Monthly Archives: July 2018

  • The Bookshop

    Isabel Coixet (2017)

    I have a persistent bee in my bonnet about foreign language films that get away with things Anglophone critics would deride in British or American movies.   I think – with apologies for the mixed headgear-footwear metaphors – that Isabel Coixet’s The Bookshop is evidence of the boot on the other foot.   As a part-Spanish co-production, directed by a Spaniard, this adaptation of Penelope Fitzgerald’s 1978 novel was eligible for Goya awards and won Best Film, Director and Screenplay at this year’s ceremony.  In Spain, according to Wikipedia, there were ‘unanimous positive reviews’; the critical reception over here has been much less generous.  A probable explanation is that the 1959 English setting, characters and dialogue give the movie, to Spanish eyes and ears, an exotic quaintness – give it, in other words, protection.  The Bookshop is in several ways a bad film but it’s an odd one too.  That oddness and an unexpectedly lovely performance by Bill Nighy make it well worth watching.

    Florence Green (Emily Mortimer), a widow in her forties, determines to open a bookshop in Hardborough, the small (fictional) Suffolk coastal town she’s lived in for some time.  Determination is certainly needed on Florence’s part.  She acquires as her home and business premises a damp, shabby property, badly in need of renovation.  Once the shop finally opens there, it does a far from roaring trade.  But the Old House, as it’s known, is of interest to others:  local bigwig Violet Gamart (Patricia Clarkson) has ambitions for the place to become an arts centre.  She’s therefore miffed by the bookshop but not discouraged.  Violet’s MP nephew sponsors a parliamentary bill.  The (also presumably fictional) ‘Access to Places of Public Interest Act’ passes into law, enabling compulsory purchase by local councils of buildings of historical significance.  This is the fate of the Old House and signals the end of Florence’s life in Hardborough.  The arts centre is among the oddities of the story, both as the effective enemy of the bookshop (and the small lending library Florence sets up within it) and as a potential going concern.  It’s clear that Violet sees the centre as a means of enriching not the community but her own standing within it.  Even so, she might have had a more philistine project in mind to underpin the film’s demonisation of her.  It’s less clear why, since few Hardborough residents appear to read books, they’d be expected to flock to the concerts and lectures that Violet tells Florence will be on the arts centre’s menu.

    In terms of plot, the above is reasonably faithful to Penelope Fitzgerald’s novel but Isabel Coixet makes some melodramatising adjustments and additions to the original.  These mostly centre on, or derive from, the town intellectual Edmund Brundish (Bill Nighy), Florence’s most (indeed sole) committed customer.  Brundish is so reclusive that they communicate by letter rather than in person and Florence sends him books by post.  Just as the relationship seems to be settling into 84 Charing Cross Road territory (minus the intervening Atlantic Ocean), Florence receives an invitation to afternoon tea at Brundish’s house, where he lives alone.  The place has the look of a manor out of Gothic literature but his reading tastes are more modern.  He rubbishes the Bronte sisters.  He’s grateful to Florence for introducing him to Ray Bradbury’s The Martian Chronicles and Fahrenheit 451.  When she asks his advice on whether she should order multiple copies of Nabokov’s Lolita, Brundish encourages her to do so.  Coixet builds up the relationship between them to the edge of romance before abruptly terminating it.  Brundish visits Violet Gamart to protest her sustained attempts to thwart and oust Florence:  he gets so worked up, he has a  heart attack and dies on his way home to Nightmare Abbey.  The film ends not simply (as the book does) with Florence’s eviction and departure but with the physical destruction of the Old House.  In the early days of the shop, Christine Gipping (Honor Kneafsey), a young schoolgirl, used to help out there, not for the love of books but to earn money (her needy family are fine with that).  Outraged at how Florence has been treated, Christine burns the site down and Violet Gamart’s dream of an arts centre also goes up in smoke.

    Books are still on the shelves inside the Old House so Christine’s arson does more – too much more – than echo the earlier references to Fahrenheit 451.  It ends, or nearly ends, the film in a blaze of barbarism that would seem thoroughly incongruous were it not for earlier pieces of heavy-handedness.  When Florence tells Christine what you must never do using a paraffin heater, you know that advice, in due course, will be importantly ignored.  The staging of Brundish’s death and Alfonso Vilallonga’s tragic score, which, until the closing stages, has seemed over the top, also pave the way for the melodramatic finale.  (The only printed survivor of the fire is A High Wind in Jamaica, which Florence once particularly recommended to Christine.)  The conflagration sits oddly, though, with the message and tone of the very ending of The Bookshop, in which the story’s voiceover narrator is revealed to be the middle-aged Christine (Francesca McGill):  inspired by Florence’s example, the adolescent book-burner now runs … a bookshop.  The narration, read by an uncredited Julie Christie (who appeared in Truffaut’s 1966 film of Fahrenheit 451), has included more than one bibliophilic platitude of the sort you see on book tokens – you’re-never-alone-with-a-good-novel, that kind of thing – and tweeness reigns in the postscript.  Look, there’s a copy of Penelope Fitzgerald’s The Bookshop on display in Christine’s shop!

    As often happens, the voiceover features largely in the early stages, to give us our bearings, then disappears until a last-minute return.  It’s nevertheless overused, vexingly telling us at the start what Florence is feeling, when Emily Mortimer’s face is already supplying the evidence.  Most of the dialogue that follows similarly leaves nothing to the imagination, which makes Coixet’s pacing of the verbal exchanges bizarre:  their lack of rhythm implies that something important is unspoken.  About halfway through the film, a minor female character called Kattie (Charlotte Vega) says of Milo North (James Lance), with whom she’s currently involved, ‘You’ll never know if a man like him has a rich inner life or if there’s nothing there at all’.  The line resonates because that’s what you’ve been wondering about the dialogue more generally – and you’re increasingly inclined to think it’s the latter rather than the former.  (Kattie sensibly reaches the same conclusion about Milo.)

    The Lolita order subplot, taken from Fitzgerald, is, in the film at least, opaque in terms of both Florence’s motivation and its consequences.  She seeks Brundish’s opinion of the novel but what is her own?  On what evidence does he say to her, before pronouncing, that it’s probably less important to him than it is to Florence whether or not something is moral?  Brundish judges Lolita ‘a good book, and therefore you should try to sell it to the inhabitants of Hardborough.  They won’t understand it, but that’s all to the good – understanding makes the mind lazy’.  So Florence orders 250 copies of Lolita in its distinctive Olympia Press pale-green cover, and puts a sign in the bookshop window advertising the ‘novel that is shocking the world’.  There’s no indication of her bulk-buying anything else so is this just a desperate-cum-cynical bid to boost sales?  Hardborough residents flock to the Old House and gawp at the window but we don’t know if any of them buy the book.  All that matters to the narrative is that the crowd in the street helps reinforce Violet Gamart’s anti-Florence campaign.   It’s something of an irony, of course, that what Penelope Fitzgerald, in 1978, may have intended as a comment on the moral climate of a bygone era doesn’t work that way forty years on, now that Nabokov’s novel has regained its political incorrectness.  At least Isabel Coixet didn’t chicken out, move the setting on a year and have Florence try instead to flog copies of Lady Chatterley’s Lover in the aftermath of the 1960 obscenity trial.

    Emily Mortimer is emotionally acute throughout but she has no one to play against productively until Florence meets Brundish.  Aside from Mortimer, Nighy, Clarkson and Frances Barber (in a cameo), the cast isn’t well known – so I don’t like saying that much of the acting in The Bookshop is unusually ropy and name names, but it is and here they are.   There’s a good excuse in the case of the Spaniard Jorge Suquet (as Florence’s solicitor), who’s unused to playing Englishmen speaking English.   And perhaps Coixet’s nationality is a larger contributory factor, though she has directed several English-language films before.   Honor Kneafsey has an expressive face and gives Christine a convincing personality but her line readings are erratic, something a native-English-speaking director might have helped her with more.  Whatever the reasons, Hunter Tremayne (a bank manager), James Murphy (Violet’s nephew) and Lucy Tillett (Christine’s mother) are emphatically wooden.  Reg Wilson (Violet’s retired general husband) isn’t much better.  James Lance is a bigger name than these (although new to me) but he’s all over the place as Milo, a slippery fainéant, though he supposedly works at the BBC.  (It’s inexplicable that, after Christine is prevented by school inspectors from continuing to help in the bookshop, Florence agrees to let Milo occasionally mind the store – with results predictably damaging to her interests.)

    Patricia Clarkson has worked with Isabel Coixet before (on Elegy (2008) and Learning to Drive (2014)) but her portrait of the malign queen bee Violet, although technically far more sophisticated than any of the above, is also bad.  The problem isn’t so much that it’s overly mannered, rather that you repeatedly see Clarkson preparing her effects and the result being anti-climactic.  I rarely enjoy Bill Nighy as much as many others seem to.  He obviously has a style all his own – a style he often relies on effectively but I think lazily.  Not here.  The afternoon tea conversation between Florence and Brundish raises the film (and Emily Mortimer’s playing) by several levels.   Nighy gets right inside a man whose life has been solitary so long that he’s forgotten the rudiments of social interaction:  you see it in Brundish’s almost frozen bearing and his avoidance of eye contact – until one or two of Florence’s remarks make an impact enough for him to look involuntarily at her.  His fury in the fatal encounter with Violet is terrific.  We see what’s been released in Brundish as he walks away from the meeting and his stiff bearing turns into a determined, arm-swinging march.  It’s a pity this ends in the cliché of a fatal seizure, an earlier moment that sees Florence kiss him doesn’t work either, and don’t ask how the isolated Brundish has his finger so precisely on the pulse of current local gossip.  No matter:  this is the finest (and most touching) acting I’ve seen from Bill Nighy.  It makes The Bookshop, in spite of everything, a memorable film.

    4 July 2018

  • The Happy Prince

    Rupert Everett (2018)

    This is the first time that Rupert Everett has written and directed for the screen but not the first time he’s been Oscar Wilde:  he played him on stage in the 2012 revival of David Hare’s The Judas Kiss.  Both these things have their effect on The Happy Prince.   As if to show he’s familiar with moviemaking technique, Everett splinters the narrative, with frequent flashes back and forward, and favours a handheld camera.  Knowing Wilde’s life story as well as he doubtless does, he seems to assume everyone else will be clued up too.  There have been Wilde biopics before, of course, but I’d not seen Oscar Wilde (1960), The Green Carnation[1] (1960) or Wilde (1997), or read more than a few articles about his trial, his imprisonment or his last days as Sebastian Melmoth.  Everett’s fragmented storytelling did little to improve my hazy knowledge of ‘Bosie’ and after.  The hyperactive camerawork limits the viewer’s opportunities to register the physical settings with the result that the contrasts between the high life enjoyed by Wilde in his celebrity heyday and his severely reduced circumstances after his release from prison, don’t come across clearly.  In spite of its visually frenetic surface, The Happy Prince is, as might be expected given its subject, a largely verbal piece.  Everett doesn’t overdo his delivery of the epigrams and he’s good in Wilde’s more exhausted moments.  Yet his playing brings to mind a screen recreation of a celebrated stage portrayal that the actor concerned looks to have worked out during the theatre run.  (Recycling is probably a better word than recreation.)  That’s not quite what’s happening here:  in spite of their common ground, The Happy Prince isn’t an adaptation of The Judas Kiss.  Even so, Rupert Everett, as well as being very conscious of giving the-performance-of-his-life, seems to know Oscar Wilde rather too well.

    The film isn’t a simple hagiography:  there are occasional illustrations of the exploitative, even predatory, side of the hero’s nature.  But Oscar Wilde, today, is one of the most famous victims of injustice of all time and The Happy Prince majors on his victimhood.  (No less unsurprisingly, this is eventually made representative:  the closing legends note that Wilde was one of many thousands of men posthumously pardoned in 2017 for offences for which they were convicted when homosexuality was illegal in Britain.)  This focus is at the expense of probing, for example, what possessed Wilde, in the last part of his life, to renew contact with his nemesis, Lord Alfred Douglas.  At one point, his loyal friend Robbie Ross calls Oscar a masochist but in a tone of no more than mildly exasperated affection, and the theme isn’t pursued further.  Just as Wilde is a victim, so Robbie (Edwin Thomas) is a decent chap and Bosie (Colin Morgan) an effetely nasty piece of work.   That’s just about all the actors playing them put across, with the result that neither engages interest.  (The closing legends about Robbie and Bosie seem designed to echo The Importance of Being Earnest’s line ‘The good ended happily, and the bad unhappily’, ignoring that ‘That is what Fiction means’.)  Colin Firth plays Reggie Turner, another member of Wilde’s circle who stood by him.  Firth’s trademark buttoned-up quality is interesting in this context but the role is so underwritten that it doesn’t count for much.

    The Happy Prince is decidedly anti-English and there’s never a suggestion that the components of contemporary homophobia might have included ignorance and (as the word suggests) fear.  It’s unadulterated hatred.  Wilde recalls with horror sitting handcuffed to a prison officer at Clapham Junction station, en route from Wandsworth Prison to Reading Gaol, and being spat at by people on the railway platform.  (Minor point:  this may be a coincidence but details in another train station sequence, when Wilde says goodbye to Robbie (or Bosie?), struck me as a pinch from Cabaret.  Wilde’s mention of not being cut out to wave a white handkerchief echoes Sally Bowles’s line; Rupert Everett’s farewell gesture – waggling the fingers of one upright hand, as he turns and walks away from the camera – replicates Liza Minnelli’s.)  The Clapham expectorators are working-class; better-heeled commuters look on smirkingly.  To even things out, Everett has a group of cricket-playing English public schoolboys cross the Channel in order to bait and chase Wilde in exile.

    In contrast, sexual tolerance flourishes at various levels of Parisian society, except when Everett needs to provoke a fight in a café, where the legionnaire Maurice (Tom Colley) defends his lover Wilde’s honour.  More striking is a sequence in Naples, where Wilde was holed up for a few months (this is also the setting for The Judas Kiss‘s second act).   Oscar presides over a gathering of more or less naked young men, including Felice (Antonio Spagnuolo), whose mother (Franca Abategiovanni) angrily interrupts proceedings.  (Felice is good-looking and his mother presented as grotesque yet there is, amusingly, a credible family resemblance.)  The mother is furious because she thinks the men have (female) ‘whores’ hidden away.  When Wilde assures her this is a ‘gentlemen’s party’, she laughs and sighs with apologetic relief.  She does so presumably not because she’s sexually enlightened but because the idea of male homosexuality is virtually inconceivable to a working woman in 1890s Naples[2].  The effect of the scene is nevertheless to suggest how essentially agreeable Italians are – in the standard comical-melodramatic way – compared with the harshly humourless English.

    Emily Watson gives a creditable performance as Wilde’s wife, even if Constance seems more (and understandably) horrified by her husband’s self-admiring speech to a first-night audience, following the triumphant reception of his latest play, than she does by his subsequent notoriety.  I may be misremembering but I don’t think Watson and Rupert Everett have a single scene together, other than when Constance appears as a premonitory vision to Wilde, on the night before news of her death reaches him by telegram.  His young sons appear mainly to complement two other kids to whom Wilde also, and gradually, tells his story of The Happy Prince.   The other pair are Paris street urchins, the elder of whom, Jean (Benjamin Voisin), Wilde uses as a rent boy.  The irony of the youngsters’ different circumstances is effective, even if some of the scenes involving them are sentimental, and Benjamin Voisin is very good as Jean.  It’s Tom Wilkinson who steals the show, though, as the professionally brisk and rather witty Irish priest (in Paris) who receives Wilde, on his deathbed, into the Catholic Church.

    3 July 2018

    [1]  Also known as The Trials of Oscar Wilde.

    [2] The fact that homosexuality became legal throughout Italy in 1890 hardly makes a difference.  Rupert Everett presumably wouldn’t think that the population of Britain was enlightened en masse by the legislation of 1967.

Posts navigation