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

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

Well, we took a vote. Predator’s cooler, right?

The Predator (2018)
(SPOILERS) Is The Predator everything you’d want from a Shane Black movie featuring a Predator (or Yautja, or Hish-Qu-Ten, apparently)? Emphatically not. We've already had a Shane Black movie featuring a Predator – or the other way around, at least – and that was on another level. The problem – aside from the enforced reshoots, and the not-altogether-there casting, and the possibility that full-on action extravaganzas, while delivered competently, may not be his best foot forward – is that I don't think Black's really a science-fiction guy, game as he clearly was to take on the permanently beleaguered franchise. He makes The Predator very funny, quite goofy, very gory, often entertaining, but ultimately lacking a coherent sense of what it is, something you couldn't say of his three prior directorial efforts.

Right! Let’s restore some bloody logic!

It Couldn't Happen Here (1987)
(SPOILERS) "I think our film is arguably better than Spiceworld" said Neil Tennant of his and Chris Lowe's much-maligned It Couldn't Happen Here, a quasi-musical, quasi-surrealist journey through the English landscape via the Pet shop Boys' "own" history as envisaged by co-writer-director Jack Bond. Of course, Spiceworld could boast the presence of the illustrious Richard E Grant, while It Couldn't Happen Here had to settle for Gareth Hunt. Is its reputation deserved? It's arguably not very successful at being a coherent film (even thematically), but I have to admit that I rather like it, ramshackle and studiously aloof though it is.

Never compare me to the mayor in Jaws! Never!

Ghostbusters (2016)
(SPOILERS) Paul Feig is a better director than Ivan Reitman, or at very least he’s savvy enough to gather technicians around him who make his films look good, but that hasn’t helped make his Ghostbusters remake (or reboot) a better movie than the original, and that’s even with the original not even being that great a movie in the first place.

Along which lines, I’d lay no claims to the 1984 movie being some kind of auteurist gem, but it does make some capital from the polarising forces of Aykroyd’s ultra-geekiness on the subject of spooks and Murray’s “I’m just here for the asides” irreverence. In contrast, Feig’s picture is all about treating the subject as he does any other genre, be it cop, or spy, or romcom. There’s no great affection, merely a reliably professional approach, one minded to ensure that a generous quota of gags (on-topic not required) can be pumped out via abundant improv sessions.

So there’s nothing terribly wrong with Ghostbusters, but aside from …

My pectorals may leave much to be desired, Mrs Peel, but I’m the most powerful man you’ve ever run into.

The Avengers 2.23: The Positive-Negative Man
If there was a lesson to be learned from Season Five, it was not to include "man" in your title, unless it involves his treasure. The See-Through Man may be the season's stinker, but The Positive-Negative Man isn't far behind, a bog-standard "guy with a magical science device uses it to kill" plot. A bit like The Cybernauts, but with Michael Latimer painted green and a conspicuous absence of a cool hat.

The possibilities are gigantic. In a very small way, of course.

The Avengers 5.24: Mission… Highly Improbable
With a title riffing on a then-riding-high US spy show, just as the previous season's The Girl from Auntie riffed on a then-riding-high US spy show, it's to their credit that neither have even the remotest connection to their "inspirations" besides the cheap gags (in this case, the episode was based on a teleplay submitted back in 1964). Mission… Highly Improbable follows in the increasing tradition (certainly with the advent of Season Five and colour) of SF plotlines, but is also, in its particular problem with shrinkage, informed by other recent adventurers into that area.

Dude, you're embarrassing me in front of the wizards.

Avengers: Infinity War (2018)
(SPOILERS) The cliffhanger sequel, as a phenomenon, is a relatively recent thing. Sure, we kind of saw it with The Empire Strikes Back – one of those "old" movies Peter Parker is so fond of – a consequence of George Lucas deliberately borrowing from the Republic serials of old, but he had no guarantee of being able to complete his trilogy; it was really Back to the Future that began the trend, and promptly drew a line under it for another decade. In more recent years, really starting with The MatrixThe Lord of the Rings stands apart as, post-Weinstein's involvement, fashioned that way from the ground up – shooting the second and third instalments back-to-back has become a thing, both more cost effective and ensuring audiences don’t have to endure an interminable wait for their anticipation to be sated. The flipside of not taking this path is an Allegiant, where greed gets the better of a studio (split a novel into two movie parts assuming a…

Bring home the mother lode, Barry.

Beyond the Black Rainbow (2010)

If Panos Cosmatos’ debut had continued with the slow-paced, tripped-out psychedelia of the first hour or so I would probably have been fully on board with it, but the decision to devolve into an ‘80s slasher flick in the final act lost me.

The director is the son of George Pan Cosmatos (he of The Cassandra Crossing and Cobra, and in name alone of Tombstone, apparently) and it appears that his inspiration was what happened to the baby boomers in the ‘80s, his parents’ generation. That element translates effectively, expressed through the extreme of having a science institute engaging in Crowley/Jack Parsons/Leary occult quests for enlightenment in the ‘60s and the survivors having become burnt out refugees or psychotics by the ‘80s. Depending upon your sensibilities, the torturously slow pace and the synth soundtrack are positives, while the cinematography managed to evoke both lurid early ‘80s cinema and ‘60s experimental fare. 

Ultimately the film takes a …

What a truly revolting sight.

Pirates of the Caribbean: Salazar’s Revenge (aka Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales) (2017)
(SPOILERS) The biggest mistake the Pirates of the Caribbean sequels have made is embracing continuity. It ought to have been just Jack Sparrow with an entirely new cast of characters each time (well, maybe keep Kevin McNally). Even On Stranger Tides had Geoffrey Rush obligatorily returning as Barbossa. Although, that picture’s biggest problem was its director; Pirates of the Caribbean: Salazar’s Revenge has a pair of solid helmers in Joachim Rønning and Espen Sandberg, which is a relief at least. But alas, the continuity is back with a vengeance. And then some. Why, there’s even an origin-of-Jack Sparrow vignette, to supply us with prerequisite, unwanted and distracting uncanny valley (or uncanny Johnny) de-aging. The movie as a whole is an agreeable time passer, by no means the dodo its critical keelhauling would suggest, albeit it isn’t even pretending to try hard to come up with …

Believe me, Mr Bond, I could shoot you from Stuttgart und still create ze proper effect.

Tomorrow Never Dies (1997)
(SPOILERS) Some of the reactions to Spectre would have you believe it undoes all the “good” work cementing Daniel Craig’s incarnation of Bond in Skyfall. If you didn’t see that picture as the second coming of the franchise (I didn’t) your response to the latest may not be so harsh, despite its less successful choices (Blofeld among them). And it isn’t as if one step, forward two steps back are anything new in perceptions of the series (or indeed hugely divisive views on what even constitutes a decent Bond movie). After the raves greeting Goldeneye, Pierce Brosnan suffered a decidedly tepid response to his second outing, Tomorrow Never Dies, albeit it was less eviscerated than Craig’s sophomore Quantum of Solace. Tomorrow’s reputation disguises many strong points, although it has to be admitted that a Moore-era style finale and a floundering attempt to package in a halcyon villain aren’t among them.

The Bond series’ flirtations with contemporary relevance have a…