Touches You

Simply A Masterpiece

An Exercise In Nonsense

There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

1999 was a wonderful year for Jeremy Northam and his portrayal of Sir Robert Morton in this remake of the Winslow Boy was the pinnacle. He totally becomes this character. It remains a mystery as to how this performance was ignored by both BAFTA and Oscar.The film though is not just about Northam and his performance; the entire cast never put a foot wrong. Nigel Hawthorne in what I believe was his last role and Gemma Jones were outstanding as Ronnie's parents. Oh how we all must wish that all parents could be as wonderful as they are. The scene between mother and son in his bedroom when he has been expelled and when his father tells him that he will know if he is lying.Rebecca Pidgeon as Catherine was assured as the modern woman fighting for women's rights. The chemistry between her and Northam was fabulous. It just goes to show that it is not necessary for a couple to even kiss to show sexual tension. The attraction Sir Robert and Catherine have is evident from their first meeting and yet the most they ever do is shake hands.I also loved the films setting and costumes. The difference between Catherine the modern Woman's wardrobe and that of her mother from a different generation The final scenes are wonderful with the Audience getting a real sense of what the real Sir Robert is like . I won't spoil the end but stick around for Jeremy Northam's final words but more importantly the look in his eyes and the smile on his face.This film has no big action scenes, all the enjoyment is in the writing and the subtle acting of the cast especially Jeremy Northam.

Set in 1912 and based on an actual event, David Mamet's "The Winslow Boy" is the story of an upper-class family whose 13 year-old son (Ronnie Winslow- a naval college cadet) is accused of stealing and cashing a five shilling postal order.Expelled from school, Ronnie returns home terrified of his father's reaction. But Arthur Winslow (superbly played by Nigel Hawthorne) isn't angry. Instead, he believes his boy to have been wrongly accused. And so with the help of his suffragette daughter (Catherine) and esteemed attorney Sir Robert Morton, Arthur sets out to clear his son's name.What follows is a beautifully written legal drama. But unlike "The Verdict" (also written by Mamet), there are no courtroom scenes here. No tense battles between lawyers or nail biting cross examinations, Mamet film revoking the usual legal maneuvers and opting instead to explore a family's determination to retain its dignity.But how can they remain dignified when their case becomes a nationwide news story? How can they remain dignified when their steadfast belief in their son is mocked by journalists and newspapers? How can they remain dignified when the British Parliament argues the case in the House of Lords? How can they remain dignified when the family suffers financial loss, much self-doubt, media scrutiny and even the break-off of Catherine's engagement to a status-sensitive snob (Aden Gillett)?"A fine old rumpus," the maid calls it all. And indeed it is. As Arthur's health deteriorates, his steadfast wife demands to know why he's sacrificing the family's well-being. "For justice!" he says. "Are you sure it's not pride and self-importance?" she counters.Of course, this being a David Mamet film - all Mamet's films are con games - "The Winslow Boy" is also a film about misdirection. On the surface, we're asked to wonder whether or not the Winslow Boy is really guilty, whilst below the surface, Mamet works in another layer of misdirection. On this level, every character is lying, every one of them misdirecting the audience by putting on a false facade.In this regard, every character's behaviour is precisely the opposite of their actual beliefs. So the father cares not for his son but rather his own family honour. The Winslow boy is guilty and stands embarrassed out in the rain. The older son is broke, hates his father and shall be shipped off to war, yet he accepts it all with cheerful good faith. Similarly, the maid, who always enters frame when there is talk of no money, is ambivalent to the fact that she will surely be fired soon. Then there's the three way relationship between the hotshot lawyer, the Winslow daughter and her fiancé. Her fiancé pretends to love her, yet leaves as soon as the case gains momentum, whilst she pretends to fight for women's independence (she's a suffragette) despite being entirely dependent on her family/men for her income. Similarly, the hotshot lawyer pretends to take the case because he believes the boy to be innocent, when in fact he's simply after the boy's attractive sister. When he confides to his friend that he has turned down a promotion to take the case, he does so knowing that this news will be confided to her, thus making him seem more appealing in her eyes.The entire film is thus an exercise in misdirection, the film communicating one thing while the truth sits just below the surface. The artifice is all a lie, a slick Edwardian card trick. End result: we're so busy looking for clues of the kid's innocence, that we don't realize that the whole family is guilty. 8.5/10 - Worth two viewings.

If you are a lover of English period pieces, the cast and synopsis of this movie is enough to create an anticipation of a pleasurable viewing experience. You may then find the first half of the film disappointing. The story engages the viewer only weakly, and there is a vagueness about the way the action unfolds. The actors' performances seem to have been captured a rehearsal or two short of a good take, or may be suffering from weak direction. The script is also patchy and pedestrian, suggesting it is fairest to lay the blame at the feet of director/screenplay writer Mamet. Such sterling actors as Nigel Hawthorne and Gemma Jones struggle to make an impression, with only the spirited Rebecca Pidgeon making much of her part. This is until the appearance on the scene of Jeremy Northam as barrister Sir Robert Morton. Northam is powerful in his screen presence and unerring in his delivery down to the smallest touch. His acting range as demonstrated so far may not be huge, but for this reviewer he can do no wrong. The subtly expressed and low key sexual tension between his character and Rebecca Pidgeon's character gives the audience something to be interested in, in this stodgy film. The final few exchanges are classic. Where was the sure touch demonstrated in the last few minutes, for the rest of the film? It's worth it though.

A peculiar and, I think, almost radical film. The plot is as that of countless other courtroom dramas, individuals against the might of state. However, set in pre-war London the drama of the film is almost conceptual, with the characters playing out their lines from behind a veil of propriety. This has its point, made after the denouement concerning the nature of law (Northam's relatively flambouyant law lord Morton warns against the indulging emotion in pursuit of justice/right).I can't see the justification here. Despite the undeniable tension in the narrative that the dialogue builds (I'd imagine it's all very close to the stage play) I keep having to suspend my dismay in what looks like disastrously bad acing in order to keep watching - especially in scenes where there is layered dialogue and the lines tend more toward texture.Out of all of this does come a miraculously balanced performance from Nigel Hawthorne. Whether he's just much better than everyone else (undeniable) or has ignored the injunction to deliver lines divorced from their emotive impetus (possible) he manages to draw in the themes of the serious vs folly, legal machination vs romance, the corruption of state vs the irreducible core of faith and integrity like satellites. It's amazing.The support is able but subordinated - Mamet's (well researched and well dressed) exercise has its use but as an object in itself. 5/10