growing up.  This theme of progress and self-development is actually what is behind the book’s eternal appeal, as otherwise it would just be too light, pleasant but instantly forgettable.  Whilst Gerwig tried to show this development in the way the flashbacks were arranged (Jo’s anger at Amy after the book-burning incident is more or less juxtaposed with (spoiler alert!) her marriage to Laurie, for example), because we didn’t have some of the subtler development that is shown through stories that focus on the other sisters in between, the impact was somewhat lost for me.

But it is hard to mess this book up in adaptation – the storyline is very strong indeed, but that is thanks to Alcott, not Gerwig I’m afraid.  Despite my familiarity with the events of the story, I still shed a tear when (spoiler alert!) Beth dies, and feel Jo’s despair and loneliness when things don’t go so well for her with the trip to Europe and Laurie.

I didn’t think the casting combined with the direction was particularly appropriate either.  Emily Watson may have done better as Jo than Saoirse Ronan – she is a perhaps a stronger actress.  

Contrary to popular opinion, I didn’t enjoy Florence Pugh as Amy – I didn’t think she looked young enough to play Amy as a child.  Timothee Chalamet as Laurie looked far too young for either Ronan or Pugh which made their love relationships difficult to believe.  Louis Garrel as Professor Bhaer also looked too young (he is supposed to be middle aged, although admittedly in the 1860s that was probably younger than it is now) and annoyingly spoke with a French rather than German accent throughout.  It was nice to see Laura Dern on screen again, and she gave it a good go, but I felt she was perhaps being held back.  Meryl Streep was perfect as always.

I’m afraid Gillian Anderson’s 1994 version still wins out for me; as does the less referenced but wonderful BBC mini-series that was only released in 2017.  I would also very much like to watch the 1949 version again now – I haven’t seen it for many years.

Seeing this film made me think of that other great series of young women growing up I read as a child – Little House on the Prairie.  Although slightly done to death in the 1970s TV series, I am quite surprised no one has thought to give this the modern (or post-modern) film treatment yet…

***

Cecil says: I can’t add much to what Bea has already said.

The casting was appalling, especially the young men, not just because they had little presence on screen, and came across more like school kids than deep-thinking intellectuals, but also as Bea says, with the accents: what on earth are we doing with a French actor (with French accent) playing a German professor. And I’m afraid Chalamet looks as if he’s barely shaving yet, let alone wooing two (or three even?) of the sisters.

The constant back-and-forth of the narrative drove me mad, mainly because it was so hard to know whether we were looking at current time in the narrative or some year earlier; the time difference being quite small meant little in the way of makeup used to distinguish how the actors looked. I must have lost the plot for a few seconds ten times through the film, and as Bea says, it’s a plot we theoretically know very well…

To be positive about something in this film, I did like the way Beth was portrayed by Gerwig, with Eliza Scanlen in the role. Her illness is always moving in every version I have seen, and the scenes with her piano playing are always lovely.

I actually hadn’t noticed before the distinctive talents of three of the sisters: Jo writing; Beth music and Amy art. That kind of leaves Meg rather talentless, though, and she is the one who craves above all else a typical homely life, so maybe that is intentional in Alcott’s work? I don’t remember the ball scene so well from other versions of Little Women, where Meg has her Coming Out, but I quite warmed to Emily Watson in the role.

I can’t agree with Bea on the idea of Watson playing Jo instead of Saoirse Ronan. Ronan does ‘plain’ far better than I can imagine Watson managing it, and actually far more convincingly than someone like Winona Ryder, who couldn’t be plain even with the best of makeup artists…

So overall, I can only give this version of Little Women two stars, even though I know the story is a five star one.

**