| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 12/27/2009 : 15:12:12
Glorious 39
Writer/director Steven Poliakoff likes to weave threads of suspense and intrigue through what are essentially looks backward at history. The strands keep us guessing even as we piece together what went on behind the scenes of public events.
In Glorious 39 - a reference to the near-perfect summer before England finally admitted it was at war with Germany - the look back is provided by a small boy confronting some ancient relatives to explain just what was going on in their family. Just what was it keeping secret, and why.
The film looks splendid, especially when conveying the ambience of the comfortable upper class, and some of the acting rises beyond competent, solid, dependable. David Tennant is particularly good.
There are many nooks and crannies to explore in this complex narrative. Too many. And that's the problem. I'm sure Poliakoff thinks he's kept track of all the jigsaw pieces, but somehow, by the end, there are still gaps, and some left-over pieces that won't fill them.
On the surface it's a film we've seen elsewhere -- the reluctance of the British aristocracy to give up any of their status and power by choosing sides in a war that promises democracy. It's also about how any power elite can manipulate people into paranoia. In that sense there's a ghost of Rosemary's Baby, albeit with a different kind of devil, and a more wretched kind of control. Most of all it's a film about false premises and the deceptions needed to make sense of them.
Because Poliakoff examines his themes with a certain amount of unconvincing melodrama, he makes less use of some of the story elements that might have helped him. The protagonist, for example, is a budding film star played by the sparkling Romola Garai from Atonement.
The cinema business in the UK at the time had a far more cosy relationship with the government than is painted here. And I'm sure Poliakoff knows that. But the concentration is diverted to whether, as an adopted though beloved daughter of the house, she is truly to be trusted. The hints of a eugenic argument which might underpin that narrative strand, are never dealt with overtly.
So, although there are some excellent elements, the film doesn't cohere. When the end comes, it doesn't seem to have been worth it. I suspect that's at least partly because the small boy whose backward journey this is, isn't passionate enough about what never seems to be his own story.
|
|
|
