The trailer for Philomena
is selling a very different movie than what Stephen Frears made. I admit to
wanting to avoid this movie at all costs, but for my yearly goal of watching
everything that gets an Oscar nomination (and it’s looking ever more likely now
that I’ve seen it that Judi Dench will be nominated). But I should have given
Frears more credit as a director. After all, he’s made some movies I really admire and one I love (as well as a couple of stinkers). The publicity campaign
makes Philomena out to be a maudlin
story about a woman trying to find her long lost son, who was taken from her
and adopted fifty years earlier. It looks like the focus is on a daft old lady
who says silly little things, the kind of simplistic humor that appeals to the
lowest common denominator.
The reality is that this movie, based on a book by
journalist Martin Sixsmith about a woman who was one of many victims of the
Magdalene Laundries of Ireland, has something much more important and much
deeper to say. The Laundries were an institution of the Catholic Church where
girls of low morals (as it was considered) were sent. Basically, they were
places for sexually promiscuous girls who got pregnant. In most cases their
babies were taken from them – if they even survived the deliveries, which were
not attended by doctors – and adopted out to other families. Philomena Lee
spent years trying to get information from the convent where she was sent, but
it wasn’t until she was paired with Sixsmith that she got anywhere.
Steve Coogan is known principally for his great comedic
writing and performing, but as Sixsmith he get into the rare dramatic side of
his talent. He plays him as a serious and professional man who has a tongue for
biting sarcasm and quick quips. He’s a bit of a snob, at first refusing to take
on Philomena’s story because human interest is for the “uninformed” and usually
about same. But his career is on a downward trajectory and he decides to do it.
Philomena is marginally like the
trailer portrays her: she’s a simple woman who doesn’t need the refined
pleasures that Sixsmith enjoys. Really it’s that her life just hasn’t afforded
her the opportunity to travel in Business Class or drive around in a BMW. She
knows it’s a German car, anyway. But she’s as comfortable staying in a four
star hotel as she is eating at a local buffet at home.
To her, everyone around her is a person. Judi Dench doesn’t
play her as either simple or naïve. Philomena Lee is one of the great
characters of the year. She is resolved that she’s content with who she is, but
she’s also racked with guilt over the loss of her son. She arrives at many
things in life seemingly without thought and even Sixsmith comments on
religious faith as something stepped into without consideration, but she slowly
reveals herself as someone who has serious self doubt and tackles her religious
faith head on. Dench is one of the great marvels of screen acting. She’s
equally comfortable giddily laughing at the prospect of watching a Martin
Lawrence comedy as she is steeling herself upon entering the convent that
caused her greatest misery and robbed her of her sweetest joy.
Saldy, Philomena’s story – at least the part about her
child being taken from her – is not unique. The Magdalene Laundries (so named
because the girls were used as slave labor to pay their board) are part of a
shameful past in an organization that has too many to name. We should be
outraged as we watch, and any reasonable person will be, especially as the nuns
in the year 2002 forestall and hinder information, having destroyed records
years earlier. Sixsmith is our representation of anger on screen. Even as
Philomena finds forgiveness for Sister Hildegard, the elderly nun who refuses,
even in her dotage, to accept culpability for heinous acts, Sixsmith has some
colorful (and amusing if the situation weren’t so tragic) words for her.
Because Coogan and his co-screenwriter Jeff Pope imbue
Philomena with depth of personality and spiritual life, they elevate their
story above the material. This is the stuff that lifts sentimentality above
simple manipulative tearjerking. She takes a real emotional journey through the
film that means something to her and enlightens her character. Sixsmith also
changes, but less convincingly so, and more in the manner of a lesser story.
You can pinpoint with great accuracy when he begins exhibiting his cynicism at
his doctor’s office that Philomena’s story and her ultimate resolve will chip
away at his approach to the world. I also could have done without Sixsmith’s
even more cynical editor who regularly, and at well-timed beats within the
screenplay, callously disregards the human trag
At the end of the day, Frears’ direction has to be
applauded. It is his handling of the material that elevates the movie. He knows
how to shoot the 1950s scenes with young Philomena first meeting the young man
who will unintentionally give her a son. Frears knows just how to capture
moments from the right angle to reveal the emotion of the scene rather than
tell us where it is. He knows exactly where to place his camera so that the
full breadth of Dench’s performance is visible. It is not a great movie, but it
is certainly a great example of its type. And that’s all I really look for at
the movies.
No comments:
Post a Comment