From Reuters:

"Secrets & Lies director Mike Leigh has sealed a North American deal for his new film, Vera Drake, with New Line Cinema....Starring Imelda Staunton, Jim Broadbent, Heather Craney and Philip Davis, the film follows the story of an Englishwoman in the 1950s who is completely devoted to and loved by her working-class family. However, she also leads a secret life as an abortionist, which threatens to unravel her life as well as her family's. '[The film] contains a groundbreaking performance by Imelda Staunton and raises critically relevant issues in an emotionally involving family situation,' said New Line co-chairman and co-CEO Michael Lynne." (Emphasis mine.)

Dale

Wow. It will be interesting to see him going back to a female "lead" (if you can call his main characters "leads"). I can already see the firestorm on this in Christian critical circles. I wonder if this issue is as "relevant" in UK circles as it is in American ones, or at least what sort of nuance the UK system lends to the issue.

: I can already see the firestorm on this in Christian critical circles.

While it is crazy to speculate without having seen the film, I suspect that there may not be a The Cider House Rules-esque backlash toward Vera Drake. A few reasons:

a) Unlike Ken Loach and other more obviously dogmatic filmmakers, characters' doctrines in Leigh's films are rarely shown as either positive or negative, be it the Benders' communist leanings in High Hopes or Johnny's nihilism in Naked. It's simply Who They Are, and I sincerely doubt that Vera's pro-abortion views and actions are going to be remotely as in-your-face sympathetic as, say, saintly Michael Caine's in Cider House.

b) One of the major themes through Leigh's television movies and theatrical features has been conception: Families trying to conceive (Secrets and Lies), or families deciding whether or not they should conceive (High Hopes, Grown-Ups), or families deciding what to do now that they have conceived (Four Days in July, Sullivan’s last scene in Topsy-Turvy). In fact, if there’s any type of scene Leigh treats as noticeably sentimental, it’s couples trying to have a child, which makes me skeptical that Leigh would treat parents trying to rid themselves of a child from an unambiguously positive point of view.

c) Cannes is supposedly waffling on Vera Drake’s inclusion, which, given the substantial love Cannes has given to Leigh in the past, makes me think that either (c') Vera sucks or (c'') the film isn’t as liberal as Cannes would like it to be.

d) It can’t possible be more offensive to pro-lifers than The Cider House Rules or Citizen Ruth [1]. It just can’t. Mike Leigh wouldn’t do that to me.

Dale

---
1 To be fair, Citizen Ruth is probably just as offensive to pro-choicers.

The Cannes point is interesting. It can't be bad, I mean, look at who has directed it. So maybe you are onto something with the whole "too conservative" thing. That would seem like a logical conclusion in a Leigh film, just one more alienating facet of modern society being investigated in a very personal sort of drama.

(M)Leary wrote:
: That would seem like a logical conclusion in a Leigh film, just one more alienating
: facet of modern society being investigated in a very personal sort of drama.

For some reason this reminds me of Woody Allen, who identified himself (or his character, but what's the diff?) as pro-choice in 1986's Hannah and Her Sisters but whose films at that time were full of awe and wonder for the miracle of childbirth; in 1988's Another Woman, he even goes so far as to depict one character's decision to have an abortion as a sign of how cold and unfeeling she is becoming.

Someone asks whether the abortion issue is as timely in the UK at the moment.

Tonight, British terrestrial TV will be screening a controversial documentary which, for the first time, contains video footage of an actual abortion. The programme will apparently be presenting a debate that gives equal voice to both sides of the issue.

As for Leigh's film, I look forward to it. I have great respect for Leigh as a storyteller and filmmaker, and don't envisage him being as heavy-handed about it as, say, Lasse Hallstrom in The Cider House Rules.

A bit more from the New Line's press release (possible vague spoilers):

"Vera Drake paints an extraordinary portrait of a selfless woman who is completely devoted to, and loved by, her working class family. She spends her days doting on them and caring for her sick neighbor and elderly mother. However, she also secretly visits women and helps them induce miscarriages for unwanted pregnancies. While the practice itself was illegal in 1950s England, Vera sees herself as simply helping women in need, and always does so with a smile and kind words of encouragement. When she is finally found out by the authorities, Vera's world and family life rapidly unravel. The film offers a compelling historical perspective on the much discussed controversial subject and raises difficult questions that are as timely and relevant today as they were decades ago."

Dale

A recent "Everwood" episode covered this.

This info helps a lot. I suppose we could have guessed this was where Leigh was going, but does this take place in the '50's? A period piece? Fantastic, I can't recall if Leigh has told any stories from this era.

: I suppose we could have guessed this was where Leigh was
: going, but does this take place in the '50's?

Yes.

: A period piece?

Yes.

: Fantastic, I can't recall if Leigh has told any stories from this
: era.

Other than Topsy-Turvy and perhaps some shorts that I haven't seen, all Leigh's films take place in the present or in the near past (and in Career Girls, both).

Dale

We are going to miss your staccato responses at Cornerstone this year.

If Cornerstone is sponsoring a session this year on how to make enough money composing and arranging handbell music that one can quit one's job, then I'm so there. Otherwise, um, I'll be so here. (Yes, I do realize the dates do not overlap, but I only have so much vacation in through July, and I've decided it's best if I be semi-pragmatic with it.)

Dale

I can't give the source, but an early note on Vera Drake from a private mailing list I'm on:

"Leigh doesn't really take any kind of ethical stand on abortion in Vera Drake, though he's clearly sympathetic toward the title character and contemptuous of the draconian response, both legal and social, to her actions....Still, the film isn't as much of a 'problem picture' as I'd feared, and the first half in particular is a stunning evocation of post-WWII Britain, in some respects more nuanced than many of the British films actually made in that period (in the sense that it brings to the foreground various mundane details that would have seemed beneath notice at the time). Still more didactic than dramatic, but in a very tolerable and forgivable way. And he's just getting better and better as a filmmaker, in terms of both composition and rhythm."

For what all that's worth.

Dale

Leigh's abortion movie "Vera Drake" just won the Golden Lion at Venice.

GetReligion blogs about Mike Leigh...

Jeffrey Overstreet wrote:
: GetReligion blogs about Mike Leigh...

Sigh. "Get some propaganda with your popcorn" is such a dismissive headline. I have no doubt that lots of people eat popcorn while watching Mike Leigh films, but they're not exactly "popcorn movies", are they? And having seen the film today, I'm not really sure I could call it "propaganda", either -- Leigh might very well have intended his film to make the case that abortion should not be illegal, or whatever, but I think journalists who describe the title character as "saintly" are failing to take into account exactly how Leigh and his actors do what they do.

Before I get into the spoiler-ish specifics, I just want to begin by saying that this film exhibits Leigh's typical and wonderful attention to detail, and his knack for getting the character interactions right and making them absolutely believable. I actually shed a tear -- or at least my eyes welled up -- when a certain character asked another character for his daughter's hand in marriage, and the family reacted the way it did. Assuming Leigh went into this film with the same collaborative and improvisational spirit that he has approached all his other films, I find it difficult to believe that he would just go and make a piece of propaganda. Yes, there ARE a couple of scenes, here and there, where certain characters utter lines that sound a bit political, a bit sloganish, but given the circumstances under which they speak these lines ... well, people do talk like that, don't they?

MILD SPOILERS (but not much more than what you see in the trailer)

I think the film gives us ample room to consider that Vera Drake might very well be NAIVE about what she does. What do we see of her work? She is given an address and a time to be at a woman's apartment; she goes to that apartment, makes some soapy water, and tells the woman in question to take her knickers off; through a syringe, she squeezes as much soapy water into the woman's womb as she can; and then she tells the woman not to worry, in a day or two the woman will feel a pain down there, and the woman is to go to the toilet and wait until the bleeding is done, and then she'll be "right as rain"; and that is the last Vera ever sees of her patients (for lack of a better word; Vera is not medically trained or anything). We see her go through this routine time and again, and with a variety of patients, and we begin to see that Vera's actions are not rooted in one-to-one bonding with each individual woman, but in a sort of habit or routine. (The diversity of the patients and their reactions, contrasted with the consistency of the "professional" who works with them, is reminiscent of the taxi-cab sequences in All or Nothing, or the photo-studio scenes in Secrets & Lies.)

Now, note how Vera Drake is brought to the police's attention in the first place. One of the girls she treats just happens to become so ill that she is sent to the hospital, where the doctors say she almost died. The girl's mother says her daughter was having a miscarriage, but the doctors can tell there's more to it than that, and so they call in the police. Now, by some odd coincidence, the MOTHER just happens to know who performed the abortion, because she and Vera worked together nearly 20 years before, and they recognized each other. If it were not for this coincidence, who is to say whether Vera would have been tracked down. And who is to say how many OTHER cases there have been like this in the decade or two that Vera has been performing secret abortions -- none of which would have come to Vera's attention, because she never followed any of these women up.

Add to this the fact that one of the last abortions Vera performs before the one that gets her caught is for a Caribbean, I think, woman who is terrified when she realizes that Vera will not be coming back; Vera looks a bit troubled by the realization that she is leaving this woman in a state of fear and uncertainty about the possible health hazards of the abortion that has just been performed; there is a crack in the armour of her confidence and assurance, there. And add to this the fact that the woman who arranged these abortions for Vera -- a sharp-tongued woman who has been the "saintly" Vera's friend since childhood -- has been collecting referral fees from the patients, without telling Vera; that is, someone has been profitting off of Vera's activities, and she never had any idea.

There is also an intriguing subplot about a girl from a well-to-do family who is date-raped and seeks an abortion through official channels -- she visits a doctor, who is obliged to refer her to a psychiatrist, and we are left with the impression that this girl will get the "help" she is looking for because she is from the upper class, whereas Vera Drake is pursued by the law because she works among the lower classes who do not have access to the wealthier doctors and psychiatrists who make it possible for girls to get abortions without TOO much stigma. (This girl's only connection to Vera is that Vera works for her mum as a cleaning lady.)

Another striking feature of the film is the way that the medical establishment to which this rich girl turns consists entirely of professional men -- men who may not want to appear insensitive, but who nonetheless come across as patriarchal figures who don't exactly put the troubled rich girl at ease. In contrast, Vera's services are expressed in very domestic and feminine terms -- she gets jobs through a female friend, she may or may not be motivated by her own experiences with a bad pregnancy, she tells her patients she's going to go put the kettle on, etc. And then the police show up -- and while they are led by a male plainclothesman, their numbers also include a female officer from the WPC (which I'm guessing stands for Women's Police Corps or some such?); so the law enforcers, at least, manage to balance the authoritative male figure with the compassionate female figure.

Where I would go with all these observations, I'm not exactly sure. But I feel they must go SOMEwhere. And I'm not all that happy with the idea that we can boil the film down to "propaganda" and dismiss it as such. Sure, there ARE elements in the film that suggest there is a bit of message-sending going on. But as responsible Christian film critics, we shouldn't settle for that. I don't think Leigh's films can be treated as though they were mawkish movies-of-the-week.

BTW, y'all might be interested to know that, at the very end of the credits, Leigh dedicates the film to his parents, "a doctor and a midwife".

Man we don't get this until January, which sucks. Last time Mike Leigh had a film out we got it first (I still remember the delight in sitting down the next morning to post about a film everyone wanted to see and I got to first)

Matt

MattPage wrote:
: Man we don't get this until January, which sucks.

Really? Wow.

FWIW, it occurs to me that one thing I did not mention in my earlier post is that the characters spend a fair bit of time talking to each other about their experiences in the war. It might be interesting to tease out the significance of these exchanges in terms of how, or whether, they relate to the abortion theme.

MattPage, I'm guessing you didn't catch this film at the London festival a day or two ago? Are there any other festivals between now and January where you might be able to catch it?

- - -

The director is in the details
But while the popular image of the swinging 1950s, particularly that of suburban America, has been demythologized many times before on the big screen, Leigh's film is notable in that it nonetheless presents a very sympathetic portrait of his parents' generation -- a generation he grew up rebelling against. "Of course, one now realizes in retrospect, what maybe one half-knew or realized [all along], which is that the reason why our parents, in particularly in the '50s, were so bloody respectable ... was because they were putting the world back together again from its previous chaos," says Leigh, who came of age in the '60s. "Maybe it's not insignificant that I waited until I was over 60 before I made this film -- but I don't know whether we're maybe pursuing connections that don't quite add up." Of course, Leigh has long had a reputation for treating his characters with sensitivity, no matter who they are. While his films are often political, they are never polemical. This is never been clearer than with Vera Drake, a movie about abortion by a pro-choice filmmaker that nonetheless was endorsed by Vatican Radio during the Venice Film Festival -- something that astonished and pleased Leigh. "I think they see the morality in the film, and I appreciate that," he says. Part of that morality comes from the depiction of a loving family, one that sticks together rather than falls apart when they find out that Vera has a secret life "helping out girls" who find themselves in "a bit of trouble." Says Leigh of families: "I've done my demolition jobs..." The Drakes pull together to support the mother of the household -- even if they don't all support her actions. "All societies at all times have had people who do this," says Leigh, who hopes the film adds to the abortion debate by reminding people of what it was like before it became legal. "[T]here have always been people -- mostly women -- who know how to solve this particular problem, sadly."
National Post, October 21

- - -

The comment about the 1950s reminds me of something Rod Bennett said in his review of Pleasantville: "Undoubtedly the Fifties really were unhealthy in some pretty fundamental ways; these people seem to have taken a sort of abstract joy in structure for its own sake and just why this is the case would have been a profitable subject to explore. I personally think that the events of the preceding twenty years had left those who came of age in that decade with something akin to post-traumatic shock syndrome. Think of it: an American born in 1930 spent his childhood in the Great Depression, his adolescence during the greatest war in human history, learned of the Holocaust about the same time he learned the facts of life, and lived his teen years under the perpetual shadow of the H-bomb. Is it really so unintelligible that such a person should reach adulthood with a hell-bent determination to carve out a quiet little niche for himself and stay there for the duration?"

A bit more on the Catholic response on Vera Drake, from Newsday:

"[Leigh: 'W]hat the reaction will be and how it's going to play is difficult to say. When we were at Venice, Vatican Radio was quite positive about the film, as was the Catholic Herald here. The reviews have been kind of reasonable and say, "Well, actually the film isn't black and white propaganda."'

"On Vatican Radio, a correspondent from the Venice Festival called Leigh's film 'difficult and interesting,' and said it 'avoids propaganda and tentative and facile conclusions.' Peter Malone of the World Catholic Association for Communication has written that, 'Catholic teaching has always urged the faithful to condemn the sin but not the sinner. Leigh's portrait of Vera Drake contributes to that way of looking at her despite what she does.'

"...Louis Giovino, a spokesman for the Catholic League, which has mounted protests against other controversial New York Film Festival films, said Vera Drake was not something the league was interested in. (He noted that another festival film - Almódovar's Bad Education - had caught his group's attention. 'We've got our eyes on it,' he said.)"

Dale

: MattPage, I'm guessing you didn't catch this film at the London festival a day or
: two ago? Are there any other festivals between now and January where you
: might be able to catch it?

No.

To be honest I'm not very "up" on film festivals and when and where they are. A growth area perhaps? And I'm sadly too busy and too skint to go to London specifically to watch films. The other issue is that I'm off "films I haven't seen before" until the middle of December, so in some ways this not getting released until January is a bit of a blessing (evenethough I object to the principle)

Matt

CT Movies' Stefan Ulstein raves and raves about "Vera Drake," calling it Leigh's best film.

Peter does a very good job of going over the key points of the film. And like him I wouldn't call it propaganda (but would something have to be considered such just because it supports legalized abortion?). I think it very clearly does support the legal availability of abortion. I wouldn't even call it balanced, but still, it is rarely preachy in its approach. It simply shows the case on pragmatic grounds.

One small side bit that impressed me was the WPC's care for Vera while in custody. She very much reminded me of Vera's care for her patients (and everyone else in her life for that matter.)

Excellent film. Great performances.

And, something I wasn't expecting at all... what is probably the funniest meeting-to-courtship-to-marriage story I've ever seen. I don't think any onscreen couple has ever been so delightfully comical as Rich and Ethel. Their walk through the park is one of the funniest things I've seen all year, and Rich's remark during the Christmas party was priceless.

Jeffrey Overstreet wrote:
: And, something I wasn't expecting at all... what is probably the funniest meeting-
: to-courtship-to-marriage story I've ever seen.

YES!! As I said in my earlier post here, "I actually shed a tear -- or at least my eyes welled up -- when a certain character asked another character for his daughter's hand in marriage, and the family reacted the way it did." And that was a tear of immense joy.

That proposal is hilarious, too. I want to see the film again Just For That.

Another thing that surprised me and distracted me: For some reason, in this role, Jim Broadbent looked just like Bob Newhart.

wow - I'm surprised there is so little discussion on this and not many reviews either. Even more reason I guess for me to write one.

Finally got to see this this evening - my local cinema has suddenly brought out all the good films in one week.

Before I go any further

: WPC (which I'm guessing stands for Women's Police Corps or some such?
Woman Police Constable

She was excellent - I did think the police came out of this film very well, and wondered if the use of a WPC might be anachronistic? Dunno

Still trying to process my thoughts on this one, but as I've managed to procure a laptop in order to get my Arts and FAith Film Critic's Circle votes in for tonight I thought I'd stumble with my initial thoughts.



Firstly of the 4 Leigh films I've seen, I think this is the best visually. Somehow he manages to make horrible wall paper and colours and carpet seem lush, and give them a sort of sophistication even though they were common place items, and I think leigh uses some of these things to give the film a kind of mythic feel, the snow falling on the two cars shot from overhead was just a delightful image even (in the second case) as it brings an emotional forboding.

I really can't see how one would call this propagandistic. It has far more interest in it's lead than the wider issue, and as Peter has highlighted above it does present Drake as naive. No where is it more evenhanded IMHO in its treatment of the historical background of the issue. Often the pro-choice camp defends its arguments on the basis that back street abrtions were terrible, an dthey play up the evil woman with a knitting needle angle. Leigh does quite the opposite. Yes this is a "backstreet abortion", but its a humane process, and whilst as Peter notes Vera never thinks to check up on her patients afterwards there are two factors that need to be born in mind. Firstly, whilst we never see her check on patients we don't know that this has been her consistent practice, she may have been very dilligent inthis area for a long time before concluding that the operationalways went well. Secondly though she has a discussion with two fellow abortionists in prison who both seem to indicate that the danger is minimal. THe other area is with the "legal" abortion and again here the "backstreet abortion" argument is undermined by the fact that the process could be performed fairly easily. OK £150 is expensive, but the legal angle is fairly simple.

The emotional tension is perfect though as well. There's talk above about the repression of emtion and their emotional distancing. This is almost so well hidden you could,as one reviewer concluded, find that Leigh "doesn’t seem terribly interested in the emotional depths of his characters, which is counter to the niche he’s established for himself ". However one scene completely destoys that argument - when the father and son are talking and the son says "aren't you angry" and the previously placid and supportive husband says in the same calm voice "I'm fuming" or words to that effect.

One thing I found a bit distracting was the use of a large amount of actors from All or Nothing. I don't tend to find the use of a well-known actor disturbing, but most of the actors in Leigh's films are not well known, andI just kept thinking of he was so & so in All or Nothing. Clearly they should be better known as they all have a brilliant range (they almost all seemed to be playing a really different role from their characters in All or nothing).

Well that will do for now.

Matt

Well, I'm not sure if there's a prize for strange double feature choices but The Magic Roundabout in the morning followed by Vera Drake was as bizzare a day as I've had in a while.



I can go with that. Nowhere better displayed than in the use of language. Vera, of course, always describes her work as "helping girls who've gotten into trouble" But, more than that, she's a woman who's never short on words. Whether she's tending to her sick mother, sitting with the family or performing an abortion she always has the words to fill in any of the film's uncomfortable moments. Often it's the same phrases. "Cup of tea", "You'll be wanting a biscuit" or her reciting of the procedure she's giving the women as she performs the abortions. (Phrases which, incidentally, would appear trite in most other films but Leigh has made a career of imbuing these cliches with meaning and making 'normality' special)

But once she's arrested and facing a whole new langauge, she can barely speak. She knows what an abortion is, but the word has no relevance for her. She knows exactly who the police and magistrate are talking about as they question and try her for her crime, but doesn't recognise it as relating to her. There's a beautiful moment on almost every occassion when someone calls her "Mrs. Drake" rather than "Vera" where Imelda Staunton takes a second to realise it is she who's being addressed.

In this context it might be possible to read the film as pro-abortion but I'm not convinced by that at all. There's nothing disposable about life in Vera Drake. When Frank's wife announces her pregnancy, there's nothing but genuine love in Vera's reaction. And when the same character flippantly remarks that she won't get to have another Christmas alone with her husband before the baby is born, we realise the true depths of her superficiality.

By far my favourite Mike Leigh film, and I hope Staunton gets the Oscar. Actually, I wish the entire Drake family could be nominated for some of those best ensemble awards.

Phil.

One of my HJ colleagues has an interesting (if a bit long) review from a somewhat feminist perspective about the film. She says In the "Faith Connection" section

Thanks for the link, Darrel. I'll have a look at it when I get back from work. (If I type fast they'll think I'm doing some important e-mail )

Just a quick additional observation I forgot to make last night: I found it interesting that everyones objections to abortion in Vera Drake both in the 'nice' abortion clinic / psychiatrist and from the police are all related to the health and well being of the mother. There's little reference (including from Vera herself) to the unborn children involved.

Phil.

Haven't had a chance to read your colleague's review yet, Darrel, but I find myself wondering if "feminist" is an apt term here. As I noted earlier, the film presents an interesting dynamic where we see the inadequacies of the patriarchal approach AND the inadequacies of the more matronly approach, and THEN, in the film's second half, it is the police, of all people, who bring together the masculine and feminine virtues in some sort of healthy, authoritative but also compassionate, synthesis.

Related to this, I wonder if the fact that Leigh dedicates the film to BOTH of his parents is of any relevance.

I am a queen. Consider yourself warned. Although, I would add, there are no suprise punches in this film.

Finally saw this yesterday at the final screening of it at the local independent cinema. I'm glad I caught it. I had a very mixed reaction to the film, which I appreciate.

I think the two things that struck me the most were some things that people have already commented on.
Firstly: Vera's "naivety"
Secondly: The depiction of class.

The other thing that Peter mentioned in passing was that it didn't take me long to realise that this was an homage to Mike Leigh's parents. I didn't see the title mention of them, but I have read many interviews with him and in particular there is a discussion he had with Will Self (which I have on video if anyone's interested in a PAL copy) where they discuss his childhood in depth. If only Saturday television were always like this! I would add to the fact that his parents were in the medical profession that Leigh also was brought up in Manchester, a very working class industrial city. Although the film is set in London, there are distinct similarities between the depiction of working class London post war and Manchester (as an industrial city, it was also heavily bombed during the war). So there is something here that is profoundly personal, something which is quite unusual for Mike Leigh.

Now, I return to the two previous points.






I couldn't disagree more strongly. I think this is too simple an understanding of Vera who is incredibly empathetic and understanding of the causes, results, and effects of what she does. I agree in that she simplifies her actions and distances herself from them but I disagree that this is out of naivety (which implies ignorance). This is, after all, as we learn in the prison cell, a woman who has had to have an abortion herself (for reasons unknown). I think the resortion to phrases such as "I help young girls out," demonstrates not simplicity but a deeper and - as you rightly pointed out Peter - female understanding of pregnancy and abortion. In fact it is the Police who are trying to simplify matters by labelling her actions criminal in naming them "abortion" - there are clear-cut responses defined by law to "abortion" which do not allow for the many weights and issues that these women have to deal with. At the end, I believe her silence and her immense sorrow to be a breaking between the Vera that does what she believes is right but chooses to ignore the darker sides of her actions and the Vera that acknowledges full responsibility for acting according to her beliefs. The difference between the two teeters on that moment where she discovers that the girl nearly died as a result of her actions - this is a reality harder for her to deal with than one consisting of soapy water and cups of tea.

I have distinct problems with this depiction. I agree that Leigh never passes judgement on his characters, and also allows his actors to develop the role during filming. However in this case I feel that this does a diservice to Vera. I felt angry that she was so (good choice of word, and use of inverted coma's) "saintly" (again: I don't think that this is naivety). Similarly I felt angry that her "accomplice" was portrayed in such a poor light - she was little more than a scheming greedy rat who actually charges Vera for black market goods she sells to her whilst making money off Vera's illegal and risky actions. It is here that I feel the lines are too clearly drawn. One of the reasons that this is so disapointing is that the other women shown in the film are given much more freedom to be ambiguous than these two.

This, I think extends to the depiction of class which is clearly categorised as working, upper, and the newly burgening middle class. Amongst the working classes we have companionship, warmth, a focus on the "important" things in life, matriarchal structures. The upper class is hypocritical (they strive to maintain an image of moral decency but won't support Vera, the rich girl is raped and her abortion is disguised as a weekend away), cold and distant. The middle class (Frank & Joyce), the women too focused on material goods, the men emasculated and nostalgically longing for the simplicity of the family, afraid of judgement by their "betters" (Joyce doesn't want to have anything to do with Vera following the court case), and ashamed of their true roots. A little too stereotypical for comfort for me.

Now, I think the only reason that the film gets away with this is because of the magnificent performances by everyone involved, and the amount of detail that Leigh manages to fit into the film. Despite all my hesitancies, I think this is an excellent bit of film making and that Leigh rightly deserves as many best director awards as he can fit in his suitcase.

And yes - Sid & Ethel's courtship is a truly wonderful film romance. They reminded me of the couple in "When the Wind Blows"

Well, I think that is inherently naive. To be providing a certain type of service/be engaged in a certain activity, and to regard it as something else entirely. What we're never led to doubt, though, is that Vera's responce to that moment is anything other than genuine. However, remember that there's a duality in that moment: she's both coming to realise the consequences of her actions but also is realising that she's ruined her family's special day. We're not sure which she feels more sorry about.

Indeed, the film is careful to point out that Vera may not feel remorse for what she does, and that perhaps she should not need to feel remorseful. (The film carefully leads up to the moment of Vera's gaol sentance, and everyone's reactions make it seem huge. But, then, we have that final scene in the prison where Vera compares sentances and suddenly hers seems barely significant. There's a feeling, perhaps even an expectancy, for these women to repeat the same cycle)


Ignoring the fact that Vera Drake does the very obvious cinematic juxtaposition of "poor=nice, rich=bad" I think it does have enough complications in its class structure to avoid being stereotypical. Rather, Leigh tends to be archetypal.



I think you're a little harsh on Frank. Who clearly feels some guilt and level of discomfort at being wealthier than Stan but who, when in Stan and Vera's house, is completley at home. And, critically, he remains there even when Vera's actions have made it clear that the simplicity of that family life is gone forever.

Joyce is much more stereotypical but, however, I was never able to write her off entirely. I found myself wondering about her own family, since they're never mentionned and clearly not as much a part of her and Frank's lives as Stan and Vera. Is she jealous of Stan and Vera's family for having a family life she never had (and, hence, why she is so desperate to have a child and prove that she can be a loving mother) I'm probably reading too much into her, but I certainly couldn't *dismiss* her because her disdain at Stan and Vera's house is so at odds with everyone else in the room and I wanted to know why.

As you say, the performances were so good that I think they naturally give everyone an interesting subtext that they wouldn't otherwise have.



Ah, yes. Wonderful book and film... Although Hilda and Jim (from WtWB) are a lot more talkative to each other than Reg and Ethel

Phil.

OK, apologies if this sounds pedantic but I'm only doing it to attempt to clarify my point cos I'm not sure I explained myself very well. Here's the definition of naive

1. Lacking worldly experience and understanding

As I mentioned she is fully aware of all aspects of abortion as she has had one herself. It's what allows her such empathy. So it's not that she regards the service she provides as "something else entirely", it's that she knowingly chooses to seperate herself from it. The discovery of the girl nearly dying from the abortion isn't that she didn't know this was a possibility, it's that the possibility has taken place. It's almost like fake naivety - she knows all too well, but if she admits it to herself she wouldn't be able to function. I think this is tied up entirely with her own previous experiences and to say it's naivety is to deny her the force of those emotions that lead her to act as she does, that leads to her self-denial.

To call it naivety, I feel, doesn't credit Immelda Staunton's performance enough. It is richly layered. It's a continuation of themes that recur throughout Mike Leigh's work, notably Secrets and Lies: the dark things inside us that motivate us to act in ways that are damaging to ourselves.

Regarding archetypes. As I said, these characters are incredibly complex. The examples I gave of different class behaviours were the stereotypes and I don't feel that the characters necesarily fit them as much as Leigh might have wanted them to. There's a bit of imbalance here for me. The situations are there, as is the message of the injustice of poverty (on many levels, concluding in a commentary on establishment and wealth), it's almost as if the characters NEED to be a bit more stereotypical to fit the film properly. Perhaps it's a case of too much good acting?! There were moments though, that tried to hammer the point home a bit too much - the silence between the rich mother and daughter, Joyce's "can we get a washing machine now" after anouncing her pregnancy, Frank's "you're a lucky man" and complaining about looking at a new house a year after moving into this one. Things like that which broke down the other more intimate moments. Those moments seem stale. I was expecting a death-of-a-salesman-esque speech but in true British form, everyone just cried silently and accepted their lot. Heh, now I'm being cynical. Seriously though, where was the need of making Frank & Joyce middle class? And why juxtapose the other girl's abortion? I know these comparisons points reflected on Vera's position but it was just drummed home that little bit too much and I think that Leigh's purpose in doing this is to bring people out more favourable towards abortion. It makes me uncomfortable because the argument just fits too neatly.

Maybe I just didn't like the film despite all it's positive points? I don't know. As I said, I came out feeling somewhat ambiguous about it.

One other thing - the final scene with the other women in prison. More than anything I think that's for us as an audience to reflect on the scale of illegal abortions in the UK in that era. Also, there was a danger in painting such a "saintly" character that we forget that most back door abortionists did it for profit and weren't necesarily as careful as Vera - they've been arrested before but consider Vera's method "safe as houses." If we forget this, then the argument of the film is lessened. Now this is just the realm of speculation (and serious procrastination): if she has done this regularly over 10-20 years, she does actually have a pretty high "success" rate. She performs - ummm 6? abortions in the film, which is over a period of about 2 months until her arrest (going by the rape of the girl & Christmas) which means an average of 36 a year. This is post war, we can safely assume that during wartime there would have been a higher proportion so for war years let's say 50 a year for 6 years. That makes somewhere between 516 and 876 over a 10-20 year period. One near-death is almost clinically low (and unrealistic?)

One thing I did love though, the abundance of 40's/50's names? Reg & Ethel & Vera & George & Frank & Joyce & Nellie & Sid & Stan! A joy to behold!

Watched it last night, with my wife, who, upon seeing my pull the DVD out of my bag, said despondently, “I can’t believe you got that abortion movie!”

“It’s OK,” I told her. "A friend at the Arts & Faith board keeps raving about it" (hat tip to Peter, whose mentions of Vera Drake elsewhere on this board I’ve stumbled across in recent months; I hadn’t actually read THIS thread, with its other endorsements, until today).

We'd planned to watch only the first half of the movie last night, but it was so good we stayed up past our “bedtime” to finish it up. I’m with Peter’s initial thought that, perhaps, Vera is somewhat naïve in what she does. Yes, she realizes she’s breaking the law, but the potentially grave consequences of her actions do seem to come as a surprise to her, once she’s “found out.”

Yes, the movie is sympathetic toward Vera, but not at the expense of the other characters, none of whom comes across as the “bad guy” (forgive my overuse of “quotes,” but I hope you catch my drift).

Still, it wasn’t until the final scene with Vera, in which she converses with two other women who perform abortions, that I thought Leigh and the screenwriters tipped their hands into “message” territory, and even though the movie ends on a note of pro-abortion defiance, I didn’t so much mind. And neither did Sarah, although the ending did reignite her skepticism about the film, which she had to that point (grudgingly) admired.

Peter and other long-timers may recall that I’ve been dismissive of Leigh’s very-well-liked (at least on this board) Secrets and Lies, but after the smashing Topsy-Turvy, and the even better Vera Drake, I think a reassessment is called for on my part.

Still don’t think I could handle Naked, though…

One more thing about Vera Drake, and this is a criticism of sorts. Staunton is fine in the role, affecting, but really, was her performance as good as the critics claimed? After the first 45 minutes, it boils down to choked emotional statements. Her eyes are wonderfully expressive, but that expression is pretty much the same throughout the latter part of the film. In this, Staunton reminded me of Blethyn’s performance in Secrets and Lies, a grating performance that everyone loved, but which was the chief drawback of the film for me. I know that critique won’t sit well with the Leigh fans here, so dismiss it if you like. But I would like to hear some feedback about Staunton’s acting. It was fine. But was it as good as it was cracked up to be?

Interesting question, Christian. Lord knows my perspective on Brenda Blethyn has turned a little less appreciative since I began to see her in other films and realized her character in Secrets & Lies wasn't exactly a stretch for her. (She kind of reminds me of Dianne Wiest, who was typecast in mousy wife and mother roles in films like Edward Scissorhands and The Birdcage -- except Wiest, at least, got to blow us all away with her complete-change-of-pace performance in Bullets over Broadway.) Timothy Spall, on the other hand -- wow! Now HE'S versatile!

Yes, although there's one Mike Leigh actor who's even more versatile: Leslie Manville.

* Mrs. Wells (the woman who gets Susan in touch with the psychiatrist), Vera Drake

* Penny (Tim Spall's wife), All or Nothing

* Lucy Gilbert, Topsy-Turvy

* the social worker who tells Hortense her birth mother, Secrets & Lies

* Laetitia Boothe-Brain (the woman in the high-class couple), High Hopes

* Mandy (Philip Davis' wife), Grown-Ups

Other than all these roles are female, I dare someone to find more a few surface similarities between the parts she's played in Mike Leigh films. Manville's simply the most chameleonic performer I've ever seen.

Dale

Christian, please inform Sarah that we are Vera Drake pals for life. Words that you use like "skeptical" and "grudgingly admired" are a perfect fit to describe my reaction to it too. I thought I was going to like it, until I realized how sorry everyone felt for poor old Vera, and that the intent was to make us feel even worse for her plight.

I saw it with about 700 Pro-Choicers and did not want to stay afterwards for the so-called "film" discussion. Whew, I booked out of there in twelve seconds flat and am still alive today because of it. (Not that I would have sparked anything controversial -- I'm usually a pretty laid back kind of guy -- more that it looked like a mob was forming for a lynching.)

-s.

I finally saw this after leaving it to sit in its Netflix envelope for a good week because I just wasn't sure what to expect. Gotta say I loved it; very restrained and unshrieky for Mike Leigh (don't get me wrong - I'm a fan - but I'm usually ready for some kind of hysteria when I see his movies). I loved the family interactions in the tiny apartment...the warmth that was so evident when Vera was there and so absent after the arrest. Love the widely-varied looks at humanity, the contrasts, the dignity, the questions the movie made me ask. Definitely, definitely worth watching, methinks. (Also I love the faces in the movie - Leigh always has the best faces!)

Nice observations Sara

No way, Sara! The Coen Brothers cast the best movie faces!