Sunday, July 31, 2005
Pick-up (1933)
Director: Marion Gering
See January for: ^Closer; ^The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou;
^Finding Neverland; ^The Aviator
See February for: ^Million Dollar Baby; ^Male and Female;
^Gentlemen Prefer Blondes; ^Love; ^Sunrise; ^Ray
See March for: ^Being Julia; ^Millions
See April for: ^Melinda and Melinda
See May for: ^ Look At Me ^Enron: The Smartest Guys In the Room ^Chinatown; ^ Born Into Brothels
See June for: ^Cote d’Azur ^5X2 ^Sabah ^Inlaws and Outlaws ^Peach Girl ^2046
See July for: ^Batman Begins ^ Mad Hot Ballrom ^Heights ^My Summer of Love
*Warning the following analysis contains a discussion of the entire film – including the ending.
Pick-up was part of a Film Forum Series called Paramount Before the Code, meaning films made before the Hayes Code of studio self-censorship was imposed in 1934. Part of the fun of this film series (sadly I only saw 2 films) was to try and find what aspect of these films would have been considered objectionable after The Code was in place. I’m guessing in Pick-up it was the loose morality exhibited around sex, in particular in the sequence when Mary and Harry (Sylvia Sidney and George Raft) go to the swingers party hosted by the young, rich and free-loving neighbor down the road from Harry’s auto garage.
Let me tell you how we get there in this bawdy romping early talkie. As the film opens Mary is being released from jail. Her husband, who is also in jail for ring leading the crime that sent them up, is given a few moments to talk with his wife before she is set free. He asks Mary to wait for him the 3 more years he has in prison and she refuses saying she’s going straight and wants nothing more of him or his crooked buddies.
Mary soon discovers going straight is tough as she ends up homeless and jobless her first day out. Harry, a cabbie, takes her home one night (against his better judgment) to save her from the cold night and pouring rain. They have a bit of tough-guy / stubborn-girl back and forth reminiscent of Gable and Colbert in It Happened One Night – tough I must hasten to add nowhere near the magic of the Gable/Colbert chemistry. Of course Harry and Mary slowly fall in love.
And all the while Mary's past is closing in on her. From jail her husband has had his buddies out looking for her in the city all the while. Mary is aware of her vulnerability in the city and fights with Harry to quit his job as a cabbie and open his own auto shop in the country. She is motivate both by a desire to see Harry do well and to flee the city where she is sure she will one day be discovered. Mary has told Harry she is married, but has not disclosed the whole truth of her criminal past. (Harry and Mary living together, especially while Mary is still married would have been a red flag in the days after The Code.)
They do escape to the country but ironically that is Mary's undoing in two ways. One, her husband's buddy happens upon Mary while out for a country drive, and two, Harry gets seduced by the free-loving rich neighbor whom he meets while fixing her car. The sequence when Harry and Mary go to the decadent and raunchy swingers party is indeed outrageous. It is only suggested, but clearly suggested, that these wealthy folk are having a drunken orgy and Harry is in way over his head. The young, rich neighbor is turned on by Harry, at least for the moment and she seduces Harry. Harry, being naive to the ways of the swinging upper classes takes the sex as an act of love and tells the neighbor-girl he wants to marry her. She, however, laughs at his earnestness. This is all conveyed with early 1930s double talk, winks and nods but the jist of the debauchery is clear and not what you have come to expect from golden-age Hollywood. The free wheeling nature of 1930-1933 Hollywood is made pretty clear in this one film. The fact that Pick-up is so startlingly sexual when compared with what we expect from typical 'black and white Hollywood' of 1933-1950 clearly shows the effect of The Code.
Anyway, in the end, of course, Mary and Harry patch things up and marry.
Oh, but first Mary's husband breaks out of jail, kidnaps Mary but is shot and killed by her. Harry has to sell all his possessions to pay for a lawyer to save Mary and he ends up back where he began as a cabbie. A cute final scene of Mary and Harry starting again where they began - Mary leaving jail and getting into Harry's cab. They drive off , happily ever after.
A tidy ending to a wild film.
Should you see it? Absolutely, even if only to see the wild swingers party as depicted in 1932.
See January for: ^Closer; ^The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou;
^Finding Neverland; ^The Aviator
See February for: ^Million Dollar Baby; ^Male and Female;
^Gentlemen Prefer Blondes; ^Love; ^Sunrise; ^Ray
See March for: ^Being Julia; ^Millions
See April for: ^Melinda and Melinda
See May for: ^ Look At Me ^Enron: The Smartest Guys In the Room ^Chinatown; ^ Born Into Brothels
See June for: ^Cote d’Azur ^5X2 ^Sabah ^Inlaws and Outlaws ^Peach Girl ^2046
See July for: ^Batman Begins ^ Mad Hot Ballrom ^Heights ^My Summer of Love
*Warning the following analysis contains a discussion of the entire film – including the ending.
Pick-up was part of a Film Forum Series called Paramount Before the Code, meaning films made before the Hayes Code of studio self-censorship was imposed in 1934. Part of the fun of this film series (sadly I only saw 2 films) was to try and find what aspect of these films would have been considered objectionable after The Code was in place. I’m guessing in Pick-up it was the loose morality exhibited around sex, in particular in the sequence when Mary and Harry (Sylvia Sidney and George Raft) go to the swingers party hosted by the young, rich and free-loving neighbor down the road from Harry’s auto garage.
Let me tell you how we get there in this bawdy romping early talkie. As the film opens Mary is being released from jail. Her husband, who is also in jail for ring leading the crime that sent them up, is given a few moments to talk with his wife before she is set free. He asks Mary to wait for him the 3 more years he has in prison and she refuses saying she’s going straight and wants nothing more of him or his crooked buddies.
Mary soon discovers going straight is tough as she ends up homeless and jobless her first day out. Harry, a cabbie, takes her home one night (against his better judgment) to save her from the cold night and pouring rain. They have a bit of tough-guy / stubborn-girl back and forth reminiscent of Gable and Colbert in It Happened One Night – tough I must hasten to add nowhere near the magic of the Gable/Colbert chemistry. Of course Harry and Mary slowly fall in love.
And all the while Mary's past is closing in on her. From jail her husband has had his buddies out looking for her in the city all the while. Mary is aware of her vulnerability in the city and fights with Harry to quit his job as a cabbie and open his own auto shop in the country. She is motivate both by a desire to see Harry do well and to flee the city where she is sure she will one day be discovered. Mary has told Harry she is married, but has not disclosed the whole truth of her criminal past. (Harry and Mary living together, especially while Mary is still married would have been a red flag in the days after The Code.)
They do escape to the country but ironically that is Mary's undoing in two ways. One, her husband's buddy happens upon Mary while out for a country drive, and two, Harry gets seduced by the free-loving rich neighbor whom he meets while fixing her car. The sequence when Harry and Mary go to the decadent and raunchy swingers party is indeed outrageous. It is only suggested, but clearly suggested, that these wealthy folk are having a drunken orgy and Harry is in way over his head. The young, rich neighbor is turned on by Harry, at least for the moment and she seduces Harry. Harry, being naive to the ways of the swinging upper classes takes the sex as an act of love and tells the neighbor-girl he wants to marry her. She, however, laughs at his earnestness. This is all conveyed with early 1930s double talk, winks and nods but the jist of the debauchery is clear and not what you have come to expect from golden-age Hollywood. The free wheeling nature of 1930-1933 Hollywood is made pretty clear in this one film. The fact that Pick-up is so startlingly sexual when compared with what we expect from typical 'black and white Hollywood' of 1933-1950 clearly shows the effect of The Code.
Anyway, in the end, of course, Mary and Harry patch things up and marry.
Oh, but first Mary's husband breaks out of jail, kidnaps Mary but is shot and killed by her. Harry has to sell all his possessions to pay for a lawyer to save Mary and he ends up back where he began as a cabbie. A cute final scene of Mary and Harry starting again where they began - Mary leaving jail and getting into Harry's cab. They drive off , happily ever after.
A tidy ending to a wild film.
Should you see it? Absolutely, even if only to see the wild swingers party as depicted in 1932.
Batman Begins (2005)
Director: Christopher Nolan
See January for: ^Closer; ^The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou;
^Finding Neverland; ^The Aviator
See February for: ^Million Dollar Baby; ^Male and Female;
^Gentlemen Prefer Blondes; ^Love; ^Sunrise; ^Ray
See March for: ^Being Julia; ^Millions
See April for: ^Melinda and Melinda
See May for: ^ Look At Me ^Enron: The Smartest Guys In the Room ^Chinatown; ^ Born Into Brothels
See June for: ^Cote d’Azur ^5X2 ^Sabah ^Inlaws and Outlaws ^Peach Girl ^2046
See July for: ^Mad Hot Ballroom^Heights ^My Summer of Love
*Warning the following analysis contains a discussion of the entire film – including the ending.
Ok, not bad for a mid-summer superhero Blockbuster. There actually is some story and some character development here. Batman Begins gives the back-story to how Batman became Batman. We see young Bruce Wayne witness the robbing and killing of his parents by some street-scum, parents who were good rich folk putting all their effort into reviving Gotham. We see how bats become Bruce’s most deeply-rooted fear after being trapped in a well that is the entrance to a bat cave – the bats are awoken and swarm all around him. (Later we see how Bruce uses this fear in his superhero training.) We see how Bruce is recruited to fight for justice and endures brutal training in a ninja-like initiation atop a mountain somewhere in China. We see Bruce escape from the superhero training camp when he refuses to use his powers to kill; he flees with a mission to save Gotham. We see Bruce gathering equipment, creating his superhero costume and developing the Bat Cave. We hear Bruce's plan to make Batman a potent symbol – a symbol of fear for criminals and hope for the beleaguered citizens of Gotham.
Bruce’s motivation, training and determined plan to rid Gotham of crime is established about halfway through Batman Begins. It then turns full force into the summer Blockbuster action movie it is. Lots of explosions, effects, loudness and fights take us through the final half of the film. This is less interesting then the set-up. But hey, at least you get a set-up that someone put half a brain to work on.
Oh, and in the end, Batman wins.
Should you see it? I guess. Perhaps just to satisfy your curiosity about how Bruce Wayne became Batman.
See January for: ^Closer; ^The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou;
^Finding Neverland; ^The Aviator
See February for: ^Million Dollar Baby; ^Male and Female;
^Gentlemen Prefer Blondes; ^Love; ^Sunrise; ^Ray
See March for: ^Being Julia; ^Millions
See April for: ^Melinda and Melinda
See May for: ^ Look At Me ^Enron: The Smartest Guys In the Room ^Chinatown; ^ Born Into Brothels
See June for: ^Cote d’Azur ^5X2 ^Sabah ^Inlaws and Outlaws ^Peach Girl ^2046
See July for: ^Mad Hot Ballroom^Heights ^My Summer of Love
*Warning the following analysis contains a discussion of the entire film – including the ending.
Ok, not bad for a mid-summer superhero Blockbuster. There actually is some story and some character development here. Batman Begins gives the back-story to how Batman became Batman. We see young Bruce Wayne witness the robbing and killing of his parents by some street-scum, parents who were good rich folk putting all their effort into reviving Gotham. We see how bats become Bruce’s most deeply-rooted fear after being trapped in a well that is the entrance to a bat cave – the bats are awoken and swarm all around him. (Later we see how Bruce uses this fear in his superhero training.) We see how Bruce is recruited to fight for justice and endures brutal training in a ninja-like initiation atop a mountain somewhere in China. We see Bruce escape from the superhero training camp when he refuses to use his powers to kill; he flees with a mission to save Gotham. We see Bruce gathering equipment, creating his superhero costume and developing the Bat Cave. We hear Bruce's plan to make Batman a potent symbol – a symbol of fear for criminals and hope for the beleaguered citizens of Gotham.
Bruce’s motivation, training and determined plan to rid Gotham of crime is established about halfway through Batman Begins. It then turns full force into the summer Blockbuster action movie it is. Lots of explosions, effects, loudness and fights take us through the final half of the film. This is less interesting then the set-up. But hey, at least you get a set-up that someone put half a brain to work on.
Oh, and in the end, Batman wins.
Should you see it? I guess. Perhaps just to satisfy your curiosity about how Bruce Wayne became Batman.
Saturday, July 30, 2005
Mad Hot Ballroom (2005)
Director: Marilyn Agrelo
*Warning the following analysis contains a discussion of the entire film – including the ending.
Mad Hot Ballroom is adorable, absolutely adorable. Other than a few sentences describing the plot of this documentary there is little analysis to be had aside from grabbing the film by its cheeks and saying ‘adorable, you’re adorable’.
Mad Hot Ballroom is a documentary set in the 5 boroughs of New York. It follows the fate of four 4th grade classes (or was it 5th grade?) as they compete in the citywide elementary school ballroom dancing competition. About 90% of the footage shows the kids practicing to dance or dancing at their competitions. And it is simply adorable. It is charming and hilarious watching them learn to dance and it is adorable and delightful watching them dance in competition. There are a few moments when you get chocked-up and teary, in particular when the teachers themselves get chocked-up and teary talking about their students whom they obviously care deeply about, perhaps more deeply than they realized themselves. But mostly it’s adorable.
You also get a few glimpses into the home lives of these students, many from lower class inner-city families. In some ways the ballroom dancing is the only positive activity in these students’ lives. Or at least it seems like that might be the case, but the film does little, perhaps too little, giving the back stories of these students. There is an extremely small amount of footage away from the dancing so you only get the vaguest impression of where these students are coming from. We hear from the teachers that dancing is a rare opportunity for these students to succeed at something, to be engaged in a positive activity in their 0therwise difficult lives, but we do not see it; we do not get any insight into what it is like being 10-years-old in Washington Heights or Bensonhurst, Brooklyn .
But I guess social commentary was not the point of the film. Perhaps the directors were satisfied simply documenting the competition in an adorable and delightful way, and in that they succeed.
Should you see it? Wait until you get the mid-winter blues and you need something uplifting and adorable to brighten your day.
*Warning the following analysis contains a discussion of the entire film – including the ending.
Mad Hot Ballroom is adorable, absolutely adorable. Other than a few sentences describing the plot of this documentary there is little analysis to be had aside from grabbing the film by its cheeks and saying ‘adorable, you’re adorable’.
Mad Hot Ballroom is a documentary set in the 5 boroughs of New York. It follows the fate of four 4th grade classes (or was it 5th grade?) as they compete in the citywide elementary school ballroom dancing competition. About 90% of the footage shows the kids practicing to dance or dancing at their competitions. And it is simply adorable. It is charming and hilarious watching them learn to dance and it is adorable and delightful watching them dance in competition. There are a few moments when you get chocked-up and teary, in particular when the teachers themselves get chocked-up and teary talking about their students whom they obviously care deeply about, perhaps more deeply than they realized themselves. But mostly it’s adorable.
You also get a few glimpses into the home lives of these students, many from lower class inner-city families. In some ways the ballroom dancing is the only positive activity in these students’ lives. Or at least it seems like that might be the case, but the film does little, perhaps too little, giving the back stories of these students. There is an extremely small amount of footage away from the dancing so you only get the vaguest impression of where these students are coming from. We hear from the teachers that dancing is a rare opportunity for these students to succeed at something, to be engaged in a positive activity in their 0therwise difficult lives, but we do not see it; we do not get any insight into what it is like being 10-years-old in Washington Heights or Bensonhurst, Brooklyn .
But I guess social commentary was not the point of the film. Perhaps the directors were satisfied simply documenting the competition in an adorable and delightful way, and in that they succeed.
Should you see it? Wait until you get the mid-winter blues and you need something uplifting and adorable to brighten your day.
Friday, July 29, 2005
Heights (2004)
Director: Chris Terrio
*Warning the following analysis contains a discussion of the entire film - including the ending.
It is interesting to see what sticks in your mind a few days after viewing a film: a particular image, a bit of dialogue, some lingering emotional impact. In Heights it is the many close-ups of Glen Close's face. Close give a better performance and is more strikingly beautiful than I have seen her in any other of her films. (Admittedly that list is small.) Close dominates the film, a great accomplishment given her character, Diana, is tangential to the central plot; yet, her performance is the fulcrum that balances the various story lines slowly converging throughout Heights.
Also noteworthy is this film's existence in summertime. Heights is a small, well-acted, mature drama - adjectives rarely applied in this season of explosions, superheroes and general adolescence in film. It is this summer's Tadpole or The Housekeeper, a small breath of fine film making in a general atmosphere of gunpowder-tinged recycled celluloid.
Perhaps I should strike 'small' from my list of adjectives describing Heights. Heights is ambitious in its number of story lines and the intricacy in which those stories slowly collide bringing about the film's final twist and resolution. (Though 'small' certainly applies when comparing the cash, hype and volume of Heights with the Blockbuster next door.) Director Chris Terrio's decision to tell his story through the slow convergence of various characters and discrete story lines is certainly not acinematicantic device - it is, in fact, a prominent trend particularly in art films (launched, perhaps, by Pulp Fiction)? But Terrio uses this devise skillfully, with purpose and without strain or pretension in Heights. "New York is the smallest place in the world for things like this", says Glen Close's Diana when she realizes the young actor, Alec, auditioning for her play lives in her daughter's apartment building. Diana and Alec's meeting is the most significant of the many lives overlapping by chance in Heights, a coincidence (when combined with Alec's mistakenly leaving his jacket at the audition) unravels the deception at the heart of the film.
As the film begins Isabel (Diana's daughter) and Jonathan, twenty-something professionals are weeks before their marriage, but Jonathan has a secret that is trailing him. He posed for and had an affair with a male photographer notorious for his gorgeous nude portraits and subsequent affairs with his models. A British journalist is in New York looking for Jonathan to interviewing him for an article about the artist's work and flings. Isabel discovers this secret soon after we in the audience. What shedoesn't we) doesn't know until the final sequence is Jonathan's liaison with the artist was not an 'experiment', he is in fact gay and having an affair with the actor, Alec, one floor below.
The unveiling of Jonathan's and Alec's affair may be Heights' biggest success. When we come upon Jonathan kissing Alec it is through the eyes of Isabel. We share all her initial shock and subsequent rush of recognition - all the subtle hints suggesting Jonathan's affair are suddenly clear. It is the way you imagine an affair being discovered in reality. Through trust (or fear?) you create reasons for your partner's unusual behavior until you discover your partner's infidelity and all those little uncertainties explode into clarity, so many little behaviors you did not understand are now clear. (It would be interesting to view Heights a second time to pick out the many little hints Terrio inserted suggesting Jonathan's infidelity.)
It would be wrong to assume that Heights is a film about homosexuality. It is not. Heights is a film about what one sacrifices, wisely or not, for one's lover. (Both Isabel and Alec give up a great career opportunity each for Jonathon.) Heights is a film about how easy it is to choose a passionless, safe relationship over a less mainstream relationship or over being alone. It is clear Jonathan loves Alec not Isabel yet he was willing to sconventionve for convenetion; and, it is clear Isabel was willing to marry someone she did not love because it was safe and acceptable. Isabel says to Jonathan: "What I felt most seeing you (kissing Alec) was relief. Now I have a way out". (And my god can I relate to Isabel's narrow escape from relationship mediocrity.)
But at its emotional-center Heights is mother/daughter story. Diana sees all along that there is no passion in her daughter's relationship, no risk, and she knows via experience how awful a choice safety can be. (Diana is in a sham 'open marriage', but her husband is on the verge of finally leaving her having found love through one his affairs.) Mother and daughter are alone yet together at the end; their shaken relationship redeemed. Isabel and Diana are simultaneous at low points (each having lost their lovers in the single day the film spans), and suddenly in positions of strength, having found each other again. They are crying together on the back step of Isabel's building but the overt feeling is positive - mother and daughter have come to a new understanding and appreciation of each other despite vast differences and are redeemed in a mother's and daughter's unconditional love.
We are left with this feeling of purity amid all the deception of Heights.
Should you see it: Yes, and enjoy the mature emotional tenor amidst the superheroes blowing things up in the adjacent theater.
*Warning the following analysis contains a discussion of the entire film - including the ending.
It is interesting to see what sticks in your mind a few days after viewing a film: a particular image, a bit of dialogue, some lingering emotional impact. In Heights it is the many close-ups of Glen Close's face. Close give a better performance and is more strikingly beautiful than I have seen her in any other of her films. (Admittedly that list is small.) Close dominates the film, a great accomplishment given her character, Diana, is tangential to the central plot; yet, her performance is the fulcrum that balances the various story lines slowly converging throughout Heights.
Also noteworthy is this film's existence in summertime. Heights is a small, well-acted, mature drama - adjectives rarely applied in this season of explosions, superheroes and general adolescence in film. It is this summer's Tadpole or The Housekeeper, a small breath of fine film making in a general atmosphere of gunpowder-tinged recycled celluloid.
Perhaps I should strike 'small' from my list of adjectives describing Heights. Heights is ambitious in its number of story lines and the intricacy in which those stories slowly collide bringing about the film's final twist and resolution. (Though 'small' certainly applies when comparing the cash, hype and volume of Heights with the Blockbuster next door.) Director Chris Terrio's decision to tell his story through the slow convergence of various characters and discrete story lines is certainly not acinematicantic device - it is, in fact, a prominent trend particularly in art films (launched, perhaps, by Pulp Fiction)? But Terrio uses this devise skillfully, with purpose and without strain or pretension in Heights. "New York is the smallest place in the world for things like this", says Glen Close's Diana when she realizes the young actor, Alec, auditioning for her play lives in her daughter's apartment building. Diana and Alec's meeting is the most significant of the many lives overlapping by chance in Heights, a coincidence (when combined with Alec's mistakenly leaving his jacket at the audition) unravels the deception at the heart of the film.
As the film begins Isabel (Diana's daughter) and Jonathan, twenty-something professionals are weeks before their marriage, but Jonathan has a secret that is trailing him. He posed for and had an affair with a male photographer notorious for his gorgeous nude portraits and subsequent affairs with his models. A British journalist is in New York looking for Jonathan to interviewing him for an article about the artist's work and flings. Isabel discovers this secret soon after we in the audience. What shedoesn't we) doesn't know until the final sequence is Jonathan's liaison with the artist was not an 'experiment', he is in fact gay and having an affair with the actor, Alec, one floor below.
The unveiling of Jonathan's and Alec's affair may be Heights' biggest success. When we come upon Jonathan kissing Alec it is through the eyes of Isabel. We share all her initial shock and subsequent rush of recognition - all the subtle hints suggesting Jonathan's affair are suddenly clear. It is the way you imagine an affair being discovered in reality. Through trust (or fear?) you create reasons for your partner's unusual behavior until you discover your partner's infidelity and all those little uncertainties explode into clarity, so many little behaviors you did not understand are now clear. (It would be interesting to view Heights a second time to pick out the many little hints Terrio inserted suggesting Jonathan's infidelity.)
It would be wrong to assume that Heights is a film about homosexuality. It is not. Heights is a film about what one sacrifices, wisely or not, for one's lover. (Both Isabel and Alec give up a great career opportunity each for Jonathon.) Heights is a film about how easy it is to choose a passionless, safe relationship over a less mainstream relationship or over being alone. It is clear Jonathan loves Alec not Isabel yet he was willing to sconventionve for convenetion; and, it is clear Isabel was willing to marry someone she did not love because it was safe and acceptable. Isabel says to Jonathan: "What I felt most seeing you (kissing Alec) was relief. Now I have a way out". (And my god can I relate to Isabel's narrow escape from relationship mediocrity.)
But at its emotional-center Heights is mother/daughter story. Diana sees all along that there is no passion in her daughter's relationship, no risk, and she knows via experience how awful a choice safety can be. (Diana is in a sham 'open marriage', but her husband is on the verge of finally leaving her having found love through one his affairs.) Mother and daughter are alone yet together at the end; their shaken relationship redeemed. Isabel and Diana are simultaneous at low points (each having lost their lovers in the single day the film spans), and suddenly in positions of strength, having found each other again. They are crying together on the back step of Isabel's building but the overt feeling is positive - mother and daughter have come to a new understanding and appreciation of each other despite vast differences and are redeemed in a mother's and daughter's unconditional love.
We are left with this feeling of purity amid all the deception of Heights.
Should you see it: Yes, and enjoy the mature emotional tenor amidst the superheroes blowing things up in the adjacent theater.
Sunday, July 10, 2005
My Summer of Love (2004)
Director: Paul Pavlikovsky
*Warning the following analysis contains a discussion of the entire film – including the ending.
It is surprising, in the end, to discover My Summer of Love is a film about social class when all along you were sure it was an idealistic coming of age movie (with a lesbian spin). No, this is not a film about the healing power of young love, quite the opposite; rather, we see the damage that all-consuming, all-trusting young love can have when it turns bad (or viciously self-indulgent).
In the opening sequence director Paul Pavlikovsky perfectly sets-up his main theme: exploring the lingering ramifications of class in modern British society. The images in the opening scenes establish Tamsin’s and Mona’s class (and therefore power) differences. One of the film’s opening views is a heavenly upward angle shot of Tamsin high atop a horse. It is a tracking shot from Mona’s position lying in some grass on the side of a country road. Tamsin is beautiful, bathe perfectly in summer light and blue sky. Mona is of yet unseen, (perhaps injured?), covered by wild grasses beside a beat-up motorbike. Next we see Tamsin, still beautiful and still high above Mona on her horse, trotting down the road. Mona, by contrast, sits low on a small motorbike, pushing it along with her legs, as it does not have an engine. As the girls depart Tamsin rides upward to her wealthy country cottage while Mona coasts her bike-shell downhill back to her home above a shabby pub. Tamsin’s privilege and Mona’s depravation could not be more obvious. A fantastic set-up achieved solely by Pavlikovsky’s images (no dialogue is ever spoken about the girls’ wealth and poverty).
From there class filters into the background and the film turns into a coming of age romance filled with the wistful idealisms: love can conqueror the class differences between the girls; love can fill-in the vast voids left by tragic and neglectful family situations; love will help Mona and Tamsin to begin again.
In their trust and growing love Mona and Tamsin reveal their difficult home lives. Mona never met her dad, and her mom died of cancer. Her brother, recently out of jail for burglary and recently having discovered god, has wrecked the pub they own (and live above) with a plan to turn it into a church of sorts. How they will survive financially is not clear. Tamsin has the upper class version of the family tragedy. Mom is always away on holiday and Dad is always off sleeping with his secretary. "I’m basically an orphan" Tamsin tells Mona, a true orphan. Still raw and painful to Tamsin is the death of her sister from anorexia (a very blue-blooded way to go). She is all alone in her vast house.
The emptiness in each girl’s life is clear and their falling in love, natural. Although their plan to run away together is idealistic and farfetched it is perfectly within the realm of adolescent reasoning. (Didn’t we all make such escape plans during the restless freedom of those long summer days late in high school?)
In the final sequence, Mona (after escaping from her brother) arrives at Tamsin’s house with a little bag of her few possessions planning to . . . well they don’t really know, other than they are in love and ready to run away together. Pavlikovsky has set-up perfectly the stunning twist which changes My Summer of Love into a commentary on class from a (somewhat) typical coming-of age romance-drama. Tamsin’s story has all been one elaborate lie. Tamsin’s family, home from what must have been a long weekend away at the end of summer, is a typical upper-class English family. Her parents are happily together, her sister is very much alive and, we are all shocked to discover, Tamsin is not running off with Mona; rather, she is going back to her privileged boarding-school life now that summer is over. Tamsin is nothing but a bored (and vicious) upper class girl who has used Mona (and her brother) to amuse herself. Mona was simply a little adventure, a little risk, a test of her powers of manipulation and charm before returning to her safe, stable, upper-class boarding-school life. (You can imagine her having a good laugh with her uniformed classmates about the poor little girl she manipulated over holiday.)
And where does this leave Mona? (And her brother?) Mona returns to where she was when the film began, on the side of the road with no place to go. She is left completely bereft, of hope, of love and of a future. Her only revenge is physical – Mona nearly kills Tamsin by choking her in a pond before walking off into . . . She will most likely return to having sex with men in the back of their cars, soon pregnant and stuck in her depressed little town.
The hope of Tamsin’s and Mona’s life together is shattered, revealing more clearly the stark differences of their lives apart. An amazing and surprising study on what class and wealth predetermines in British (and our) society.
Should you see it? Yes, a fantastic and smart film.
*Warning the following analysis contains a discussion of the entire film – including the ending.
It is surprising, in the end, to discover My Summer of Love is a film about social class when all along you were sure it was an idealistic coming of age movie (with a lesbian spin). No, this is not a film about the healing power of young love, quite the opposite; rather, we see the damage that all-consuming, all-trusting young love can have when it turns bad (or viciously self-indulgent).
In the opening sequence director Paul Pavlikovsky perfectly sets-up his main theme: exploring the lingering ramifications of class in modern British society. The images in the opening scenes establish Tamsin’s and Mona’s class (and therefore power) differences. One of the film’s opening views is a heavenly upward angle shot of Tamsin high atop a horse. It is a tracking shot from Mona’s position lying in some grass on the side of a country road. Tamsin is beautiful, bathe perfectly in summer light and blue sky. Mona is of yet unseen, (perhaps injured?), covered by wild grasses beside a beat-up motorbike. Next we see Tamsin, still beautiful and still high above Mona on her horse, trotting down the road. Mona, by contrast, sits low on a small motorbike, pushing it along with her legs, as it does not have an engine. As the girls depart Tamsin rides upward to her wealthy country cottage while Mona coasts her bike-shell downhill back to her home above a shabby pub. Tamsin’s privilege and Mona’s depravation could not be more obvious. A fantastic set-up achieved solely by Pavlikovsky’s images (no dialogue is ever spoken about the girls’ wealth and poverty).
From there class filters into the background and the film turns into a coming of age romance filled with the wistful idealisms: love can conqueror the class differences between the girls; love can fill-in the vast voids left by tragic and neglectful family situations; love will help Mona and Tamsin to begin again.
In their trust and growing love Mona and Tamsin reveal their difficult home lives. Mona never met her dad, and her mom died of cancer. Her brother, recently out of jail for burglary and recently having discovered god, has wrecked the pub they own (and live above) with a plan to turn it into a church of sorts. How they will survive financially is not clear. Tamsin has the upper class version of the family tragedy. Mom is always away on holiday and Dad is always off sleeping with his secretary. "I’m basically an orphan" Tamsin tells Mona, a true orphan. Still raw and painful to Tamsin is the death of her sister from anorexia (a very blue-blooded way to go). She is all alone in her vast house.
The emptiness in each girl’s life is clear and their falling in love, natural. Although their plan to run away together is idealistic and farfetched it is perfectly within the realm of adolescent reasoning. (Didn’t we all make such escape plans during the restless freedom of those long summer days late in high school?)
In the final sequence, Mona (after escaping from her brother) arrives at Tamsin’s house with a little bag of her few possessions planning to . . . well they don’t really know, other than they are in love and ready to run away together. Pavlikovsky has set-up perfectly the stunning twist which changes My Summer of Love into a commentary on class from a (somewhat) typical coming-of age romance-drama. Tamsin’s story has all been one elaborate lie. Tamsin’s family, home from what must have been a long weekend away at the end of summer, is a typical upper-class English family. Her parents are happily together, her sister is very much alive and, we are all shocked to discover, Tamsin is not running off with Mona; rather, she is going back to her privileged boarding-school life now that summer is over. Tamsin is nothing but a bored (and vicious) upper class girl who has used Mona (and her brother) to amuse herself. Mona was simply a little adventure, a little risk, a test of her powers of manipulation and charm before returning to her safe, stable, upper-class boarding-school life. (You can imagine her having a good laugh with her uniformed classmates about the poor little girl she manipulated over holiday.)
And where does this leave Mona? (And her brother?) Mona returns to where she was when the film began, on the side of the road with no place to go. She is left completely bereft, of hope, of love and of a future. Her only revenge is physical – Mona nearly kills Tamsin by choking her in a pond before walking off into . . . She will most likely return to having sex with men in the back of their cars, soon pregnant and stuck in her depressed little town.
The hope of Tamsin’s and Mona’s life together is shattered, revealing more clearly the stark differences of their lives apart. An amazing and surprising study on what class and wealth predetermines in British (and our) society.
Should you see it? Yes, a fantastic and smart film.
