Quartet is a film which requires little effort, either on the part of the cast or the viewer. That’s not intended disparagingly, indeed quite the opposite, as everything about Hollywood icon Dustin Hoffman’s directorial debut, starring Maggie Smith, Billy Connolly, Tom Courtenay and Pauline Collins, is sheer bliss - you just sit back, relax and let it wash over you.
Fading opera stars, Wilf (Connolly), Reginald (Courtenay) and Cissy (Collins), live in the rural splendor of a country retirement home, where they wile away the days reminiscing about their past triumphs. Each year they celebrate the birthday of the composer Verdi with a concert, and in the process raise funds for the upkeep of the home. This year however things don’t quite go to plan after the arrival of new resident. The presence of Jean (Smith), an opera diva with thoughts above her station, not only resurrects painful memories for the trio, but doesn’t exactly prove conducive to harmony amongst the other residents either.
What a relief that Hoffman, unlike so many actors who try their hand at directing, was not tempted into a cameo appearance in Quartet. Instead he remains, like all good directors should, out-of-sight, though not out of mind, as his touch is crystal clear on screen. Everything, from the ensemble cast to the pastoral settings, meld seamlessly under the expert guidance of a man who is so much a part of modern cinema in front of the camera, that looking at the action from the other side will probably have felt like second nature.
The wider cast hit all the right notes as the group of aging operatic and musical stars, unwilling to accept that, for the most, their moment in the limelight is long past. Indeed the only aspect of the film which appears slightly off-key is watching Connolly and Smith vie for prime spot. When they appear these two old troupers banish everyone else to the wings, no mean feat when you consider the calibre of the those they’re working with. However they’re such a delight to watch that you feel more than happy to indulge their quirks and idiosyncrasies.
This is really is the only quibble though in an otherwise perfect blend of dry wit and acid sharp timing which makes for a delightful cocktail of lasting friendships and the acceptance of the passing of time.
Quartet provides a marvelously feel good way with which to see in the new year. Let’s just hope we don’t have to wait too long for Hoffman to flex his directorial muscle again. Oh, and wait until the end as there is a marvelous treat during the final credits which is guaranteed to bring a tear to the eye.
British cinema seems to have a dangerous love affair with the unpretentious high rise flat or sometimes known as the tower block. From Attack The Block, Dredd (a British creation), even The Raid (Indonesian directed by a Welshman) and now Tower Block a British thriller that sees residents of high rise flats find themselves targets of a pissed off sniper. The worrying thing is for myself should I be worried writing this review as I'm currently writing it in.....Tower Block?!!
Set in inner city London the last remaining residents of the condemned tower block Serenity House huddled together on the top floor living in fear, not from the prospect of not having a roof of their heads soon but in fear of a ruthless sniper. What does this sniper seek? Retribution, revenge on those who did not aide the young man brutally murdered as the neighbours listened in fear as Becky (Sheridan Smith) attempted to help but find herself beaten up as a result.
The simple plot style of 'Us versus them' actually does work well here but also works against Tower Block. Keeping the identity of who the mysterious sniper is and why there doing what their doing does help create a real sense of tension and things do get more visceral when the first bullets get fired. Death is delivered with brutal swift precision delivering fear throughout the floor forcing those who ducked and dived fortunate to get themselves into the block's corridor. But this sniper means business trapping the residents as all the stairways out have been booby trapped. Despite been a positive the lack of possible suspects actually works against the film as when the big reveal on who the sniper is becomes a bit of a damp squib, disappointment, their motives are which is a shame after a decent build up.
After making it's cinematic premier at last summers Film4 London Frightfest it's left some believing Tower Block it's actually a horror when in fact it's really a social urban thriller. From the bleak grim surroundings of a deprived area (delivered masterfully in the film's cinematography) to the film's maybe predictable but also stereotypical of many British Suburban areas, the 'broken Britain' . This is the Britain that the Conservative government pretends to say it's helping when actually what they are doing is destroying it piece by piece like the mysterious sniper killing the character bullet by bullet. Every character Symbolises one of the many issues that plight working class families everyday lives but in the film your left wondering should I really hate them or sympathetic towards them?
The cast or most of them actually deliver a decent performance helping to keep the film interesting however by the time we get to know them all you've actually guessed their predictable fate. Sheridan Smith is our heroine Becky who despite her problems to convey out and out emotions actually delivers one of her better performances. She becomes the survivors leader keeping everyone as sane as possible as she thinks a logical way to escape, using that strength we see at the beginning. Jack O'Connell is great as the scumbag Curtis who is forced to grow up quickly and actually provide that 'protection' the residents 'pay him' to do. Since I saw him play a young Bobby Charlton in last years United BBC drama I've had an appreciation for him he has made some questionable/generic film choices but he does show he has the acting chops with his diverse range of characters. As for the rest of the characters we don't really learn enough about them to show empathy or sympathy towards them other than they might be next for a bullet to the head.
Let's make one thing clear here on High rise flats or tower blocks, the past decade they have become the symbol of refuge for junkies, alcoholics and pensioners which is totally false. Some do live up to the reputation and like the one I live in, it's not a affulent area nor is it in a deprived area good people do live in these blocks.So if you can push aside the films predictable flaws, Tower Block does actually deliver an intense, brutal silly but entertaining yarn. An intriguing little timewaster that uses its very limited budget constraints to deliver a film something that's actually worth a watch , most of all you will be supporting the British film industry.
Quartet (2012) is a film which requires little effort, either on the part of the cast or the viewer. That’s not intended disparagingly, indeed quite the opposite, as everything about Hollywood icon Dustin Hoffman’s directorial debut, starring Maggie Smith, Billy Connolly, Tom Courtenay and Pauline Collins, is sheer bliss - you just sit back, relax and let it wash over you.
Fading opera stars, Wilf (Connolly), Reginald (Courtenay) and Cissy (Collins), live in the rural splendor of a country retirement home, where they wile away the days reminiscing about their past triumphs. Each year they celebrate the birthday of the composer Verdi with a concert, and in the process raise funds for the upkeep of the home. This year however things don’t quite go to plan after the arrival of new resident. The presence of Jean (Smith), an opera diva with thoughts above her station, not only resurrects painful memories for the trio, but doesn’t exactly prove conducive to harmony amongst the other residents either.
What a relief that Hoffman, unlike so many actors who try their hand at directing, was not tempted into a cameo appearance in Quartet. Instead he remains, like all good directors should, out-of-sight, though not out of mind, as his touch is crystal clear on screen. Everything, from the ensemble cast to the pastoral settings, meld seamlessly under the expert guidance of a man who is so much a part of modern cinema in front of the camera, that looking at the action from the other side will probably have felt like second nature.
The wider cast hit all the right notes as the group of aging operatic and musical stars, unwilling to accept that, for the most, their moment in the limelight is long past. Indeed the only aspect of the film which appears slightly off-key is watching Connolly and Smith vie for prime spot. When they appear these two old troupers banish everyone else to the wings, no mean feat when you consider the calibre of the those they’re working with. However they’re such a delight to watch that you feel more than happy to indulge their quirks and idiosyncrasies.
This is really is the only quibble though in an otherwise perfect blend of dry wit and acid sharp timing which makes for a delightful cocktail of lasting friendships and the acceptance of the passing of time.
Quartet provides a marvelously feel good way with which to see in the new year. Let’s just hope we don’t have to wait too long for Hoffman to flex his directorial muscle again. Oh, and wait until the end as there is a marvelous treat during the final credits which is guaranteed to bring a tear to the eye.
Hysteria is a Carry On film with ambitions of feminism. As you might imagine, this is problematic, and it’s a problem the film never really solves. This lack of resolution, plus a few other niggles here and there, keeps me from declaring the film a success. But it’s not bad either. Clumsy and didactic the film may be, but its heart is definitely in the right place. What’s more, the spectacle of Victorian high society men confronting the female orgasm, is about as funny as you might expect.
Honestly, I wish I liked it more. The whole issue of hysteria (in essence ‘female emotional behaviour that men don’t understand’ repackaged as a medical condition, that could be cured by orgasm) is one of those pieces of historical silliness that I adore. It seems to me that narrative fiction always has this sombre, respectful, serious approach to history, as if it’s some grand old man whose every pronouncement must be treated with reverence. Whereas, if you actually study history at all, what you quickly find is that the old man is senile. History is composed of the actions of humans, and there is no constant like the silliness of humans. It’s nice to see this aspect of history getting some attention.
But there’s no escaping the fact that the story has problems.
On a basic level, matters work fairly well. Mortimer Granville (Hugh Dancy) is a young doctor of a forward-thinking persuasion, which makes him a pariah in the eyes of the medical establishment. Luckily for him, one Dr. Robert Dalrymple (Jonathan Pryce) requires an assistant. His clinic for the treatment of hysteria is very busy, and he (not to mention his patients) is in need of a helping hand. There Granville meets the Dalrymple daughters: Emily (Felicity Jones) who is the perfect example of Victorian womanhood, and Charlotte (Maggie Gyllenhaal), who is outspoken, passionate and, worst of all, associates with the poor. Granville, being a proper Victorian man, immediately falls for the former and disdains the latter.
So, Hysteria has the standard romance plot. But for all its lack of inspiration, it’s executed rather well. Dancy and Gyllenhaal have some nice adversarial chemistry, the plot is well paced and the characters mostly solidly constructed. A couple of comic reliefs, the (somewhat)ex-prostitute Molly (Sheridan Smith) and the noble sexual deviant Edmund St.John-Smythe (Rupert Everett) aren’t so much characters as walking jokes, as indeed are most of the hysteria patients. But that’s only to be expected. This is after all a funny film. The occasional thin character is a usual symptom of comedy.
But where this becomes problematic is with the film’s message. See, this is very much a historical film told through modern eyes, and as such, the heroes of the story are also those with a more ‘modern’ sensibility. This would be fine, if they didn’t keep aggressively flaunting it. Granville and Charlotte all but run around screaming ‘I support woman’s rights, free education, socialism, germ theory, the telephone, electricity- OH GOD I’M SO PROGRESSIVE”, like holding these beliefs is a big thing. But to modern ears, it sounds like a bunch of people crowing about how amazing it is that they think the sky is blue.
Of course, during the 1880s, believing such things was a Big Deal. But that’s because these beliefs were reactions against deeply entrenched social norms. Take woman’s rights for example. The concept that women were inferior to men was, in the 1880s, not some quaint, mockable custom. It was a societal norm that had existed for thousands of years. Challenging it is one of the most remarkable shifts human society has ever undergone. Considering the strength of the opposition, even the vague success of that challenge is incredible.
That is what any treatment of the growth of woman’s rights, or any of the other progressive movements of the 19th century, has to bring across: the image of a slingless David facing down a Goliath with a submachine gun. But Hysteria doesn’t. The film does give some sense of the opposition, don’t get me wrong. It has its fair share of establishment-minded characters. But in playing so many of these establishment viewpoints for laughs, mocking the Victorian men for getting so flustered about sex, laughing at their ‘scientific’ approach to the female orgasm, Hysteria undermines the seriousness of the establishment view. This would be fine, were the film a full comedy, but it also wants to make a serious point. It wants to state the importance of being progressive. Unfortunately it never manages to capture why being progressive so brave and necessary.
That’s not the only difficulty the film has. There’s a few hamfisted moments, where the characters make the classic ‘wild yet accurate’ speculations about what the future will be like, a joke that was already ancient in the 1880s. What’s more, Hysteria contains the worst jump cut I have ever seen. But on the whole, the film’s problem lies in its politics. The humour is grand: filthy, childish, charming stuff. The romance is engaging. But the film’s attempts to be serious are unsuccessful. All of which adds up to: entertaining, but not exactly good.
/ Blu-ray
/ 
