Review by Pamela Zoslov
Amid the flood of December “big”
movie releases, PHILOMENA appeared in theaters like a perfectly wrapped
present for those who like small, quiet pictures. Based on the book
The Lost Child of Philomena Lee by
former BBC journalist Martin Sixsmith, the movie tells the story of
Philomena, a retired nurse in England, who enlists Sixsmith in a
quest to find the son she was forced to relinquish as a teenager by
nuns at an Irish convent home in 1952. Lee was one of thousands of
young Irish women confined to convents in the '50s and '60s because
of the shame and “moral degeneracy” of unwed pregnancy.
The
film is a genteel duet between the fine actress Judi Dench, as
Philomena, and actor, writer and comedian Steve Coogan, as Sixsmith.
The screenplay, written by Coogan and Jeff Pope, provides some well
observed and very English nuances. The dialogue illustrates the
class differences between Philomena, a rather simple and plain-spoken
Irish lady given to reciting the plots of romance novels, and Martin,
an Oxford-educated, slightly dour BBC man. Dench is too intelligent
an actress to entirely convey Philomena's artlessness, but she's
nonetheless riveting and, at times, heartbreaking. Coogan is perfect
at portraying Martin's distant but sympathetic demeanor.
A
chance meeting with Philomena's daughter leads Martin to undertake
Philomena's search for her long-lost boy, whose loss is vividly
illustrated in flashback scenes. Young Philomena (Sophie Kennedy
Clark) has been dumped in the convent after becoming pregnant at 18
by a handsome boy she met at a carnival. Like many other girls, she
is used as slave labor, doing hard laundry work, at the convent at
Roscrea in County Tipperary.
The girls are allowed to see their
children for only one hour a day, and we see them running eagerly to
embrace their tots. The convent is also in the business of
selling children to the highest bidders, often wealthy Americans
(including actress Jane Russell). One day an American couple, who
have come to adopt the little daughter of Philomena's friend, also
decide to take the girl's inseparable pal, Philomena's boy, Anthony.
Philomena watches, screaming desperately, as the couple drive her son
away in their car. Though it sounds hopelessly melodramatic, this is
what actually happened in Philomena's life. The girls were
compelled by the nuns to sign documents relinquishing all maternal rights to
their children.
Philomena
buried the memory of little Anthony in her heart, got married and had a family,
but she never forgot him, always wondering what became of him and if
he remembered her. Fifty years later,
she at last decided to tell her grown daughter about the little boy
she loved and lost.
Martin,
who had been involved in a political imbroglio over a leaked memo
while working in communications for the Tony Blair government (he had
suggested news of a controversial announcement be “buried” in the
wake of September 11), is casting about for a subject to write about.
He actually wants to write a book about Russian history, but is drawn
into Philomena's story, not least because of his own anticlerical views.
On their journey, Martin and Philomena debate the existence of God.
Despite how she was treated by the Catholic Church, Philomena remains
devout, attending Mass and forgiving the nuns who abused her.
At the
expense of the magazine Martin is writing for, Philomena and Martin
travel to Washington, D.C., where Martin plans to conduct a document
search for Philomena's lost son. The portrayal of the quest is
foreshortened by his quick discovery, via his laptop at the hotel, of
her son's biography online. The real-life quest for information about
Philomena's son was more complicated, and this seems like a misstep
in the film's narrative — the mystery is solved too early. But
there is far more to tell. Martin and Philomena learn that the
Church's sins are far worse than previously imagined. Their journey ultimately leads them back to the convent in Roscrea, where the sins of the past are unearthed.
Like
the character of Martin, the screenplay is taciturn, revealing
too little about Philomena. Who was her husband? What was her life
like after the convent? But the film is effective as a character
study of two contrasting personalities. In Washington, Martin
suggests they visit the monuments; Philomena would prefer to watch BIG MOMMA'S FAMILY on
pay-per-view. At one point, Martin, on the phone from the hotel to
his wife, expresses, in a very English way, his exasperation with
Philomena's simpleness. “This is what a steady diet of The
Daily Mail does.” It is Philomena, however, who is more effective at getting people to
open up and provide information; Martin's officiousness only
makes them angry. Philomena's combination of warmth and steely
determination lead the story to its sad but ultimately peaceful
conclusion.
This
rather traditional, linear story benefits from the
considerable directorial talents of Stephen Frears, who maintains a
welcome sense of understatement, enhanced by Robby Ryan's
contemplative pastoral cinematography. 3 1/2 out of 4 stars.
No comments:
Post a Comment
We approve all legitimate comments. However, comments that include links to irrelevant commercial websites and/or websites dealing with illegal or inappropriate content will be marked as spam.
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.