Logo

Film: Nowhere Boy

Director: Sam Taylor-Wood

Starring: Aaron Johnson, Anne-Marie Duff, Kristin Scott-Thomas

Plot: Follows a teenage John Lennon as he negotiates his relationships wih the Aunt who raised him (Kristin Scott-Thomas) and the mother who abandoned him (Anne-Marie Duff) and how he turned to music to negotiate that rocky path.

Let me preface this review by saying what I know about The Beatles. I know there were four of them: John Lennon, George Harrison, Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr (I even know their last names!). I know they were the biggest thing since sliced bread in the sixties ('bigger than Jesus', some would say). I know they gave the world some of the greatest songs ever. I know Paul married Linda, and she was the love of his life, but died of cancer than married and divorced Heather Mills. I also know, as far as the rest of the world is concerned, Yoko Ono is 'unoffically' credited as breaking up the band.

So I dont know a lot about The Beatles, but I know enough to get the jokes about a young John Lennon wanting to be famous like Elvis. I know that I have to smile smugly when John is introduced to Paul (Thomas Brodie Sangster) and George (Sam Bell). But actually, The Beatles aren't really important in Nowhere Boy. Paul and George aren't even credited with last names (I actually don't think they are even mentioned) because who they end up being is not important to this story. It doesn't mater that they become one of the greatest rock and roll groups ever. Even to say that the film is about John Lennon's relationships with his mother and aunt is to say too much. What the film is in its essence, is a teenage boy being able to recognise, accept and return the love of the aunt who raised him.

I'm still deciding on how I feel about nineteen year old Aaron Johnson's performance as John Lennon. He seems to settle into it as the film goes along. Or maybe I'm confusing his performance with my own personal response to his character. John really is incredibly dislikable: he spends a lot of the film behaving, as Paul puts it, "like a dick". But then there are moments you realise that he's just a kid dealing with stuff that he shouldn't have to. For me, what really saved him, was how the film presented his friendship with Paul. As Paul, Thomas Brodie Sangster (the froggy kid from Love Actually) is thankfuilly more engaging in this than he was wandering around in Bright Star.

There is something compelling about the unlikely friendship between the James Dean wannabe and the quiet gangly kid that just loves music. And at least in this narrative (I don't know how acurately it reflects real life) but it seems the thing that really saved John from going over the edge was not music, but his friendship with Paul. Both boys are coping with absent mothers (Paul's mother is dead), that is what they connect over, but ot what sustans them. Paul seems to know John better than John knows himself. And John's reactions  to the momens when Paul tells him what he needs (but sometime doesnt want) to hear makes him interesting.

Anne-Marie Duff is actually quite wonderful as mother Julia. But it is Kristin Scott -Thomas' immaculate performance as Aunt Mimi that elevates the film into something better than it should be. At one point in the film, John decides to stay with Julia instead of going home with Mimi. The following scene shows Mimi, lying awake in bed looking at the clock, wih one tear out of the corner of her eye, that is only captured by the light when she turns her head. That moment tells us exactly how much she loves the nephew that she raised as a son.

There's no doubt that the film is engrossing: there were audible gasps in the audience when Aunt Mimi tells John she has sold his guitar. Indeed the two women do a sort of dance as to who is the 'bad guy': Mimi, because she finds it difficult to show love, or Julia, who shows her love but cannot control it. But in the end, it is John who is his own worst enemy.

The only note that feels false is Mimi's monologue (complete with flashacks) about how John came to be in her care. It feels a little melodramatic, and only someone as talented as Scott-Thomas can pull it off.

Once again I am going to complain about the use of Post Scripts at the end of the film. If this was not a biopic they wouldn't have them, so why do the filmakers feel the need to tell us that "John called Mimi when he arrived in Germany. And every week for the rest of his life." Of course he did! The film just spent two hours developing these characters and their relationship to that point. We don't need to be told that, their final scene together SHOWED that. I guess I should be grateful that they didn't say something ludicrous as "John, Paul and George went off to Germany, and began what would become the greatest Rock 'n Roll band in the world."

I came out of the film thinking that John Lennon had a really screwed up youth. Maybe that's why he was so successful. In order to be trully great, you have to know the bottom in order to get to the top.

Should I See It?

Be warned, it's no walk in the park, don't expect light entertainment, but it is rewarding if you have the patience for it.

Show: Cranford Christmas (BBC)

Director: Simon Curtis

Starring: Judi Dench, Imelda Staunton, Julia McKenzie, Lisa Dillon, Jonathan Pryce.

Plot: We return to the town of Cranford in 1844, a year after the wedding of Dr Harrison and Sophy Hutton.

Among the newbies are Mr Buxton (Jonathan Pryce) a wealthy owner of a local salt mine, his son William (Tom Hiddleston), who longs to be an engineer, despite his father’s wishes that he go into politics, and Mr Buxton’s wealthy ward Erminia Whyte (Michelle Dockery). Also debuting is local widow Mrs Bell (Lesley Sharpe), her good-for-not-very-much son Edward (Matthew McNulty) and daughter Peggy (Jodie Whittaker), who's trodden on daily by her mother and brother.

Lady Ludlow’s son Lord Septimus (Rory Kinner), makes is long awaited appearance, if only to stir up trouble for a few of Cranford’s residents. He seems to have inherited all of his mother’s snobbery, without any of her humility.

As too be expected, the railway features heavily in Cranford Christmas, tying all the plot points together. The railway plot is particularly well handled. One of the show’s finest moments is when Miss Matty realises that the railway MUST come to Cranford, or the town won’t survive. It is moments like these where we see the woman Miss Matty might have been had she not lived under Miss Deborah’s thumb for all those years between William Buxton and Peggy Bell fails slightly, mainly because Peggy is far too bland to be of any real interest.

There is something wonderful about the scene where the ladies (and a few others) ride in the train for the first time. For us to day, trains are such commonplace objects that you forget what that very first experience must have been like.

Cranford Christmas allows more development for characters who were relatively minor players first time around, particularly Jim Hearne and Mrs Jamieson. But the romance falls flat, mainly because Peggy is far too bland to be of any real interest.

 

 

I must confess myself disappointed in the development of Miss Smith. Perhaps that’s because I always considered Miss Mary Smith to be the sort of unofficial narrator of the first series, a role which has passed onto Miss Matty, so it seemed strange to be arriving in Cranford without her. But the thing that annoyed me most of all was her determination to be a writer. Why must every ‘forward thinking,’ ‘independent’ woman in period dramas must always want to be a writer? I confess, I have not read the novellas on which the television series is based, so I don’t know whether this is true to the book, but on screen it just seems like a bit of a lazy use of a well worn cliché.

Performances are as strong as ever. Cranford’s ladies are, of course, superb. Judi Dench does excel herself. And i wuld like to take this opportunity to recognise Emma Fielding (Miss Galindo), who is always wonderful. Of the Newcomers, it is the males who stand out. Jonathan Pryce is as fabulous as always, Tom Hiddleston has an endearing youthful eagerness, and Matthew McNulty clearly relishes playing evil.

What Cranford Christmas really brings to the fore is that Cranford (the town) is not a place for married women. Newly married Sophy Hutton has left the town. Caroline Tompkinso, who was engaged to the town butcher at the end of series one, is in confinement and is absent for the entire series two. The story cannot even contain Martha, Miss Matty's maid, who married Jem Hearne also in the last series. The show clearly prescribes the power to the single ladies of Cranford. Even in terms of basic narrative power,  if the married women aren't there, then the can't have a story. (for a more academic reading of the first series of Cranford, particularly in relation to he rol of women, see here.

Technically, theoretically, Cranford Christmas achieves what it’s predecessor did: a mixture of laughter and tragedy and social commentary. But there is something missing. It doesn’t have the same ease about it. It feels slightly forced and doesn’t flow as well as the original. It’s almost as if it is trying too hard to capture the magic of the first series, which is is impossible to do, since season one was so near perfection, there is no way you can top it.

Should I See It?

If you enjoyed the first series, than yes it is a lovely companion piece, but don’t hold your expectations too high.

Film: The Boys Are Back

Starring: Clive Owen, Laura Fraser, Emma Booth, George Mackay, Nicholas McAnulty

Directed By: Scott Hicks

Plot: After the sudden death of his wife, sports writer Joe Warr attempts to connect with his seven year old son and his fourteen year old son from a previous marriage.

This is your official warning: the opening of The Boys are Back might elicit and emotional response. Tears may spring to eyes. The first fifteen minutes of the film (also the best fifteen minutes of the film) packs no holds barred emotional punches who's impact lasts for the rest of the film. While the early  Oscar Buzz surrounding Clive Owen's performance now seems unlikely as awards season draws closer, he certainly earns it in these fifteen minutes.

Of course, the film is not perfect, far from it in fact. But there is something incredibly honest about the whole thing that draws you in. From Artie's mismatched pyjama’s, playing spotlight on a summer evening to shopping at IGA, there is something real about this film. Maybe it's just the thrill of seeing ‘Australian-isms’ on screen. You never hear “time to get into your ‘jarmies” in any American film.

The South Australian landscape is beautifully captured on film. Director Scott Hicks takes the time to show case it as another character of the film. The beautiful Australia is home to the world’s most dangerous snakes, as Harry reminds us on his arrival. Fortunately no snakes show up in this movie.

Joe's relationship with his sons is at the centre of the movie, and both boys are well cast and hold their own with a cinema vet like Owen. Of course there is a danger of giving young Nicholas McAnulty all the credit; he is simply too cute as seven year old Artie. (Watch the trailer for my favourite scene- where dad Joe tells Artie he has his shoes on the wrong feet and Artie replies “but these are the only feet I’ve got.”) What saves Artie from becoming all too saccharine is the honesty that I have been harping on about. He is not just a cute kid. He is sometimes obnoxious, rude and temperamental, just like any other kid.

George MacKay as Joe's eldest son Harry is probably a little underused in the film. His story doesn't feel quite complete. But MacKay is excellent (I have to admit I enjoyed his performance far more than McAnulty's). The most touching scenes are the ones where you see the two brothers grow closer.

Unfortunately, Julia Blake as Katy's mother (Joe's mother-in-law) is the most annoying. Her not- quite- Australian accent and her theatricality in a film that is otherwise very natural, is irritating.

Apart from Julia Blake, Joe is actually the biggest obstacle the film has. Joe is, to put it nicely, irresponsible, and his "Just Say Yes" approach to parenting leads to more trouble than it solves. It is Clive Owen's charm (for the most part) that keeps Joe likable.

When seeing The Boys Are Back, I was pleasantly surprised to see the cinema full. It obviously capitalising on the recognition of Hollywood A-lister and Academy Award nominee Clive Owen. It's great to see Australian audience's at Australian films. But I have to wonder why it is that four of the lead roles were played by British Actors. Joe and Harry are English. Fine. But Joe's wife Katy, who is an Australian, is played by Scottish actress Laura Fraser. Though I have to admit Ms Fraser does a killer Aussie accent, the role could have just as easily been played by an Australian actress. Why not support local talent in a local industry? I'm not sure if it has to do with the majority of funding coming from British financing companies (At least that is what it looked like by the credits).



Plot wise, the relationship (I will not call it a romance) with local single mum Laura (Emma Booth) is the only part of the film that seems awkward. It starts pleasantly enough but still feels a little like a forced love interest for a man who is definitely not ready for a love interest. It has the potential to be interesting, but feels off for a film about the relationships between father and sons.

A few other minor quibbles: Katy's presence in what we can assume to be Joe's imagination, seems as though the film is trying  to hard to get the audience to like her. Joe loves her. That should be enough. The final act's voyage to England seems to drag the film on a little too long. And I also refuse to believe that Harry's mum is as awful as he makes her out to be.

But having said that, there is plenty to enjoy about this film. It's honesty (there I go again!) makes the trip to the cinema worthwhile.

Should I See it?

Yes! it's a lovely, warm Australian film.

The Boys Are Back Official Site here

...Sue Sylvester Quotes

* 'That was the most offensive thing I've seen in 20 years of teaching — and that includes an elementary school production of Hair.' (Episode 2: Showmance)

...Moments Where Mr Schuester Has Balls
(Otherwise known as THE ONLY moments wher Mr Schuester has balls)

Glee Official Site here.

All pictures courtesy of Fox.

Ben Whishaw as John Keats fares better, but not much.

After re-watching Cranford on ABC2, I feel compelled to write a review, if only just to spread the word on this fantastic miniseries from the BBC.

I would expect nothing less from the producers of the 1996 miniseries Pride and Prejudice, which gave every woman around the world Colin Firth as the dreamy Mr Darcy. Up until now, Pride and Prejudice has been the shining jewel in the BBC crown. However, a charming script and an ensemble of wonderful performances, suggests that the BBC might have a new crowning glory.

Instead of the usual straight forward page to screen adaptations, writer Heidi Thomas and producers Sue Birtwistle and Susie Conklin have combined three novellas by Elizabeth Gaskell- Cranford, My Lady Ludlow and Mr Harrison's Confessions- into a seamless story that enchants.


Often period dramas seem to descend into merely who marries who, but somehow Cranford manages to escape this by engaging with social issues of the time. Cranford does not shy away from the harsh realities of Victorian living. Death and illness abound. Poverty and the underprivileged lower classes are explored in what is perhaps Cranford’s most touching storyline involving a squatter’s son Harry Gregson (Alex Etel), Lady Ludlow (Francesca Annis) and the manager of her estate Mr Carter (Philip Glenister).


The emerging technology of the day is regarded with fear and suspicion. There is great disapproval of new doctor Frank Harrison’s (Simon Woods) methods. The reaction to the news that the railway is coming to Cranford tells you everything you need to know about the characters and the world in which they live.

What separates Cranford from a lot of other period dramas is the role of the women in the story. In Cranford, the woman ARE the story. Even though they are either widows or spinsters, or maybe because of it, the power of the town rests firmly in their hands. That their power is, for the most part, a moral and social power as opposed to monetary says something about both their time and ours. Out of that display of power springs a feminism that never seems out of context.

Cranford does explore the plight of the unmarried woman in Victorian times. It is dealt with both comically (Miss Pole) and with reverence (Miss Galindo). In this respect a character such as Miss Pole demonstrates idiosyncrasies that come out of her situation and the time in which she lives. In less careful hands, Miss Pole could have been an absurdity. But it is a credit to writer Heidi Thomas that she has taken such skill and care to create these characters.



Of course it wouldn’t be a period drama without a love story, and in Cranford we have two. The young blossoming romance between Dr Harrison and Sophy Hutton, the rectors daughter, is juxtaposed with the older, more staid, yet unrequited love between Miss Matty and Mr Holbrook.

I must admit that it does help that the cast list of Cranford reads as a who’s who of British Film and television.

At the core is a wonderfully warm performance from British stage actress Lisa Dillon as Miss Mary Smith, a newcomer to Cranford, who discovers the town much at the same rate as the audience does.

Imelda Staunton is a particular standout as the aforementioned idiosyncratic Miss Pole. And I have to admit I was relieved to see Judi Dench do something other than just the Judi Dench thing in her role as Miss Matty.

While it was Eileen Atkins that won the BAFTA for her role as Miss Deborah Jenkins, the moral compass of the town, my favourite performance would have be that of Francesca Annis as Lady Ludlow, who despite have the iciness of the aristocracy, is able to engage the audience’s sympathy with the recognition that the aristocracy is fast becoming obsolete.

Though I have singled out a few cast members here, it really is unfair to do so as it is an ensemble piece and everyone is terrific.

Cranford creates a wonderfully vivid portrait of Victorian living with a creativity and an elegance that we could use more of in on screen entertainment.

Should I See It?
Definitely not to be missed. I dare you not to like it.