Boy Erased

Seen at the Westgarth Theatre, Northcote VIC

Cecil says: Another film seen at the Westgarth as part of my Vintage Victoria cinema search. So seen without Bea this time, too.

Boy Erased has had good reviews. It even got a mention at my little local film club as a film on release that we should all see. But I actually found it a bit depressing, and even made me think of a kind of LGBT version of Handmaid's Tale, seeing a dystopian America, where the religious fundamentalists rule and anything outside the very orthodox around gender and sexuality is to be not only hidden but punished.

The trouble is, unlike The Handmaid's Tale, however real that may become, Boy Erased is based on real life characters so this really did happen.

Basically it is about a gay man, whose father is a church minister preaching about moral rectitude week-in, week-out, and his Mum goes along with what the father wants.

And what the father wants, after getting advice from other awful church elders, is to send his son off for conversion therapy to help him rid himself of the sin of homosexuality.

The whole concept is deeply disturbing, as are some of the scenes both inside the 'education' centre, and in Jared's own initiation into gay sex, where he basically gets raped.

It all ends up OK, and Jared manages to come out of it - still gay, of course - with his mind and his family relationships intact, but this is not a feel-good movie. And I was dying to ask the gay couple next to me what they made of it; what their overall feeling at the end was? Depression at the oppression, or lifted up by the outcomes?

I didn't feel able to ask them and they left just before I did.

Nicole Kidman and Russell Crowe are good, though I'm not sure why they cast two Aussies in these middle American roles. Lucas Hedges is excellent at Jared Eamons.

Not the most uplifting end to a lovely afternoon at the Westgarth

***

Hello Hemingway

Seen at the Latin American Film Festival at the Westgarth Theatre, Northcote VIC

Cecil says: I went to this one on my own as part of my Vintage Victoria project, because I wanted to see the Westgarth Theatre. So I just chose whatever film they had on next.

I was really pleased to see this Cuban period drama made in 1990 so not a new release, but interesting as it was set in 1956 as political unrest was growing in Cuba.

Funnily enough, it came hot on the heels of our seeing Ladies in Black (still not quite done our review of that one), which was also set in the 1950s and had as its central focus a school girl coming-of-age.

The Cuban one was fascinating and showed the difficulty of the bright, bookish Larita, who dreams of getting a scholarship to study in the States, but is up against a bunch of posh kids from private schools. It's not her education which lets her down, but her lack of connection and her rather unsettled home life.

Things are difficult at home as the uncle she lives with (along with her Mum and auntie, cousin and grandmother) loses his job as a policeman. It's not a job he enjoys anyway, as he has to see things he can't describe to the ladies at home (presumably torture of left-wing revolutionaries and activists), but he is the main breadwinner in the household.

Suddenly Larita's dreams of university and getting to America seem stupid romantic fantasies to the rest of her family, and indeed to her revolutionary boyfriend Victor who wonders why she'd want to leave him and the Association just when things are getting interesting.

It's a classic tale of dreamy teenagers, passionate politics, poverty and survival, with some lovely observations on life threaded through it.

Hemingway is visible but out of reach. That is Hemingway himself, since he lives in the mansion up on the hill and he is seen from time to time, but never seems to be home when Larita needs his help.

But also Hemingway's novels, which Larita discovers via the most endearing character in the film, the guy who runs the local bookshop, but which her boyfriend Victor regards as romantic rubbish and a fantasy.

I loved the shots of the coastline in Havana, the Malecon. Especially as I have been there for one of my old jobs. What intrigued me even more was that this film was made three years even before I was there in 1993 so must have looked pretty similar to what I saw myself, even though supposedly set a few decades earlier. (After all, one of the beauties of Havana is the old buildings and cars, since nobody has had money to do terrible 'development' since the revolution in 1959).

I really enjoyed this film and was very glad I had timed my visit to the Westgarth to coincide with its start in the Latin American Film Festival 2018.

****

Leave no Trace

Seen at the Star Cinema in Eaglehawk VIC. And seen by Cecil alone as Bea is away :-(

Cecil says: I really liked this film about a father and daughter who live outside mainstream society, first in Oregon and then in Washington State. It’s actually a coming-of-age film, though not in the usual Hollywood way.

Tom, really well played by Thomasin McKenzie (did they give the character that name only after casting, I wonder?), is a resourceful teenager who is learning how to cover her tracks in the woods, how to pick and cook mushrooms and how to survive in the wild of the woods (though the film makes it seem far from wild, and actually extremely serene).

But as the film develops, you realise that she is in fact just following her Dad wherever he goes, and he is the more restless one. There’s a vague reference to the loss of his wife (she barely remembers her Mum), and lots of hints that Will (Ben Foster) has come back from some tour of duty with the armed services and suffers nightmares and probably PTSD as a result.

Tom actually quite likes some of the places they briefly stop in. She enjoys community, meeting others, and quickly settles before her dad wants to move on again.

The film is made with Tom as the central character. We learn more about her than about her Dad, and as they move on yet again, we as viewers share Tom’s frustration at her Dad’s need for constant movement.

I loved the shack community in Washington State, with the wonderful woman who keeps bees, and the older couple who sing lovely harmonies by the campfire.

It’s the side to America Bea and I loved when we lived there, even though we didn’t actually meet such marginal communities ourselves, but it showed that sense of community and togetherness that we did see a lot of, and it felt a million miles away from the America of Trump supporters we see more of on the TV usually.

I won’t spoil the ending for those who haven’t seen the film yet, but there’s something very mature about Tom in the final scenes, as she allows herself to feel emotions but takes a decision that goes with her heart.  

I found it very thought-provoking and atmospheric, peaceful and insightful. Not a rip-roaring tale, but a film very suited to my mood that sunny Sunday in October.

***.5

Mary Shelley

Seen at the Theatre Royal in Castlemaine, VIC

Cecil says: A second film in a day is a bit like having that second coffee in the morning: the second one has to be really top quality to be satisfying because the first one met the addictive need. 

Sadly, Mary Shelley just wasn’t quite good enough to warrant being our second film, and by the end I was wondering how long there was still left to go, and how many more extra bits they could add to the story.

I wasn’t alone in this, though. The woman next to us got her mobile phone out half way through and began reading stuff off it, much to my annoyance. She moved after a few minutes, but when I glanced back some time later, she was still in the cinema, on the back row and still on her phone.

So that’s at least two of us who thought Mary Shelley wasn’t as gripping as we had hoped.

I did get caught up a few times, and enjoyed learning about the connections between Shelley and Byron, Shelley and Wollstonecroft, and even to learn that Mary Shelley was with the poet Shelley and took his name. I must admit I hadn’t even known that beforehand.

But somehow it didn’t retain my attention. I found myself observing the action on the screen, wondering why this felt like a 6^th form end-of-year production (was it the hair, the look, the acting, the script?); wondering if it would have worked better as an 8-part TV drama? And wishing they’d just get on with producing Frankenstein!!

Byron was the worst, somehow. Felt a bit like someone trying to be Alan Rickman in Robin Hood. All evil and doing terrible deeds.

The process of writing was interesting. How an idea is born and how it takes on a concrete form with characters and plot developing as you experience things in life.

It was tragic how all these talented (if aimless) people died so young, and extraordinary that most of the things that happened to them happened in their teens. Maybe that’s why it felt like that 6^th form production. They were all supposed to be 6^th form age…

***

Bea says: A very interesting story, which despite having a degree in English Literature I knew precious little about - like Cecil I hadn't even realised that the "Shelley" in her name was from the poet Shelley, and certainly had no idea her mother was Mary Wollstonecraft! 

The story was strong enough for me to remain interested; but again, as Cecil says, it did rather feel like a 6th form play (I suspect the makeup and costume designers might have been young...).  Certainly made the whole Romantic poets thing look a lot less romantic; and didn't bear comparison with On Chesil Beach, which we had seen right before.

**

On Chesil Beach

Seen at the Theatre Royal, Castlemaine, VIC

Bea says: I was keen to see this after reading Ian McEwan's On Chesil Beach when it first came out in the late 2000s; and wondered how well they would deal with the theme of repressed sex in post war Britain.

I can certainly remember an interesting conversation with my father-in-law about it, who said the novel rather hit a nerve for him - only slightly older than the protagonists in the novel, and film. 

The story centres on Edward (Billy Howle) and Florence's (Saoirse Ronan) wedding night, and their lack of knowledge and experience of sex, leading to a (spoiler alert) disastrous experience and swift annulment of their marriage.  The novel is able to focus more on their internal dialogue and on the what-might-have-been; but the film manages to convey their youth, and the first signs of the beginning of the changing social system for post war generations, which Edward and Florence just slightly miss out on, and also, and most importantly that things tend to turn out ok in the long run, even if it wasn't what we thought would or should happen at the time. 

That was something I took from the book, and although I think the ending was embellished a bit in the film, it still came across, if with less of a light touch, and is what keeps this story from being depressing.

Loved the acting and direction.  Howle and Ronan both give excellent, understated performances and the director keeps it tight.  Not sure however if one could actually complete a long walk (or run) along Chesil Beach in ballet flats however...

***1/2

Cecil says: I actually enjoyed On Chesil Beach. I like period dramas, even if the ‘period’ is now inching its way into my lifetime, and this film’s last scenes are actually set in 2007. But seeing Chesil Beach on film was wonderfully evocative for me of exciting holidays as a child down on the Dorset coast.

The sea was calm for all the scenes shot in this film, but the sound of waves crashing over the pebbles, and that amazing shaped beach, which is so visible in the film, were favourites of mine as Young Cecil.

I really enjoyed the storyline too, with its awkward undertones of sexual frustrations, connections made but then lost, and the conventions of the early 60s, still holding people back before the Swinging years came along a short time later.

I’m sure there are plot weaknesses like the fact that He doesn’t know the difference between Baguette and Brioche, even though he got a First Class Honours in History and specialised in Versailles; and the rather over-dramatic break-up as a knee jerk reaction to a first row as a couple. 

Maybe I’m seeing things through 21^st century glasses, but – in contrast to films like Remains of the Day, admittedly set in earlier times, but where the social difficulties made things ‘impossible’ for the lovers – but did relationships really break down that easily over one bad night in bed??

The people we went with found the pace a bit slow and the mood lacking humour. But it didn’t bother me, and I was gripped all the way through.

The music was lovely, too, with more nice memories of attending concerts in Wigmore Hall in my London days.

I guess we don’t go to see films for the memories or the music, but they certainly kept me engaged through On Chesil Beach. I thought Saoirse Ronan was excellent as Florence; Billy Howle also believable as Edward. Other famous faces are Anne-Marie Duff and Emily Watson, as the two mothers, and both carry off their roles well, though Duff’s ‘brain damage’ is an interesting case.

My own Mum was hit by a train door like that and she too fell to the ground, though fortunately not with the dire consequences suffered by Duff’s character.

So overall I gave On Chesil Beach a thumbs up. I thought I had read the book but actually that’s one of Ian McEwan’s works I haven’t read. And some critics say the story is better told on the printed page. Well that’s as maybe.

 I still give this film ***.5

Edie

Seen at the Paramount Theatre, Maryborough VIC

Cecil says:  We went to see Edie because we quite fancied being transported over to the Scottish Highlands, which is where the film is largely set. And from that point of view, Edie was a great success, with much of it filmed in and around Lochinver, a place we know well and have fond memories of visiting in years gone by.

The idea of the story is also not bad: 83 year old woman, who was a bit of a wild child early in her life, but then lived through a controlling marriage and had to care for her not very nice sounding husband for some 30 years, is suddenly free when he dies one day.

This liberates Edie, very well played by Sheila Hancock by the way, to follow a dream of climbing a certain mountain up in the far NW of Scotland. So that basic premise is all very well, and could have made quite an interesting film, dotted through maybe with historical snippets of her wild youth with her Dad, and her subdued marriage.

But instead, we are taken through a rather implausible link-up with a young man who just keeps doing rather unlikely things. For starters, on Inverness railway station platform, he and his girlfriend knock Edie to the ground as they rush for their train, and that just felt very unbelievable knowing the width of those platforms and the small number of passengers on them…

But then, over and over, we have unlikely or caricatural scenes, like the night Edie gets taken to the local pub, and everyone is either really unfriendly, laughing at her, or even knocks her to the ground again as she is whirled across the dance floor. We have never ever been to a small Scottish town and found people behave like that, even at an incredibly busy New Years Eve ceilidh last year, in fact.

It made me wonder if the writer had ever actually spent much time in Scotland, so I looked for her name when the credits rolled at the end, and sure enough it Elizabeth O’Halloran is from the west coast of Ireland, not Scotland, and it made me wonder if her portrayal of small town Scotland was not actually more based on her knowledge of west coast Ireland (not that I know that area myself).

The relationship between Edie and Jonny doesn’t really work, and since this is central to the film itself, I’m afraid in that sense, the film itself doesn’t work.

Given how difficult the climb to the summit was, would he really have let an 83-year old go for it alone? When he did go up to find her after the rainstorm, mightn’t it have been more interesting to discuss why actually reaching the summit itself mattered so much, as the experience of even getting that far was achievement enough, wasn’t it?

The moment she gets there is backed by full orchestral soundtrack, presumably designed to overwhelm us with the emotions she must feel in that instant, but I found myself not being moved by this scene at all, and wondering why the tug of the heartstrings?

Oh and Jonny’s own relationship with his girlfriend just came across as false. I mean, so he wants to go up a hill to spend time with an old lady? Why should that matter? Would the entrepreneurial girlfriend really have been so upset at his ‘disloyalty’? It just came across as a mountain out of a molehill.

So, great scenery, some nice filming, and basic idea OK, but the plot and the dialogue pretty average, I’m afraid.

**.5, but ***.5 for the setting

Bea says: Great concept, beautifully filmed, but not well written.

On paper, this film really works, and on screen it gets a 2/3 - the idea is really good, and in our times of an increasing aged population surely very resonant too?  Cecil has summarised the plot, so I won't, but suffice to say this must be a very common experience for older women now; to have spent quite some years caring for an ill and/or disabled partner, coming out of a marriage that may or may not have been particularly fulfilling, and still with relative health and fitness.  

The idea of a journey of independence, of discovery, of tying up loose ends, is really workable.  However, perhaps it might have been better to get someone to write the script who had at least some insight into this situation, or who could place themselves in it, and/or who had some knowledge of Scottish culture. 

I am not Scottish, but have worked and lived there, and I winced a bit at the portrayal, as Scots are generally more friendly and much more thoughtful of others than the characters were portrayed.  On the way home, I said to Cecil that it felt like a first draft, but later Cecil did some research and told me it was at least the fourth or fifth draft of the script....It had potential, but needed a good editorial steer away from cliché and towards depth.

The filming was beautiful.  The Scottish Highlands tend to play themselves in any film they feature in, and this was no exception, but I particularly liked the sequence when Edie is walking and the quietness, and sounds and sights of the natural world are emphasised.  It's rare to see that kind of still, quiet, slow filming in any feature film, and I was lost in it.  The filming made the experience of seeing this film worthwhile to me.  

Don't go expecting any good dialogue or characterisation - go for the views and the filming.

**.5

The Breaker Upperers

Seen at the Paramount Theatre, Maryborough, VIC

Cecil says: The distributors of The Breaker Upperers did a good job advertising this film. They knew how to pick the best bits for the trailer, which got us to go and see it, as – we hoped – a light entertainment film on a cold Sunday morning. I wish they hadn’t.

This was awful.

I don’t even want to waste too much time explaining what was awful about it. Dreadfully written; stilted; jokes that felt more like Benny Hill or a sixth form drama production at high school. No, I’m being nice: a fourth form production.

I can’t think of any redeeming features, really. As soon as I saw Celia Pacquola on the doorstep overdoing the tears, I realised how much I dislike her acting and ‘comic’ style (she vaguely works on Rosehaven, but only against the wooden estate agent sidekick there).

The concept might have worked if better written. But it was over-acted, cliched and painfully NOT funny. Oh, and what the dance scene towards the end was all about, I have no idea. It really made me wonder who the target audience was: if Millennials, why lead with main characters who are old enough to be their Mums? If not Millennials, wtf?

Come on, New Zealand cinema. I know you can do better than this.

*

Bea says: Yes, clearly a case of all the best jokes were in the trailer...it's rare that I don't find any redeeming features in a film, but this had very few.  There were a handful of funny lines (which we had seen before).  But otherwise, despite the concept being quite good (the Breaker-Upperers can be hired to break up with your partner on your behalf), it was so poorly written - a 6th form class could probably have done better.  In fact, I mused to Cecil afterwards, it might have been originally conceived of for TV, as it did occasionally feel like a series of episodes strung together (not particularly well).  

The comedy was infantile and heavy handed; as a result just not funny.  It needed a far lighter touch, and dare I say better delivery.  You need a very, very good comic actor to work well with poor writing, and sadly I just don't think the cast were up to it.  Shortly after seeing this however, I noticed a NZ friend posting about it on Facebook - and she loved it, describing it as quintessential NZ comedy...perhaps a cultural gap?

* for the 5-6 funny lines.