Old Yorker

  • The Roses

    Jay Roach (2025)

    Danny DeVito’s The War of the Roses was a box-office hit in 1989.  When it turned up on television a few years later, half an hour was enough for me.  I saw through Jay Roach’s remake but The Roses, though it runs only 105 minutes, was an endurance test:  the film is pacy and slick but almost intolerably pleased with itself.  Like its predecessor, this is not just a comedy but a ‘satirical black comedy’ (Wikipedia) – and a flagrant example of how overused those two adjectives are.  The breakdown of a marriage is hardly a taboo subject or one that it’s daring to treat comically.  For satirical, simply read misanthropic.  The warring middle-class American couple played thirty-five years ago by Kathleen Turner and Michael Douglas, are now warring British expats in California, in the persons of Olivia Colman and Benedict Cumberbatch.  The Roses reminds us that Colman is a fine comedy performer and confirms that, as already suspected, Cumberbatch isn’t.  Yet the film’s style and tone eventually disadvantage her more than him.

    In the source material, Warren Adler’s 1981 novel, Jonathan and Barbara Rose are an affluent Washington DC couple.  He’s a high-flying lawyer.  She, after years as a homemaker and caring for the couple’s two children, is developing a successful gourmet catering business.  When Jonathan suffers a heart attack, Barbara realises she wouldn’t have cared if he’d died, tells him so, and they start divorce proceedings.  He offers her a fifty-fifty deal on their house; she insists on the whole property because it’s she who made the home what it is.  In DeVito’s film, it’s pretty much the same except that Jonathan has become Oliver and, in hospital after his heart attack, writes Barbara an I-owe-you-everything note.  Although it’s only the house – none of their other assets – that she wants in the divorce settlement, he’s determined to thwart her.  In both versions, the Roses resort to zany acts of sabotage and violence, in the struggle to win their war.

    In Jay Roach’s film, written by Tony McNamara, the renamed couple’s first meeting takes place in London.  Theo Rose is an architect.  At lunch in a posh restaurant to celebrate their practice’s latest success, Theo can’t stand his colleagues’ self-congratulation a moment longer, and escapes to the restaurant kitchen, where he finds aspiring chef Ivy.  They start chatting:  it’s love/lust at first sight.  Ivy’s about to depart for the US, in search of the culinary big time; Theo decides to go along, too.  Fast forward ten years.  The Roses and their precocious twin children live very comfortably in Mendocino.  Theo’s building designs are all the rage.  As well as a homemaker, Ivy (am I missing something clever or couldn’t the filmmakers think of a non-botanical forename for Mrs Rose?) is a food ‘artist’ of some kind, though her brilliance doesn’t seem much recognised outside the household.

    The plot’s pivotal event is not a medical emergency but a professional debacle for Theo.  His acclaimed design for a local naval museum is crowned by a spectacular construction in the shape of a sail, which collapses during a violent storm and brings down the building beneath.  This happens shortly after Theo has set Ivy up in her own seafood restaurant, hilariously named ‘We’ve Got Crabs’.  On the night of the storm, the place does great business thanks to people seeking shelter.  The diners include a renowned food critic (Caroline Partridge), who gives ‘We’ve Got Crabs’ a rave review.  Live video of the falling museum – accompanied by Theo’s voice desperately insisting ‘It’s not going to fall!’ – goes viral.  His career disappears down the pan as his wife’s takes off into the stratosphere.  In no time, Ivy is a celebrity chef and restaurateur.  Theo is reduced to the role of house husband and keep-fit fanatic, subjecting himself and the twins, Hattie (Delaney Quinn) and Roy (Ollie Robinson), to a punishing exercise regime.  Ivy and Theo’s former roles are further reversed when she, through franchising her vastly successful business, bankrolls him to design and build their dream house.

    Three years later … the new house is complete, at eye-watering expense; the thirteen-year-old twins (now Hala Finley and Wells Rappaport) head off on sports scholarships to Miami – and it’s their departure that apparently triggers the complete breakdown of their parents’ marriage.  The plotting of The Roses is less straightforward than in earlier versions of the story (according to Wikipedia synopses of those).  Although Theo resents Ivy’s success, and she feels regretfully excluded from her children’s lives, the couple are still evidently fond of each other until Hattie and Roy depart the domestic scene.  The Roses‘ prologue sees the title characters with a marriage guidance counsellor (Belinda Bromilow), who has asked them to write a list of ten positives about each other:  both manage a couple of ludicrously basic, grudging pluses before their lists turn negative and build to a vicious, profane crescendo.  This sequence, which ends with the Roses giggling together as they leave the shocked counsellor, is virtually reprised halfway through the film, just before the three-years-later jump forward, but I never understood when the counselling was happening in relation to the main narrative timeframe.  These various complications mean the all-out marital battle that gave Warren Adler’s book its daft but catchy title, gets going properly only late in the day.

    Jay Roach established himself in Hollywood through commercial success with the Austin Powers movies and, a few years later, the Meet the Parents/Fockers comedies.  He has switched to serious stuff during the last decade with Trumbo (2015) and Bombshell (2019).  Neither of those was up to much but they seem to have left their mark on Roach, judging from this indecisive return to filmmaking with laughs.  The Roses’ dream-housewarming dinner party is a disaster:  Ivy mocks and humiliates Theo relentlessly and, as she gets more drunk, their guests, too (more on that below).  The next morning, when Theo goes out running, along the seashore, he comes upon a beached whale.  With the help of other passers-by, he saves the creature, returning it to the ocean.  Back home, he tells Ivy this was an uplifting, spiritual experience.  Roach seems anxious to show that Theo means what he says.  Yet this epiphany is not just the film’s most anomalous episode but also its phoniest.

    In the event, Ivy’s reaction to the whale incident prompts Theo to tell her they’re finished and that he no longer loves her.  Giving these lines to a husband brought low rather than to an exploited wife – and having him rather than her demand the house in a divorce settlement – is about as far as The Roses gets with updating the material from the 1980s gender politics that informed the Adler novel and the DeVito film.  If Jay Roach was aiming to nuance the story, putting Tony McNamara on the script can’t have helped.  McNamara, who co-wrote The Favourite (2018) then worked solo on the screenplay for Yorgos Lanthimos’ next number, Poor Things (2023), is a master of the smart-aleck one-liner.  When it comes to emotionally honest dialogue, he has a tin ear:  the writing exudes insincerity.

    Actors can occasionally alchemise McNamara’s words, as Olivia Colman did in The Favourite.  In The Roses, though, the supporting cast mostly basks in his snide wit, making clear they despise the egregious people they’re playing and looking very self-satisfied about making that clear.  Andy Samberg is Barry, Theo’s friend and, in due course, his divorce lawyer; Kate McKinnon is Amy, Barry’s quasi-erotomaniac wife.  I think the only time I was rooting for anyone in The Roses came at the housewarming, when Ivy gives this pair and others a hard time, and I was silently cheering her on.  Allison Janney is quite entertaining as Ivy’s lawyer but she only has the one scene.  The minority of British cast members includes, as well as the leads, Jamie Demetriou and Ncuti Gatwa.  Watching this pair in the TV roles that have made them famous over here, I see performers doing a turn rather than portraying a character.  The same thing happens in The Roses.  Gatwa is OK as Ivy’s camp-as-Christmas front-of-house manager at the restaurant.  Demetriou, as another Rose ‘friend’, is a dead spot on the screen.

    The two British stars, to be fair, avoid the smugness of some of their American colleagues in the cast.  As an eccentric character in a drama like Will Sharpe’s The Electrical Life of Louis Wain (2021), Benedict Cumberbatch has shown he can be amusing, as well as touching.  Here, though, as in Wes Anderson’s recent The Phoenician Scheme, his work looks like the product of research into comedy rather than of any feeling for it.  He’s technically very skilled – you can hear and see that Cumberbatch has worked out precisely how and when to deliver each line and pull each facial expression – but the result isn’t funny:  the actor doesn’t seem to bring anything of himself to the character.  (He comes closest to raising a smile when Theo is simply running – the in corpore sano routine that doesn’t stop him going out of his mind.)  Olivia Colman instinctively knows better.  She often scores with the one-liners; she also gives Ivy some emotional layering.  It goes to waste, though.  Whether Jay Roach intends this or not, The Roses comes over as monotonously cynical.  Benedict Cumberbatch’s hollow performance seems better aligned with this.

    Ivy and Theo’s climactic dream-house battle ends with a few words of reconciliation and getting intimate.  Ivy’s pride and joy in the kitchen is not its advanced technology but her ancient oven, which once belonged to Julia Child (Ivy bought it at auction).  The kitchen carnage includes damage to the oven, which is leaking gas.  As he and Ivy go into an amorous clinch, Theo instructs their smart home system (called HAL, ho-ho) to turn on a fire to warm things up even more.  The screen goes white and the closing credits start.  The gas explosion presumably means the end of the Roses, though it’s hard to care.  It definitely means the end of The Roses, which is a relief.

    11 September 2025

  • Sex

    Dag Johan Haugerud (2024)

    This Norwegian film – the first in writer-director Dag Johan Haugerud’s ‘Oslo stories’ trilogy – is immediately unusual.   The two protagonists are twenty-first-century chimney sweeps, for a start.  After opening shots of them at work on city rooftops, then swimming with other colleagues in a public pool, Haugerud’s camera moves inside a multi-storey building to a room, where it settles on one of the pair.  The camera doesn’t move for several minutes as this man, seated at a table drinking coffee, describes a dream he’s had, his description punctuated by questions from an unseen man, in a tone of voice that’s calm, interested and sympathetic.  Hearing about other people’s dreams can be a tedious business but not in Sex.  The dreamer encountered a figure whom he first thought was God, then Anni-Frid from ABBA, but eventually realised was David Bowie, who perceived the dreamer as a woman.  ‘He was taking charge … and that felt so good’:  the encounter didn’t involve any physical contact but the dreamer in retrospect is troubled.  He isn’t a Bowie fan but is sure the dream must mean something – that these things don’t come out of nowhere.  His listener, disagreeing, proceeds to give an example of how they do, and in real life.  The camera now moves across the table and stays with this other man, who matter-of-factly explains that, just yesterday and for the first time ever, he had sex with another man – a work client – in the man’s home.  Although the dreamer responds quietly, he’s clearly disturbed by his friend’s news.  From this point on, the camera is relatively more animated, too, moving between the two black-uniformed men as they continue to talk.

    The dreamer, the listener … don’t they have names?  Not really.  On a Wikipedia cast list, the gay sex initiate is ‘Chimney Sweep’ and the dreamer is ‘CEO’ (he owns the business); on IMDb’s list, they’re Feier (sweep) and Avdelingsleder (head of department) respectively.  These middle-aged men are both married; whereas Wikipedia labels the women in their lives simply as chimney sweep’s wife and CEO’s wife, IMDb acknowledges that they have jobs too – their characters are Revisor (auditor) and Sosionom (social worker).  Neither taxonomy makes sense in the context of the film.  There’s no evidence that either man sees his wife as a mere appendage.  We don’t see either woman at work, except for the auditor briefly on her laptop at home, and there’s nothing to suggest that their spouses, let alone their children, define them in terms of the jobs they do.  Nor are the two husbands and fathers defined that way.  Haugerud’s cryptic anonymity is one of Sex‘s few mildly irritating features, at least when you come to write about the film.  I’ll give the four characters the forenames of the excellent actors playing them – Jan Gunnar Røise, Thorbjørn Harr, Siri Forberg and Birgitte Larsen.

    Thorbjørn is shocked by Jan’s revelation at a personal level and as his boss:  it’s not on, he reminds his employee, to have sex with clients.  Jan knows that but points out the client propositioned him.  He initially said no; it was only after leaving the house and reflecting on the client’s invitation that he changed his mind and returned.  What followed was ‘mind-blowing’ but Jan doesn’t think it means he’s at all homosexually inclined.  He nevertheless asks Thorbjørn to respect the confidence, adding that he hasn’t told anyone else, ‘apart from my wife, of course’.  What did she say, asks Thorbjørn, amazed for a second time.  She was surprised, Jan replies, but he has assured her that the sex doesn’t mean he’s gay or that he was being unfaithful to her.  When Jan returns home after the chat with Thorbjørn, there follows another lengthy static shot, as he talks with his wife Siri, and she tells him how deeply betrayed she feels.  Jan sits sideview to the camera, Siri with her back to it and motionless:  it’s only when the camera starts to move that we can see as well as hear her distress.  Jan’s clearly sorry to have hurt his wife yet puzzled that he has.  He insists there won’t be any repetition of the incident (and, after all, ‘One beer doesn’t make me an alcoholic’).  That evening, the couple drive with their two pre-adolescent sons to a garden centre; nothing is said to the boys but in private Siri can’t stop discussing with Jan what the episode means for the future of their relationship.

    In contrast to the virtually non-speaking roles for Jan and Siri’s boys, there’s plenty of talk between Thorbjørn and his only child, (named!) teenager Klaus (Theo Dahl).  Klaus plays piano in the school orchestra; his father sings in a church choir, which will join forces with the orchestra in a forthcoming concert.  Thorbjørn is lined up for a solo but worries that his voice seems to be developing a higher register.  In Klaus’s company, he visits a vocal coach (Nasrin Khusrawi), who thinks the problem is stress related.  She recommends tongue-stretching exercises and reading Hannah Arendt’s The Human Condition.  On another occasion, as they’re walking home, Thorbjørn and Klaus are buttonholed by two women, a mother (Heidi Berget) and daughter (Sarah Oskarsen), who want a fridge moved into their house.  In helping to do this, Klaus traps and injures his hand, resulting in a visit to the family doctor (Anne-Marie Ottersen).  Thorbjørn accompanies Klaus, who mentions that his father has developed a skin rash, which the doctor insists on examining.

    Father and son are notably frank with each other throughout – and the family doctor, like almost all Sex‘s significant characters, is talkative – in her case, to a remarkably discursive degree.  She regales Thorbjørn and Klaus with the tale of two architects, a young male couple:  one was obsessed by the beauty of his partner’s upper back; the other, knowing this, had the words ‘Frank Lloyd Wright’ tattooed there as a birthday present for his lover; the latter couldn’t conceal his disappointment, not least because his other half chose a font style suggestive of Le Corbusier rather than Frank Lloyd Wright.  Although the partnership survived, the moral of the doctor’s story is that surface details can profoundly complicate relationships.  In Thorbjørn’s interview with the voice therapist, the talk soon turns existential.  And in the domestic exchanges between Jan and Siri and, in due course, between Thorbjørn and Birgitte, the characters show a consistent ability to ask incisive questions that take the conversation deeper.

    All this confirms the striking impression made by the film’s opening exchange about Thorbjørn’s dream.  Jan alertly picks up that his friend’s account has included two different versions of what David Bowie was supposedly doing in the dream before he noticed Thorbjørn.  Acknowledging this, Thorbjørn says it tends to happen when you recount a dream:  details can change or be invented to make the account more coherent overall.  These chimney sweeps can sound like trained psychoanalysts.  The dialogue in Sex is well written and the delivery of it flawlessly naturalistic but as the film proceeds, you’re increasingly aware that Haugerud’s priority is having people say what he needs them to say – rather than grounding their conversations in a character-based or context-based reality.  (Or even thoroughgoing consistency:  Thorbjørn talks about what tends to happen in recounting a dream soon after telling Jan that he rarely remembers his dreams.)  This – in combination with a dominance of words that’s abnormal in cinema (or, at least, in a film written directly for the screen) – gives the proceedings an essential unrealism.  Perhaps that also paves the way for Sex’s occasional bursts of surrealism and digression.

    Each one of these has impact, not least because Haugerud has eschewed more obvious devices, like trying to recreate Thorbjørn’s Bowie dream on the screen or showing Jan’s queer encounter in flashback.  As a result, the story of the architects (Vetle Bergan and Iver Innset), recounted in a black-and-white sequence accompanied by the doctor’s voiceover, is all the more aberrant and stranger.  The mother who almost instructs Thorbjørn and Klaus to move her fridge is different to the extent that Klaus’s resulting hand injury impinges on the subsequent plot but this woman seems another example of coming-out-of-nowhere syndrome, and her lack of gratitude for the help she’s given is inexplicable (like something you might dream).  Haugerud fully prepares the ground for the concert that comprises Sex’s climactic sequence, yet this still comes as an engaging surprise.  Birgitte is there to watch her husband and son; Jan, Siri and their children are also in the audience.  Thorbjørn wears a vaguely ridiculous, not quite unisex outfit, a scarlet smock and shorts, run up by Klaus under his mother’s supervision.  Thorbjørn’s short solo introduces a more extended vocal performance by his choir that’s also choreographed.  Song and sort-of dance is such a departure from what’s gone before that this finale also verges on the surreal.

    The film’s opening words are what Thorbjørn recalls the Bowie figure telling him, along the lines that most human beings are capable of goodness and should act accordingly.  The film’s closing words, sung by the choir, have a more distinctly Christian flavour.  Thorbjørn and Birgitte’s Christian belief – singing in the choir isn’t his only reason for going to church – emerges as a significant if opaque element of Sex.  Birgitte comes home with a dreamcatcher, a gift from a work colleague, which she hangs over her and Thorbjørn’s bed.  The Bowie dream, with minor variations, recurs and Thorbjørn takes the dreamcatcher down though it’s not as if he’s having bad dreams:  he wakes happy that a sympathetic, seemingly powerful presence saw him as a woman.  Even though Thorbjørn doesn’t feel any sexual appetite as such in the Bowie encounters, he seems to take a risk, in view of Jan and Siri’s experience, when he talks to Birgitte in detail about the dreams.  She registers surprise, tinged with momentary disquiet, but quickly absorbs what she’s told and infers spiritual meaning from her husband’s ‘feminine’ experience:  God and the love of God, she says, transcend sex and gender.

    More amusingly, in their last tête-à-tête, Jan suggests to Thorbjørn that it was probably harder for him to tell Jan he was a practising Christian than it was for Jan to tell Thorbjørn about the homosexual happening.  This remark anticipates critical reaction to Sex, in the liberal press, at least.  Reviews typically commend the film’s exploration of how two ostensibly straight, monogamous men find themselves in terra incognita in terms of sexual experience and gender identity.  The reviewers concerned are less comfortable – almost tongue-tied – about the story’s religious aspect.  Haugerud signals his central theme in the film’s title.  His choice of a pioneer of gender fluidity as a key figure in the story is a further declaration of intent.  But Jan and Siri’s probing conversations about the relationship of sex and love in marriage and sexual intercourse, make clear the piece’s complexity.  Thorbjørn’s confusing Bowie with God (or vice versa) is part of Sex‘s pattern, too.

    Through Klaus, Haugerud suggests a younger generation relatively untroubled by sexual convention and uninhibited in talking publicly about traditionally private things.  Early on, Klaus suggests to Thorbjørn that, because his high-school grades aren’t great, he’s thinking of starting up his own YouTube channel – like a girl he knows who’s become an influencer, making online videos about her make-up choices and menstrual cramps.  Klaus is in the room, working on the sewing machine, when his parents discuss the Bowie dreams; he bats an eyelid, but only just, when his father goes on to tell his mother about the work colleague who’s had sex with another man yet isn’t gay.

    What’s the point of Jan and Thorbjørn’s being chimney sweeps?  For a time, you think it’s no more than that the occupation’s visual possibilities provide occasional breaks in a dialogue-heavy narrative.  But the men’s line of work starts to resonate in other ways.  Jan has suddenly found his life spinning out of control:  reeling from the impact of Siri’s anger and dismay, he has a dizzy spell during a rooftop job and phones Thorbjørn for help.  This idea might sound obvious, but it doesn’t play out as such.  Later in the same day, Jan sits disconsolately on a bench in the city centre.  A wedding party emerges from the building behind him; the new bride and groom want their picture taken with Jan (a sweep is as lucky as lucky can be).  Gamely, he agrees and smiles for the photo.

    This isn’t the only instance of Haugerud’s harmonising what might seem artificial or disparate features of Sex.  Whereas its description of Jan and Siri’s mutual loss of trust and security in their marriage feels painfully real, Thorbjørn’s opening account of his dream is funny and the following tale of his identity crisis persistently amusing – not written or played for comedy explicitly but still a light-hearted matter beside the marital crisis.  This is partly because Thorbjørn’s predicament is repeatedly illustrated in symbolic terms.  The Bowie dreams are clearly the prime example, but the vocal changes signify, too, and so does the skin condition.  (Although the doctor diagnoses this as nothing more serious than peeling dry skin, that suggests of course the shedding of an old skin.)  For much of the film, the men’s stories are told in parallel:  most of Jan’s screen time is with Siri; as already noted, Thorbjørn talks with several other characters.  Yet Haugerud maintains just enough contact between the principals to sustain a link until he eventually reveals how their surprising experiences have something in common beyond calling established identities into question.  As Thorbjørn explains to Birgitte, Jan told him sex with another man was pleasurable not only because it was a novelty but also because the man saw Jan (or so it seemed to Jan) as no one else had ever seen him before.  Thorbjørn enjoys David Bowie’s attentions for the same reason.

    Haugerud’s most remarkable achievement is in making Jan’s initial view of his brief sexual diversion credible, and his subsequent horror that his wife can’t see it that way, commiserable.  His seeming nonchalance when he first tells Thorbjørn about the incident seems astonishing – ditto Jan’s naïve confidence that Siri will almost laugh it off:  as she points out, a promise that he won’t do the same thing again isn’t much reassurance if he wants to do it again.  It rings true, though, when Jan tells his wife (and later Thorbjørn) that he believes telling her what happened makes all the difference – that it’s not telling her that would have been cheating on Siri.  Haugerud brings this off through his own fine writing and through Jan Gunnar Røise’s marvellous acting.  I’d not seen Røise on a cinema screen before:  he’s so distinctive and memorable in Sex that it seems hard to credit that I may have seen him in TV Scandi-noir parts and not noticed.  Although he and Thorbjørn Harr are about the same height (5’ 11”-ish), Røise seems shorter because he’s slighter.  As Jan, his almost comical face imparts at first a mixture of impishness and innocence, later an extraordinary fragility.  It’s easy to believe Siri when she tells her husband how vulnerable he has always looked when they make love.

    Siri Forberg partners Røise beautifully.  More physically substantial than him, Forberg seems to use her weight to express the depth of Siri’s misery.  By the time they attend the school concert, Jan and Siri appear to have survived the crisis, though uncertainly.  As Jan watches the performance, his face suggests love of some kind for his friend on the stage.  The film’s closing sequence shows Jan and Siri leaving the concert with their sons.  Haugerud finally doesn’t use words to convey that things within this family have changed.  Røise, Forberg (who had a minor role in Joachim Trier’s The Worst Person in the World (2021)) and Thorbjørn Harr all appeared in Barn (2019), Haugerud’s best-known film until the Oslo stories trilogy.  He says that he wrote the two main characters for Røise and Harr.  The latter is the only one of the main actors that I certainly recognised:  his many roles include the main character’s father in Paul Greengrass’s 22 July (2018) and the main character’s husband in Afterglow (2022), an erratic Norwegian TV drama in which Harr was the one consistently good thing.   As hinted above, his character in Sex doesn’t allow for the range and depth that Jan Gunnar Røise brings to his role but Thorbjørn Harr, from start to finish, is admirably deft and emotionally acute.

    I hope I’ve got across how eccentrically funny Sex often is:  in the two main performances; in details like Anni-Frid keeping company with God and Bowie, the voice coach’s tongue-stretching-plus-Hannah Arendt therapy, the unfortunate choice of font for the architect’s tattoo.  The film also benefits from an exceptionally effective original score, by Peder Capjon Kjellsby – sometimes jazzy, sometimes brassy, always emotionally alive.  I’ve not been quite fair in stressing the primacy of words in Sex.  DP Cecilie Semec’s lighting of the city in what must be Oslo summertime supplies a gently powerful contrast with the darker, murkier elements of Haugerud’s story.  Repeated shots of building work in the city reinforce a sense of the changing landscape of three or four of its citizens’ lives.

    Seeing Sex was a very happy accident.  I’d recently seen trailers for Haugerud’s Oslo stories at BFI but felt I should see all three films (albeit each of Sex, Dreams and Love is supposedly self-contained), which seemed too much just a few weeks ahead of this year’s London Film Festival.  On a flying visit to Edinburgh (less than forty-eight hours there), I intended to spend some time at the seaside, in North Berwick.  It rained throughout the day in question, so I looked to see what was showing at the resurrected Edinburgh Filmhouse.   Not much I was interested in, even less at a time that worked.  Because Sex is the first part of Dag Johan Haugerud’s trilogy, I thought I’d give it a go.  I ended up seeing a film that impressed me more than any other new film of the last year or so.

    3 September 2025

     

Posts navigation