Skip to main content

How many did you expect to make it back?

Journey’s End 
(2017)

(SPOILERS) I can't say I was ever the greatest fan of the play Journey’s End (I wasn't and still am not of the remotest fan of the Doctor Who story of the same title), but not because I didn't recognise the quality of RC Sheriff's piece – even as a whatever-year-old. Rather, it was having to read it and reread it as a set text at school, its unremitting despair and hopelessness – even with the more overtly comic characters, which rather went to underline than relieve – surmounted any positives after a while. I was very glad never to have to set eyes on a copy once exams were over. And then it showed up in Withnail & I (it's the part Marwood has to cut his hair for) and like Withnail, I thought he must have been mad to take the part. But time can be a restorative, and thirty years later, the work's considerable merits are fully in evidence in Saul Dibb's film version.


Curiously, we were never shown James Whale's 1930 adaptation (Whale got his big break directing it on stage, with a fresh-faced Laurence Olivier as Stanhope), although I was familiar with the aeronautically transposed Aces High. Simon Reade's screenplay, as is the habit of adaptations from the stage, expands the action from the confines of the officers' dugout. We're escorted through the trenches, visit HQ and experience the crucial raid; we're even left in no doubt as to the aftermath of the German attack at the conclusion. 


Reade utilised Sheriff's novelisation, written with Vernon Bartlett, although it's been suggested this was largely Bartlett's effort, much of the opening part concerning the school experiences of Stanhope and Raleigh before a more perfunctory rehashing of the play once the WWI section is reached. As such, Dibb has shot an introductory section before C Company returns to the frontline and includes a scene where Raleigh asks his uncle to post him to Stanhope's company. Also notable is access to the cook's quarters and staff (Toby Jones as Private Mason overseeing the grub), and in an effort to muddy up the palate, additional swearing in passing from the men in the trenches (while not out of place per se, this still seems gratuitous). 


Dibb ensures these expansions don't impact the claustrophobic intensity of the material. Indeed, when it comes to the raid, he resists the urge to provide an overview – although that may as much have been a budgetary decision – following the men at foot level and then at a crawl, emphasising the confusion rather than the clarity. Commendable too that he didn't take the opportunity to depict Osbourne's death, even if we see the scenario leading to it. I was less sure about the need to feature Raleigh's sister receiving his letter at the end, and whether the motive was to illustrate how false impressions of the reality of war get passed on, or simply a get-out in not having the downer of absolutely everyone dead come the credits (in which case, it’s rather desperate and doesn't work). 


The producer threw about big names like Cumberbatch, Hiddleston and Redmayne as ideal casting, but Dibbs' choices are perfect. Superlatives abound for Paul Bettany's kindly, reflective Lieutenant "Uncle" Osborne, fiercely loyal to his alcoholic captain while attempting to show the fresh-faced and naively eager Second Lieutenant Raleigh (Asa Butterfield) the ropes. Witness the scene where Osborne tries to keep Raleigh's mind off the imminent the raid; Bettany imbues a palpable sense of a man keeping a lid on his own fear in order to lead by example. When he's gone you entirely miss his presence in a way I don't recall the play quite achieving, and that has to be put down to the actor.


Sam Claflin is also exactly what you'd hope for from a Captain Stanhope, combustible and raw, treating wide-eyed Butterfield contemptibly but also understandably; his desire to do right by his men is best illustrated by his summons to a meal with Robert Glenister's colonel, where he can barely disguise his disgust at their remoteness and detachment. I've never been too sure of Butterfield previously, certainly as lead where he usually seems rather ineffectual; that quality makes him perfect casting here; you feel for the character, hopelessly out of his depth at every turn. 


Stephen Graham's Second Lieutenant Trotter is less comic relief, such that Stanhope seems all the more the arse for laying into him; he still likes his food – Sheriff calling the character Trotter wasn't the subtlest cue – but Graham affords him more perceptiveness than you might expect ("It must be nice to be you, Trotter. You never get sick of anything" says Stanhope dismissively at one point; "If only you knew" he replies under his breath). Then there's Tom Sturridge as "bloody little funk" Second Lieutenant Hibbert, whose malaises are a major bone of contention for Stanhope; Sturridge is good, but I recall Hibbert casting a more pervasive blight on the play than he does here, and I wondered if there shouldn't have been an edge to the scene where Stanhope talks him down and says he feels exactly the same way (certainly given the later drunken fracas between them).


The best compliment you can pay Dibb and Reade is that they ensure the power of the play remains intact, one that encapsulates the futility and horror of war without diverting into invective. Journey's End is as impactful as ever, and since it appears that it's still taught at GCSE, this film version will doubtless become an essential instructive tool, and dare I say standard crib (as long as the kids don't make the mistake of assuming it hasn't been embellished).


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “ Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it ”). Plus

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

To survive a war, you gotta become war.

Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985) (SPOILERS?) I’d like to say it’s mystifying that a film so bereft of merit as Rambo: First Blood Part II could have finished up the second biggest hit of 1985. It wouldn’t be as bad if it was, at minimum, a solid action movie, rather than an interminable bore. But the movie struck a chord somewhere, somehow. As much as the most successful picture of that year, Back to the Future , could be seen to suggest moviegoers do actually have really good taste, Rambo rather sends a message about how extensively regressive themes were embedding themselves in Reaganite, conservative ‘80s cinema (to be fair, this is something one can also read into Back to the Future ), be those ones of ill-conceived nostalgia or simple-minded jingoism, notional superiority and might. The difference between Stallone and Arnie movies starts right here; self-awareness. Audiences may have watched R ambo in the same way they would a Schwarzenegger picture, but I’m

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.

One final thing I have to do, and then I’ll be free of the past.

Vertigo (1958) (SPOILERS) I’ll readily admit my Hitchcock tastes broadly tend to reflect the “consensus”, but Vertigo is one where I break ranks. To a degree. Not that I think it’s in any way a bad film, but I respect it rather than truly rate it. Certainly, I can’t get on board with Sight & Sound enthroning it as the best film ever made (in its 2012’s critics poll). That said, from a technical point of view, it is probably Hitch’s peak moment. And in that regard, certainly counts as one of his few colour pictures that can be placed alongside his black and white ones. It’s also clearly a personal undertaking, a medley of his voyeuristic obsessions (based on D’entre les morts by Pierre Boileau and Thomas Narcejac).

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

You were a few blocks away? What’d you see it with, a telescope?

The Eyes of Laura Mars (1978) (SPOILERS) John Carpenter’s first serial-killer screenplay to get made, The Eyes of Laura Mars came out nearly three months before Halloween. You know, the movie that made the director’s name. And then some. He wasn’t best pleased with the results of The Eyes of Laura Mars, which ended up co-credited to David Zelag Goodman ( Straw Dogs , Logan’s Run ) as part of an attempt by producer Jon Peters to manufacture a star vehicle for then-belle Barbra Streisand: “ The original script was very good, I thought. But it got shat upon ”. Which isn’t sour grapes on Carpenter’s part. The finished movie bears ready evidence of such tampering, not least in the reveal of the killer (different in Carpenter’s conception). Its best features are the so-uncleanly-you-can-taste-it 70s New York milieu and the guest cast, but even as an early example of the sub-genre, it’s burdened by all the failings inherit with this kind of fare.

He is a brigand and a lout. Pay him no serious mention.

The Wind and the Lion (1975) (SPOILERS) John Milius called his second feature a boy’s-own adventure, on the basis of the not-so-terrified responses of one of those kidnapped by Sean Connery’s Arab Raisuli. Really, he could have been referring to himself, in all his cigar-chomping, gun-toting reactionary glory, dreaming of the days of real heroes. The Wind and the Lion rather had its thunder stolen by Jaws on release, and it’s easy to see why. As polished as the picture is, and simultaneously broad-stroke and self-aware in its politics, it’s very definitely a throwback to the pictures of yesteryear. Only without the finger-on-the-pulse contemporaneity of execution that would make Spielberg and Lucas’ genre dives so memorable in a few short years’ time.