Saw the updated movie version of Brighton Rock the other night. A MIFF preview. Love my MIFF membership! I have not seen the earlier film, nor read the Graham Greene novel so can’t make comparisons. This film is set in the 1960s which is a point of difference but it worked well. Smart direction keeps the action moving along at a cracking pace with not a single unnecessary scene. Good, sometimes great acting. Beautifully filmed – washed out colours along the beach front, a cold grey sea ebbing and flowing, spectacular chalk cliffs looming above the wild coastline, gloomy yellow interiors. Good soundtrack. The whole came together in a nice little package.
Graham Greene’s religious preoccupations date his work these days but it was effectively and succinctly dealt with. References to the shared experience of being Roman and believing in hell but not heaven between Pinky and Rose. A couple of nearly cliched cathedral shots – lights streaming through high windows, ominous crucifixes bearing down on diminutive sinners – that sort of thing. A pretty silly shot of Pinky praying on the beach after narrowly avoiding being murdered in a double cross and a small ‘miracle’ at the end was sufficient to be true to the book without taking as much of the screenplay as in the novel.
What makes the film is the acting of those playing the psychopath Pinky (Sam Riley) and the naive Rose (Andrea Riseborough).
To make this story work at any level you have to believe that the foolish, innocent Rose would believe that Pinky loves her, and stick with him when she realises that he is a murderer, and still protect him, still go with him, up onto those scary, beautiful cliffs, and very nearly kill herself for him. I didn’t recognise Andrea Riseborough. But she was in Made in Dagenham which I saw and enjoyed. She is unrecognizable from that role here. She is so vulnerable, so desperate, so knowing – all at once.
And Pinky has to keep us wondering – does he love Rose, connect with her in a meaningful way, or is he just keeping her quiet? Sam Riley was in Control which I have not seen. But he seemed familiar. And I could see why Rose would be attracted – the sense of vulnerability alongside the arrogance and certainty. Both of these actors deliver – in spades.
And they are ably supported by familiar favourites. Helen Mirren – who they make look very old and worn out (quite an achievement). She is terrific as usual. And so is John Hurt (who always looks old and worn out). They play the old hands who have seen the likes of Rose and Pinky before; could perhaps in other circumstances been Rose and Pinky; but have managed to keep in front of the game. They bring a lovely world weariness to the story. And you certainly barrack for Helen, as Ida, trying to save Rose from herself.
Andy Serkis (ex Gollam and Ian Dury amongst other things) puts in a polished performance as the kingpin of the local criminal scene. And those playing the other petty crims bring the right amount of pazzaz and desperation to their roles. I was taken by the sweet crim Dallow played by Nonso Anozle who is there at the end with Ida saving Rose.
All in all well worth a look.
Since I wrote this I have seen The Movie Show where Margaret announced she hated this film. No inner life for Pinky – meaning, I think, no depiction of the Catholic angst that permeates the book. The very thing I applauded above. David, on the other hand liked it. I think Pinky was portrayed as a complex enough character without dwelling on the Roman question which preoccupied Graham Greene. It is enough, in this secular day and age, that you believe what Rose desperately believes – that Pinky loves her The ambiguity of his character, a modern, secular ambiguity, is complex enough and more congenial to the modern viewer.
Anyway see for yourself! I do recommend this film.
– Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Leave a Reply