There's something I want to tell you.

45 Years

(2015)

(SPOILERS) If you have the patience to go along with its unhurried, semi-slumbering pace, 45 Years may well creep up on you unawares. Writer-director Andrew Haigh nurtures the same seeds of doubt in the viewer’s mind that grow in Kate Mercer’s (Charlotte Rampling), as her inability to reconcile revelations concerning her husband Geoff (Tom Courtenay) leads to the unravelling of what appeared to be a very solid, very comfortable, very average marriage.

The trigger is news that the body of Katya, Geoff’s girlfriend prior to meeting Kate, has been found in a melting glacier. Geoff becomes preoccupied with reminiscences of decades past and Kate is initially understanding of the situation, albeit jealous of the space this former lover held in her husband’s heart. But when Geoff admits he would have married her, starts looking into travelling to Switzerland to see the body, spends time in the attic going through old pictures, begins smoking again and drinking too much, the burden becomes too much and Kate instructs him not to talk about Katya any more.

There’s something of the Michael Haneke about Haigh’s film, with its spectre of intangible secrets the viewer – like our protagonist – cannot grasp with any certainty. Initially, the underplayed narrative passes almost unnoticed, a non-descript depiction of a retired couple living unexceptionally in rural Norfolk; you wouldn’t be blamed for nodding off along with Geoff. But Kate’s increasing disturbance of mind gradually takes hold, and so Haigh cloaks the picture with an increasingly uneasy atmosphere, as the unrelinquished past encroaches on the present.

It’s thus understandable that some have read more into Geoff’s exhumed history than is intended, namely that he may have murdered Katya, jealous of her flirtation with their German guide, and dumped her in a crevasse (so explaining his nervousness about the glacier melting and eagerness to take a look, lest evidence of his crime be discovered). I don’t think this is the case; rather, it’s evidence that, once the floodgates are opened, and deception preys on the mind, anything seems possible. It’s clear that Geoff has lied to Kate when she views the pictures of the trip on a slide projector; she isn’t wearing the wooden ring he talked about (as a pretence of marriage in a less tolerant time), and most damningly, one photo evidences that Katya was pregnant.

It’s this, rather than any more culpable acts, that is the turning point for Kate; the underpinning of their decision not to have children comes into question, and with it everything she assumed to be real between them. In tandem, Haigh infuses an almost gothic undercurrent. Kate is haunted by Katya’s presence, smelling her perfume, and, as she stands beneath the open attic during a nocturnal wander, the door behind her closes apparently of its own accord.

But, even come their anniversary party (they didn’t have a fortieth due to Geoff’s bypass surgery), it isn’t wholly clear how affected she is. It’s only during the celebrations, as Geoff gives a speech (in which he breaks down, which he never does; earlier, Geraldine James has expressed the view that men always do on such occasions, “I think they just see the world differently to us”, but Kate notes he didn’t cry at their wedding), thanking her for putting up with all his nonsense, that her feelings become evident. Finally, during their dance, to Smoke Gets in Your Eyes, she pulls away from her husband when he holds her hand in the air; something has been irretrievably broken.

Rampling wholly deserves her Oscar nomination, probably her highest profile role since she embarked on an affair with a man in a chimp suit in Max, Mon Amour, navigating Kate’s inner conflict with subtlety and nuance. Courtney deserves great praise too, albeit his slightly incoherent, introverted partner is necessarily less readable. It’s Haigh, though, who is the real star of the show, gauging the picture expertly and precisely, leaving the viewer ruminating on events long after the credits have rolled.

Comments

They'll think I've lost control again and put it all down to evolution.

Time Bandits (1981) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam had co-directed previously, and his solo debut had visual flourish on its side, but it was with Time Bandits that Gilliam the auteur was born. The first part of his Trilogy of Imagination, it remains a dazzling work – as well as being one of his most successful – rich in theme and overflowing with ideas while resolutely aimed at a wide (family, if you like) audience. Indeed, most impressive about Time Bandits is that there’s no evidence of self-censoring here, of attempting to make it fit a certain formula, format or palatable template.

I never strangled a chicken in my life!

Rope (1948) (SPOILERS) Rope doesn’t initially appear to have been one of the most venerated of Hitchcocks, but it has gone through something of a rehabilitation over the years, certainly since it came back into circulation during the 80s. I’ve always rated it highly; yes, the seams of it being, essentially, a formal experiment on the director’s part, are evident, but it’s also an expert piece of writing that uses our immediate knowledge of the crime to create tension throughout; what we/the killers know is juxtaposed with the polite dinner party they’ve thrown in order to wallow in their superiority.

Oh, you got me right in the pantaloons, partner.

The Party (1968) (SPOILERS) Blake Edwards’ semi-improvisational reunion with Peter Sellers is now probably best known for – I was going to use an elephant-in-the-room gag, but at least one person already went there – Sellers’ “brown face”. And it isn’t a decision one can really defend, even by citing The Party ’s influence on Bollywood. Satyajit Ray had also reportedly been considering working with Sellers… and then he saw the film. One can only assume he’d missed similar performances in The Millionairess and The Road to Hong Kong ; in the latter case, entirely understandable, if not advisable. Nevertheless, for all the flagrant stereotyping, Sellers’ bungling Hrundi V Bakshi is a very likeable character, and indeed, it’s the piece’s good-natured, soft centre – his fledgling romance with Claudine Longet’s Michele – that sees The Party through in spite of its patchy, hit-and-miss quality.

Never lose any sleep over accusations. Unless they can be proved, of course.

Strangers on a Train (1951) (SPOILERS) Watching a run of lesser Hitchcock films is apt to mislead one into thinking he was merely a highly competent, supremely professional stylist. It takes a picture where, to use a not inappropriate gourmand analogy, his juices were really flowing to remind oneself just how peerless he was when inspired. Strangers on a Train is one of his very, very best works, one he may have a few issues with but really deserves nary a word said against it, even in “compromised” form.

You must have hopes, wishes, dreams.

Brazil (1985) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam didn’t consider Brazil the embodiment of a totalitarian nightmare it is often labelled as. His 1984½ (one of the film’s Fellini-riffing working titles) was “ the Nineteen Eighty-Four for 1984 ”, in contrast to Michael Anderson’s Nineteen Eighty-Four from 1948. This despite Gilliam famously boasting never to have read the Orwell’s novel: “ The thing that intrigues me about certain books is that you know them even though you’ve never read them. I guess the images are archetypal ”. Or as Pauline Kael observed, Brazil is to Nineteen Eighty-Four as “ if you’d just heard about it over the years and it had seeped into your visual imagination ”. Gilliam’s suffocating system isn’t unflinchingly cruel and malevolently intolerant of individuality; it is, in his vision of a nightmare “future”, one of evils spawned by the mechanisms of an out-of-control behemoth: a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. And yet, that is not really, despite how indulgently and glee

Miss Livingstone, I presume.

Stage Fright (1950) (SPOILERS) This one has traditionally taken a bit of a bruising, for committing a cardinal crime – lying to the audience. More specifically, lying via a flashback, through which it is implicitly assumed the truth is always relayed. As Richard Schickel commented, though, the egregiousness of the action depends largely on whether you see it as a flaw or a brilliant act of daring: an innovation. I don’t think it’s quite that – not in Stage Fright ’s case anyway; the plot is too ordinary – but I do think it’s a picture that rewards revisiting knowing the twist, since there’s much else to enjoy it for besides.

A herbal enema should fix you up.

Never Say Never Again (1983) (SPOILERS) There are plenty of sub-par Bond s in the official (Eon) franchise, several of them even weaker than this opportunistic remake of Thunderball , but they do still feel like Bond movies. Never Say Never Again , despite – or possibly because he’s part of it – featuring the much-vaunted, title-referencing return of the Sean Connery to the lead role, only ever feels like a cheap imitation. And yet, reputedly, it cost more than the same year’s Rog outing Octopussy .

I'm an old ruin, but she certainly brings my pulse up a beat or two.

The Paradine Case (1947) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock wasn’t very positive about The Paradine Case , his second collaboration with Gregory Peck, but I think he’s a little harsh on a picture that, if it doesn’t quite come together dramatically, nevertheless maintains interest on the basis of its skewed take on the courtroom drama. Peck’s defence counsel falls for his client, Alida Valli’s accused (of murder), while wife Ann Todd wilts dependably and masochistically on the side-lines.

You’re easily the best policeman in Moscow.

Gorky Park (1983) (SPOILERS) Michael Apted and workmanlike go hand in hand when it comes to thriller fare (his Bond outing barely registered a pulse). This adaptation of Martin Cruz Smith’s 1981 novel – by Dennis Potter, no less – is duly serviceable but resolutely unremarkable. William Hurt’s militsiya officer Renko investigates three faceless bodies found in the titular park. It was that grisly element that gave Gorky Park a certain cachet when I first saw it as an impressionable youngster. Which was actually not unfair, as it’s by far its most memorable aspect.

I don’t like fighting at all. I try not to do too much of it.

Cuba (1979) (SPOILERS) Cuba -based movies don’t have a great track record at the box office, unless Bad Boys II counts. I guess The Godfather Part II does qualify. Steven Soderbergh , who could later speak to box office bombs revolving around Castro’s revolution, called Richard Lester’s Cuba fascinating but flawed. Which is generous of him.

Now In Full Color, with a Happier Ending

Search This Blog