Skip to main content

Do you think I should do a human interest story?

Philomena
(2013)

The Oscars’ current dose of Anglophilia can likely be traced back to success of Chariots of Fire and the posture of celebrating English (British) Heritage, but with a twist. The ingredients of Empire may be reclaimed just so long as there’s a fleeting acknowledgment of past lapses. Sumptuous period trappings present older, better eras to hearken back to, but with a twinge of implicit criticism that the mores and values of the day may not have been all that snazzy. Conscience is relived sufficiently to permit the viewer a good wallow in past hues while tutting sagely at the less acceptable side.


Since then, there has been a dance between the more formal rigours of the Merchant Ivory/Laura Ashley school of British cinema and the broader church of contemporary lovable working class comedy-dramas. Philomena falls into the latter canmp, as Oscar Winner Dame Judi Dench’s unaffected OAP is chaperoned by Steve Coogan’s Oxbridge journalist in a quest to find the son who was taken from her many decades before by “evil nuns”. As Coogan’s Martin Sixsmith reluctantly observes, this is a human interest story; its dynamics allow writers Coogan and Jeff Pope to tackle the cynicism behind its telling in a meta-sense; when events don’t pan out in the expected manner we can be moved in a “wholly” genuine way, in the knowledge that the façade as been scraped away to reveal something good within. This isn’t your typical British Oscar bait, except in the sense that it’s typically atypical; it’s the film the ceremony loves to “discover” and give attention far exceeding its modest value. Philomena is a nice little story, crucially a “True Story”, well played by all concerned and with an all-important burst of fire in its belly (railing against injustice; the Academy loves that). The key to its success is its unfiltered niceness, wherein a near-octogenarian uses rude words and rotting pillars of the on-the-way-out establishment receive a much-deserved broadside. Its completely unremarkable nature is no doubt precisely why the Academy saw fit to remark upon it. Perhaps they should have been put off by the charge that the only people who appreciate this kind of story are “weak-minded, vulnerable, ignorant people” (probably at least two of those charges could be levelled at its members), but since Philomena has shown the savvy of raising that charge it believes it gets a free pass through self-awareness.


For a while there in the ‘90s, it appeared almost as if any British movie could pick up credibility from the awards-givers. The gently provocative pictures of Stephen Frears, the director of Philomena, made his reputation with during the ‘80s (My Beautiful Laundrette, Prick up your Ears, Sammy and Rosie Get Laid) were more prone to BAFTA than Oscar attention (though Laundrette received a screenplay nomination). His first brush with the period piece managed to retain this earlier edge, with a showering of nominations for Dangerous Liaisons (including coveted Best Picture). He retained that bite with The Grifters, a coal-hearted Donald Westlake adaptation, but things turned patchy for him subsequently. Ironically, this was just as Merchant Ivory had peaked (the run of A Room with a View, Howard’s End and The Remains of the Day) and various Brit directors and projects were being feted for a range of conversation-worthy subjects; the must-see twist (The Crying Game), salt-of-the-earth steel workers turn male strippers (The Full Monty) and frightfully funny stammering toff Hugh Grant (Four Weddings and a Funeral). Even Mike Leigh was receiving sporadic veneration for his faux-working class tales of how “real” people live (Secrets & Lies).



Meanwhile Frears had fallen into the Hollywood trap of botched or uncertain prestige projects; Accidental Hero, Mary Reilly, The Hi-Lo Country. He salvaged some credibility with a couple of back-to-basics Roddy Doyle adaptations, but the ‘90s wasn’t his greatest decade as a filmmaker. Since then his path has been a bit of a mess; there’s at least the comfort that he hasn’t one doesn’t quite know what he’ll settle on next. On the downside, he rarely settles on material with great potential. The last time he made anything really impressive was more than a decade ago (High Fidelity, Dirty Pretty Things). He has settled into the kind of amiable, amenable fare that often features Oscar Winners or nominees (see Dame Judi Dench, see Helen Mirren). Something for a mature audience, with the makings of a mild frisson (Mrs Henderson Presents), or a biopic of that reptilian monarch (The Queen). This lack of daring has brought him two Best Picture nominations (The Queen, Philomena), and there’s no longer any sense that his pictures are worth investigating on his name alone. It says something that a particular as self-consciously lightweight as Tamara Drewe might be his most interesting picture of late. I don’t expect his Lance Armstrong biopic will be revelatory. Philomena is almost wholly anonymous, not that stylistic devices ever announced his pictures; it was more that you could (once) see a running sensibility. Frears is now in the same passive mode as his last Dench collaboration here.


Philomena is at least unassuming. In that sense, like An Education, it doesn’t demand attention. The problem is that when it gets a lot of it, it rather detracts from its unlofty merits. Prestige historicals have reached the stage where we can be shameless manipulated by the disingenuous triumph against adversity theme that can make royalty just like us really (The King’s Speech); if a king can feature in an underdog story, there are few limits to what will work (I guess it works for presidents, so give it a spin). Oscar winning actress Dame Judi Dench’s presence might cynically be seen as keeping an eye on the awards ceremonies just by having her there. But that isn’t so much her fault as that of an industry believing her mere evacuates nuggets of pure gold on a property (Bond).


This time she plays Philomena Lee, a woman who was sent to an Irish abbey in the early 1950s after getting pregnant. Philomena had to work in the laundry to pay her keep, allowed to see her child for an hour a day. Until that is, he is given up for adoption. Philomena didn’t see him again, and kept his existence a secret from her family for 50 years. This role gives Dench extra credit, since the ceremonies are so used to her playing starchy posh bints; here she is down-to-earth, super-polite and full of humility. Philomena likes her romance novels, The Daily Mail and Reader’s Digest (as Sixsmith witheringly summarises).


Instead it’s Coogan’s Martin Sixsmith who is a bit of a stuck-up prick, and the actor is ready and willing to show the character’s less flattering side. After all, Sixsmith, for all his lack of people skills, has righteous anger on his side. As undercooked as the picture’s fury is (it’s much too nice to really get het up), he represents the audience surrogate in responding to the behaviour of the nuns; stoical Philomena may take the high path, but we don’t necessarily think that’s the correct one. In Coogan and Pope’s favour, they don’t succumb to a forced “they become best of friends” relationship between Sixsmith and Philomena. Even if there’s a conciliatory final scene, even at the end she avows her difference to him (“But I don’t want to hate people. I don’t want to be like you”). Whether or not we should come down on the side of her attitude or Sixsmith’s articulate fury (“Well, I couldn’t forgive you” he informs vile Sister McNulty) is a debate the film is content not to have; it provides a catharsis in the sister’s presence that didn’t exist in real life (she had died by the time Sixsmith investigate the story) so the priorities are fairly clear.


Sixsmith, who started out as a BBC journalist is, of course, is best known for the controversy that ended his flirtation with New Labour and allegations of attempting to manipulate the media by burying unpopular stories in the wake of 9/11. He went on to indulge his passion for Russian history (lightly mocked here) and offer his services to Armando Iannucci on The Thick of It. Given that he reportedly liked Coogan’s portrayal, and its not the most endearing of portraits, one has to wonder. But Philomena’s unadorned wisdom (“You should be nice to people on the way up as you might meet them again on the way down. Now you of all people should know that”) is rarely less than manufactured, and the picture is unwilling to actually frame Sixsmith down as a full-on manipulator (when he is asked to keep Philomena in the US to find the story, or says he won’t publish, she helpfully provides him with the answer he wants to hear on each occasion).


The trail of deception laid by the sisters of Roscrea to prevent Philomena from reuniting with her son is compelling. The point where the story appears to end actually leads to its most blistering twist; as Sixsmith pointedly asks “It’s not very Christian, is it?” If Philomena provides the acceptance, we side with Sixsmith when he asks, “So what are you going to do? Nothing?” Her dismissal that being as angry as he is must be exhausting doesn’t quite cut it, as someone needs to be. Less well-judged perhaps are Sixsmith’s attacks on belief, mainly because they are so standard issue; he’s better when he sticks to the Church itself, as it’s the institution and its cruelty and avarice that are at the root of the story (“The Catholic Church should go to confession, not you”) We want him to go further, but that’s no doubt why The Magdalene Sisters didn’t receive a brace of Oscar nominations.


The humour of the picture always seems a little broad, from running gags over Philomena’s lack of airs and graces and culture shock (hotel bath robes, Bucks Fizzes, rambling anecdotes, simple openness to others, her lack of surprise on learning her son as a “gay homosexual”) to Sixsmith’s not-actually working for News at Ten. At times you can hear Coogan the comedian too loudly in the writing, although this is never evident in his performance. He is sure and accomplished opposite Oscar-winning powerhouse Dame Judi Dench. Frears’ work is unobtrusive for the most part, although the “in her mind” flashbacks to times past through home movie footage is superfluous and crude.


Coogan seems to be on a bit of a roll at the moment, with choices that emphasise his versatility. He’s making a fist of it on the big screen such that memories of ill-advised transatlantic jaunts (Around the World in 80 Days) are banished. Dench carries so much prestige now, it can be an albatross around the neck of a perfectly likeable little movie.  She’s good, she always is, but that’s the point; you know exactly what you’re getting with her. This is the least of the 2013 Best Picture nominees, which on one level is an indication that there were no stinkers amongst the crop, but it also illustrates that everyone concerned with Philomena had their sights set low; it only wants to be just-a-little thought provoking, just-a-little humorous, just-a-little dramatic. It just wants to be nice.


***

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Poor Easy Breezy.

Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood (2019)
(SPOILERS) My initial reaction to Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood was mild disbelief that Tarantino managed to hoodwink studios into coming begging to make it, so wilfully perverse is it in disregarding any standard expectations of narrative or plotting. Then I remembered that studios, or studios that aren’t Disney, are desperate for product, and more especially, product that might guarantee them a hit. Quentin’s latest appears to be that, but whether it’s a sufficient one to justify the expense of his absurd vanity project remains to be seen.

I just hope my death makes more cents than my life.

Joker (2019)
(SPOILERS) So the murder sprees didn’t happen, and a thousand puff pieces desperate to fan the flames of such events and then told-ya-so have fallen flat on their faces. The biggest takeaway from Joker is not that the movie is an event, when once that seemed plausible but not a given, but that any mainstream press perspective on the picture appears unable to divorce its quality from its alleged or actual politics. Joker may be zeitgeisty, but isn’t another Taxi Driver in terms of cultural import, in the sense that Taxi Driver didn’t have a Taxi Driver in mind when Paul Schrader wrote it. It is, if you like, faux-incendiary, and can only ever play out on that level. It might be more accurately described as a grubbier, grimier (but still polished and glossy) The Talented Ripley, the tale of developing psychopathy, only tailored for a cinemagoing audience with few options left outside of comic book fare.

I'm reliable, I'm a very good listener, and I'm extremely funny.

Terminator: Dark Fate (2019)
(SPOILERS) When I wrote my 23 to see in 2019, I speculated that James Cameron might be purposefully giving his hand-me-downs to lesser talents because he hubristically didn’t want anyone making a movie that was within a spit of the proficiency we’ve come to expect from him. Certainly, Robert Rodriguez and Tim Miller are leagues beneath Kathryn Bigelow, Jimbo’s former spouse and director of his Strange Days screenplay. Miller’s no slouch when it comes to action – which is what these movies are all about, let’s face it – but neither is he a craftsman, so all those reviews attesting that Terminator: Dark Fate is the best in the franchise since Terminator 2: Judgment Day may be right, but there’s a considerable gulf between the first sequel (which I’m not that big a fan of) and this retcon sequel to that sequel.

So you want me to be half-monk, half-hitman.

Casino Royale (2006)
(SPOILERS) Despite the doubts and trepidation from devotees (too blonde, uncouth etc.) that greeted Daniel Craig’s casting as Bond, and the highly cynical and low-inspiration route taken by Eon in looking to Jason Bourne's example to reboot a series that had reached a nadir with Die Another Day, Casino Royale ends up getting an enormous amount right. If anything, its failure is that it doesn’t push far enough, so successful is it in disarming itself of the overblown set pieces and perfunctory plotting that characterise the series (even at its best), elements that would resurge with unabated gusto in subsequent Craig excursions.

For the majority of its first two hours, Casino Royale is top-flight entertainment, with returning director Martin Campbell managing to exceed his excellent work reformatting Bond for the ‘90s. That the weakest sequence (still good, mind) prior to the finale is a traditional “big” (but not too big) action set piece involving an attempt to…

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989)
(SPOILERS) There’s Jaws, there’s Star Wars, and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy, to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “mainly boring”.

Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the system when Burton did it (even…

The more you drive, the less intelligent you are.

Repo Man (1984)
In fairness, I should probably check out more Alex Cox’s later works. Before I consign him to the status of one who never made good on the potential of his early success. But the bits and pieces I’ve seen don’t hold much sway. I pretty much gave up on him after Walker. It seemed as if the accessibility of Repo Man was a happy accident, and he was subsequently content to drift further and further down his own post-modern punk rabbit hole, as if affronted by the “THE MOST ASTONISHING FEATURE FILM DEBUT SINCE STEVEN SPIELBERG’S DUEL” accolade splashed over the movie’s posters (I know, I have a copy; see below).

You guys sure like watermelon.

The Irishman aka I Heard You Paint Houses (2019)
(SPOILERS) Perhaps, if Martin Scorsese hadn’t been so opposed to the idea of Marvel movies constituting cinema, The Irishman would have been a better film. It’s a decent film, assuredly. A respectable film, definitely. But it’s very far from being classic. And a significant part of that is down to the usually assured director fumbling the execution. Or rather, the realisation. I don’t know what kind of crazy pills the ranks of revered critics have been taking so as to recite as one the mantra that you quickly get used to the de-aging effects so intrinsic to its telling – as Empire magazine put it, “you soon… fuggadaboutit” – but you don’t. There was no point during The Irishman that I was other than entirely, regrettably conscious that a 75-year-old man was playing the title character. Except when he was playing a 75-year-old man.

Look, the last time I was told the Germans had gone, it didn't end well.

1917 (2019)
(SPOILERS) When I first heard the premise of Sam Mendes’ Oscar-bait World War I movie – co-produced by Amblin Partners, as Spielberg just loves his sentimental war carnage – my first response was that it sounded highly contrived, and that I’d like to know how, precisely, the story Mendes’ granddad told him would bear any relation to the events he’d be depicting. And just why he felt it would be appropriate to honour his relative’s memory via a one-shot gimmick. None of that has gone away on seeing the film. It’s a technical marvel, and Roger Deakins’ cinematography is, as you’d expect, superlative, but that mastery rather underlines that 1917 is all technique, that when it’s over and you get a chance to draw your breath, the experience feels a little hollow, a little cynical and highly calculated, and leaves you wondering what, if anything, Mendes was really trying to achieve, beyond an edge-of-the-seat (near enough) first-person actioner.

This is one act in a vast cosmic drama. That’s all.

Audrey Rose (1977)
(SPOILERS) Robert Wise was no stranger to high-minded horror fare when he came to Audrey Rose. He was no stranger to adding a distinctly classy flavour to any genre he tackled, in fact, particularly in the tricky terrain of the musical (West Side Story, The Sound of Music) and science fiction (The Day the Earth Stood Still, The Andromeda Strain). He hadn’t had much luck since the latter, however, with neither Two People nor The Hindenburg garnering good notices or box office. In addition to which, Audrey Rose saw him returning to a genre that had been fundamentally impacted by The Exorcist four years before. One might have expected the realist principals he observed with The Andromeda Strain to be applied to this tale of reincarnation, and to an extent they are, certainly in terms of the performances of the adults, but Wise can never quite get past a hacky screenplay that wants to impart all the educational content of a serious study of continued existence in tandem w…

They literally call themselves “Decepticons”. That doesn’t set off any red flags?

Bumblebee  (2018)
(SPOILERS) Bumblebee is by some distance the best Transformers movie, simply by dint of having a smattering of heart (one might argue the first Shia LaBeouf one also does, and it’s certainly significantly better than the others, but it’s still a soulless Michael Bay “machine”). Laika VP and director Travis Knight brings personality to a series that has traditionally consisted of shamelessly selling product, by way of a nostalgia piece that nods to the likes of Herbie (the original), The Iron Giant and even Robocop.